Wheelock is overrated

[Daniel]

Older children and adults do not learn language the same way that small children do.

However, older children, teenagers, and adults have lost the intuitive reception of language.

I've heard of adults who've gone off and stayed in Spain for a few months and they end up picking up on the Spanish without ever having formally studied it. I don't know if it's true or not (I've never experienced it myself) but it seems plausible.

The bigger problem I see here would be the time constraints. A high school student goes to Latin class at most five times a week, and classes probably aren't even an hour long. (And worse for college students, since classes only meet two or three times per week...) It seems like hardly enough exposure to pick up on another language without having studied it first. And it'd be particularly difficult for a native English (or Spanish) speaker to learn Latin in this way, since most English (and Spanish) words don't even have declensions. (Maybe if the student was a native Greek or German speaker it may be a little easier...)

[LouisIX]

Older children and adults do not learn language the same way that small children do.

However, older children, teenagers, and adults have lost the intuitive reception of language.

I've heard of adults who've gone off and stayed in Spain for a few months and they end up picking up on the Spanish without ever having formally studied it. I don't know if it's true or not (I've never experienced it myself) but it seems plausible.

The bigger problem I see here would be the time constraints. A high school student goes to Latin class at most five times a week, and classes probably aren't even an hour long. (And worse for college students, since classes only meet two or three times per week...) It seems like hardly enough exposure to pick up on another language without having studied it first. And it'd be particularly difficult for a native English (or Spanish) speaker to learn Latin in this way, since most English (and Spanish) words don't even have declensions. (Maybe if the student was a native Greek or German speaker it may be a little easier...)

Yes, immersion is possible for adults but it requires actual immersion. Looking at pictures in a textbook is not immersion.

[MundaCorMeum]

'Who and 'whom' always refer to people, not things or places.  'Who' is always in the nominative case, and 'whom' is always in the objective case. 

(Guess what 7th grader and I are currently studying??  )

Accusative or Dative?

We've not covered that, yet....so, no clue 

If you are doing English grammar you probably won't ever use those terms.  They are used in Latin and other inflected languages.  "Accusative" corresponds to direct object in English grammar and "dative" to indirect object.  They both are "whom". 

Direct object - Whom do you seek?
Indirect object - To whom are you giving that donut?

Wouldn't that second 'whom' be object of the preposition?

Here are two sentences:

I went to the store.
I give the book to Sue.

In the first, "to" is a preposition, indicating direction. In the second, "book" is the direct object of the verb "give" and "Sue" is the indirect object. In Latin, indirect objects are shown by an ending on the noun.  In English, one way to show an indirect object is using the particle "to" before the noun. Strictly speaking this usage of "to" is not a preposition because it is not showing position or direction.

One could use "whom" as an object of a preposition, as in the following:
To whom are you running.

Seton teaches it such that both Sue and book are objects of the preposition 'to'.  For Sue to be an indirect object, you have to rearrange the sentence like rbj said...l."I gave Sue the book."  The "to" is understood.  The definition in our grammar book expressly says that 'to' and 'for' are not used with indirect objects, because they are prepositions. 

(Totally off topic....mea culpa.  Carry on  )

[Greg]

I had Wheelock once.  Removed the key and coasted in neutral while on the highway so I could unlock the glovebox of a VW Sirocco.

Won't do that again.  Scary.

[Jayne]

Here are two sentences:

I went to the store.
I give the book to Sue.

In the first, "to" is a preposition, indicating direction. In the second, "book" is the direct object of the verb "give" and "Sue" is the indirect object. In Latin, indirect objects are shown by an ending on the noun.  In English, one way to show an indirect object is using the particle "to" before the noun. Strictly speaking this usage of "to" is not a preposition because it is not showing position or direction.

One could use "whom" as an object of a preposition, as in the following:
To whom are you running.

Seton teaches it such that both Sue and book are objects of the preposition 'to'.  For Sue to be an indirect object, you have to rearrange the sentence like rbj said...l."I gave Sue the book."  The "to" is understood.  The definition in our grammar book expressly says that 'to' and 'for' are not used with indirect objects, because they are prepositions. 

(Totally off topic....mea culpa.  Carry on  )

That is a conventional way to teach it. I think it causes confusion for people if they later try to learn other languages.

When one says:

Give me the book.
or
Give the book to me.

The word "me" is doing the same function in both sentences and, in most languages, there is only one way to express it.  As was mentioned upthread,  these are both translations of the Latin dative.

If one does teach that "to me" is a prepositional phrase, then say it is a preposition showing grammatical relationship of dative.  This will show that the constructions above are related.

[Deirdre]

Older children and adults do not learn language the same way that small children do.

However, older children, teenagers, and adults have lost the intuitive reception of language.

I've heard of adults who've gone off and stayed in Spain for a few months and they end up picking up on the Spanish without ever having formally studied it. I don't know if it's true or not (I've never experienced it myself) but it seems plausible.

I can vouch for this, having done it with Italian when I was about 22. Took to it like a duck to water, and loved it. Granted, I'd previously studied Spanish for a long time, from childhood, and then French and Latin. Facility with languages runs in the family. I came back from Rome speaking, understanding, and dreaming in Italian, and with a suitcase so full of Italian books that I had to pay a ridiculously hefty (lol) charge for the extra weight. It's pretty rusty now, but I'm confident that if I applied myself I could polish it back up nicely. That's why I can't bring myself to get rid of any of my language textbooks, except to replace them with more convenient editions. 

[Daniel]

So let me get this straight...

"I went to the store."

In this sentence, "to the store" would be the object of the preposition, correct? Not the direct object? So, you'd use the ablative?

What about "I jumped the fence"? Would "the fence" be the object of the preposition here?

[MundaCorMeum]

So let me get this straight...

"I went to the store."

In this sentence, "to the store" would be the object of the preposition, correct? Not the direct object? So, you'd use the ablative?

What about "I jumped the fence"? Would "the fence" be the object of the preposition here?

According to Seton, "to the store" would be a prepositional phrase, with "store" being the object of the preposition "to", and "the" being an adjective for "store"....an article, to be exact.  There is no direct object or indirect object in that sentence.

"I jumped the fence".....jumped what? Fence.  "Fence" is the direct object of the predicate, "jumped"

[MundaCorMeum]

Here are two sentences:

I went to the store.
I give the book to Sue.

In the first, "to" is a preposition, indicating direction. In the second, "book" is the direct object of the verb "give" and "Sue" is the indirect object. In Latin, indirect objects are shown by an ending on the noun.  In English, one way to show an indirect object is using the particle "to" before the noun. Strictly speaking this usage of "to" is not a preposition because it is not showing position or direction.

One could use "whom" as an object of a preposition, as in the following:
To whom are you running.

Seton teaches it such that both Sue and book are objects of the preposition 'to'.  For Sue to be an indirect object, you have to rearrange the sentence like rbj said...l."I gave Sue the book."  The "to" is understood.  The definition in our grammar book expressly says that 'to' and 'for' are not used with indirect objects, because they are prepositions. 

(Totally off topic....mea culpa.  Carry on  )

That is a conventional way to teach it. I think it causes confusion for people if they later try to learn other languages.

When one says:

Give me the book.
or
Give the book to me.

The word "me" is doing the same function in both sentences and, in most languages, there is only one way to express it.  As was mentioned upthread,  these are both translations of the Latin dative.

If one does teach that "to me" is a prepositional phrase, then say it is a preposition showing grammatical relationship of dative.  This will show that the constructions above are related.

Good to know.  Thank you 

[Jayne]

So let me get this straight...

"I went to the store."

In this sentence, "to the store" would be the object of the preposition, correct? Not the direct object? So, you'd use the ablative?

English does not have an ablative.  If one were saying that in Latin one would use the preposition "ad" followed by the accusative, "Ad tabernam ii".   But if one went away from the store one would use the preposition "ab" followed by the ablative, "Ab taberna ii".

English grammar and Latin grammar have enough differences that it is somewhat confusing to try to discuss them both at once like this.

What about "I jumped the fence"? Would "the fence" be the object of the preposition here?

There has to be a preposition in order for it to have an object.  As Munda says, "fence" is the object of the verb.

[rbjmartin]

So let me get this straight...

"I went to the store."

In this sentence, "to the store" would be the object of the preposition, correct? Not the direct object? So, you'd use the ablative?

English does not have an ablative.  If one were saying that in Latin one would use the preposition "ad" followed by the accusative, "Ad tabernam ii".   But if one went away from the store one would use the preposition "ab" followed by the ablative, "Ab taberna ii".

English grammar and Latin grammar have enough differences that it is somewhat confusing to try to discuss them both at once like this.

Just to piggy-back on what Jayne said, the preposition "ad" ALWAYS takes the accusative. As a general rule, motion (particularly motion towards) takes the accusative. Other examples of prepositions that take the accusative are "trans," "circum," and "in" (when it denotes motion rather than location).

[Deirdre]

So let me get this straight...

"I went to the store."

In this sentence, "to the store" would be the object of the preposition, correct? Not the direct object? So, you'd use the ablative?

What about "I jumped the fence"? Would "the fence" be the object of the preposition here?

According to Seton, "to the store" would be a prepositional phrase, with "store" being the object of the preposition "to", and "the" being an adjective for "store"....an article, to be exact.  There is no direct object or indirect object in that sentence.

"I jumped the fence".....jumped what? Fence.  "Fence" is the direct object of the predicate, "jumped"

Man, I want to teach grammar again so badly after reading this. It's so fun: like that thing that kids do, when they jump from one stone to another. Hop, hop, hop. 

[MundaCorMeum]

So let me get this straight...

"I went to the store."

In this sentence, "to the store" would be the object of the preposition, correct? Not the direct object? So, you'd use the ablative?

What about "I jumped the fence"? Would "the fence" be the object of the preposition here?

According to Seton, "to the store" would be a prepositional phrase, with "store" being the object of the preposition "to", and "the" being an adjective for "store"....an article, to be exact.  There is no direct object or indirect object in that sentence.

"I jumped the fence".....jumped what? Fence.  "Fence" is the direct object of the predicate, "jumped"

Man, I want to teach grammar again so badly after reading this. It's so fun: like that thing that kids do, when they jump from one stone to another. Hop, hop, hop. 

It is really fun to teach!  Diagramming is my favorite.  It's much more enoyable than I expected.  I'm a math person.  Honestly, I enjoy teaching my kids ALL the subjects....I'm learning so much 

[Deirdre]

Honestly, I enjoy teaching my kids ALL the subjects....I'm learning so much 

This is why I think I'd actually like homeschooling (at least, homeschooling one child: the thought of having to do more than one at once is overwhelming). I love learning so much that I'd probably be as interested as the kid (at least, I hope the kid would be interested.) 

[rbjmartin]

Honestly, I enjoy teaching my kids ALL the subjects....I'm learning so much 

This is why I think I'd actually like homeschooling (at least, homeschooling one child: the thought of having to do more than one at once is overwhelming). I love learning so much that I'd probably be as interested as the kid (at least, I hope the kid would be interested.) 

I currently homeschool our two oldest (16 and 11), and it's really not that bad. The 16-year-old is pretty independent, so aside from occasional discussion of historical events, literary works, or help with Latin translations, she pretty much takes her assignments and does them on her own. The 11-year-old requires a bit more hands-on teaching, but I give her a list of things to do before I go to work, and my wife just makes sure she stays on task throughout the day.

I don't think I would be able to handle a third simultaneously, though, unless I was a stay-at-home dad. Fortunately, our two youngest are a few years off from starting schooling, and they're Irish twins, so I'm going to start them at the same time, which will make curriculum planning a lot simpler!