Is translating texts from Latin really necessary to learn the language?

Question

I know that translating texts from Latin is the traditional way to learn the language (and for many people the main goal), but I think that being able to translate a piece of text, however complicated it is, does not necessarily mean that one may construct phrases just as one constructs everyday phrases in the native language.

I don't know if it would be a good idea to follow an inverse translation method. This would consist of the following:

To get a text that is not extremely complicated and translate it into Latin, and look for the missing words in a dictionary. I think that if the goal is to handle everyday language, then a text with everyday language would be fine, because using literature or poetry may be extremely difficult. It would be like if one wanted to learn German by reading Faust of Goethe.

However, if one wants to be able to construct rather than to read or translate (from Latin), a main problem is that if one wants to write a text about modern topics, the vocabulary proves to be insufficient. Frequently it is because the missing word is something that simply did not exist in the past, and it is hard to find a translation for it. Even if there is Vicipaedia or Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, there are things for which there is no convention in order to have an official New Latin word.

Is there something that can be done or should I resign?

Answer 1

To learn a language properly, I would argue that it is necessary to read texts in that language. If you only ever translate from your native language to the new language, your view is too limited. Every language has features you would hardly think of if you only translated to that language.

It is not enough to produce (be it speaking or writing), but you must also consume (hearing and reading). That is the only way to become idiomatic and learn what options the new language has available. For example, Latin can do a number of things flexibly with participles or the accusativus cum infinitivo. By far the best way to see the potential of Latin syntax and vocabulary is to read Latin and figure out how things work.

I think careful reading is necessary to obtain any kind of fluency and flexibility beyond very basic sentence structure. But it doesn't have to be as complicated as possible; the simplified classical texts found in textbooks are excellent, while poetry might feel unnecessarily complex if you are not a fan. Translation is a good tool for that, as it forces you to think of every detail. If you can read thoroughly without translating, I see no issue.

Your proposed inverse translation is useful and can reduce the need for direct translation, but it does not eliminate the need to carefully read Latin produced by someone else.

Answer 2

When learning/teaching a foreign language, reading, writing, listening and speaking -even if they have a lot in common, i.e., the language itself- are considered different skills. That's the reason why, for example, the TOEFL is structured the way it is.

Opportunities to listen to native or fluent Latin speakers are (depending on what you call fluent) rather scarce to say the least. Thus, the effort is usually focused in reading and writing. For reading, and at the same time learning grammar and vocabulary (which is part of what is common to all four skills), translating from the rich corpus of available texts written by native speakers is one good option, but not the only one. Of course, translating from Latin, as you note, does not cover well the writing part.

To improve writing, the method you propose is used in real life, but you need either someone more skilled than you to check your writing, or a text in Latin to compare to. (In the later case, you loose some freedom, since you probably have access to only one correct answer, and the beauty of language may offer more than one.)

As for alternative methods for learning (other than translating texts) that have actually been used by living people, I can think of two:

• Immersion. Not available to most people nowadays (if at all,) but I've met a couple of Catholic priests in their 70s/80s that actually had that opportunity during their studies in Rome.
• Reading/listening to texts you are already familiar with. No need to translate, since you actually know the translation. I know this one from very close. There are lots of works from antiquity to the Renaissance that were either written in Latin or translated to it before modern languages took their current form: from the Greeks to the Latin Classics, to the Bible, to early scientific texts.) And there is also a number of modern literary works that have been translated to Latin by (somewhat?) skilled scholars. (Think of Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis, to cite a funny example.)

Answer 3

Translating a language is a different activity than understanding it. Think about a baby. A baby knows no language, but learns one. The baby does not translate anything, it just understands. You can only translate a language, if you know another one already.

It is much better to learn a language like a baby does, mentally understanding the essential meaning of the words and phrases, rather than trying to learn one language in terms of another language.

When I learn Latin, in every instance, I try to learn the meaning of words, not their English translations. So, for example, for the prepositions, I don't even use words, I draw pictures to illustrate what the preposition means or the situation it is used in. Likewise, for nouns, I learn the meaning of the noun, not its translation. For example, when I read a word like aedis, I imagine a one-roomed building like a hut, or a garage or the Pantheon. English actually does not even have a word for a one-roomed building, so you can't do a one-to-one exact translation anyway from aede into English even if you wanted to.