Dual-language editions - opinions?

Should a book which contains full text in the original modern language, PLUS a translation, be combined with copies that contain only the original or a translation?

Invented example: "The Three Musketeers in the original French, with an English Translation."

(Note: combining could sometimes result in all copies having the work title of the dual language edition.)

If I had an original or a translation and also had a dual language edition, I wouldn't consider that I had a "work duplicate." I'd have them for different purposes, and would drink with the bilingual people at the famous cocktail party. :-) But YMMV.

Opinions?

I've picked up a few dual-language editions along the way, but to be honest, I generally only read the English (I'm a used book sale shopper). So, I'd rather connect with the main work, even if my text is a variation.

I think this is different than, say, the graphic novel version of a text, where it would be impossible to ignore the pictures and only look at the words.

>1 myshelves:

I would combine them for now. As usual in these discussions (similar to the dead/modern language considerations) , the choice depends on what one thinks are the most likely reasons for having the book. You seem to incline to the view that owners of these books would actually speak both languages but what if most (half, any) users with bilingual editions are really beginners or students instead of fluent speakers? Or what if they simply bought whatever was available?

ETA: As in collsers's example...

Just out of curiosity, does this bilingual book have the original, followed by a translation? It reminds me of a bilingual book I have: "Stultitia Laus" (praise of folly) by Erasmus, with Latin on the left pages and Dutch on the right pages. I haven't entered that in LT yet, but I'll enter it just with the monolingual copies.

Bilingual cocktail party?

I have an edition of Treasure island in English, followed by a Chinese translation. Even if I could read the Cinese version, I would definitely combine this book with the other editions.

I'd lean to going to the bilingual cocktail party. If the crowd with Homer in Greek are separate from the crowd reading Homer in English, which one would I join? In my case, it would be the English crowd, but what about the next person who has the same bilingual edition. That person may want to join the Greek party. So it seems to point to having a separate bilingual crowd.

(We need to all meet someday in a mega-works combination that links the individual works combination)

I have a copy of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales with interlinear text. It used to be separate for a long time (about 23 users). I just checked and at some point it's been combined with all Canterbury Tales (3721 users). Actually I'd be more interested in the small group that bought the interlinear version.

>6 alibrarian:

But you assume that bilingual books are always bought for their "bilinguality." With poetry in particular, bilingual editions are often the most available versions of a book. If you entered an American bookstore looking for a copy of Virgil's Georgics, the copy that you would most likely find today would be David Ferry's recent translation--a bilingual book. Pablo Neruda's Twenty love poems and a song of despair is, I think, carried by most bookstores. I don't think its popularity is based on its being bilingual, however; the bilingual edition is simply the one that is most readily available (heck, it may be the only version that is ever stocked here in the states).

I'd be inclined to agree that bilingual books should be combined with the other editions, provided that both are modern languages. I know, for example, that my bilingual German/English Shakespeares were bought solely because they're small enough to fit in a pocket rather than for any language reasons.

On the other hand, I would be inclined to separate out things like the Chaucer that alibrarian mentioned.

In the case of modern languages, I would definitely combine bilingual editions with the others, since versions in both of the two languages would be combined together anyway.

In the case of dead languages, I would combine the bilingual editions with the original language editions.

In the case of dead languages, I would combine the bilingual editions with the original language editions.

Aren't these combined with the modern language translations? What's the point in separating one Iliad from the other, just for the language? I know we have discussed this before.

The original language editions are not combined with the modern language editions for original languages like Greek, Latin, etc. The point is that people reading a book in a dead language have a more scholarly interest in the topic and the suggestions should reflect that.

> 7 But you assume that bilingual books are always bought for their "bilinguality."

No, I wasn't. I was only pointing out in my case I did buy that copy of the Canterbury Tales because it was bilingual and I was interested in the Middle English text.

I would go along with those above about bilingual modern languages and combine them all together.

But bilingual modern/dead languages would be another situation. You don't know if it was bought because it was the only thing available or for a specific reason. Since the original dead language is kept separate from the translation, you can't add the bilingual editions to either group since you could never know every owners' reason (and they would surely differ anyway)

If forced to choose between the two, I guess I would opt for adding the bilingual editions to the original dead language.

Candidates for the super works? Whenever they get implemented.

My reasoning for combining bilingual editions with dead original language editions is as follows:

Either the work is widely available in translation without the original language included, or it's not.

If translations without the original language are widely available, then owning the edition with the original language text included most likely shows some interest in the original language.

If the work is so obscure that it's not available in translations without the original language, then owning that book in itself reflects sufficient "scholarly" interest that it should be grouped with the other original language editions.

> 14

If the work is so obscure that it's not available in translations without the original language, then owning that book in itself reflects sufficient "scholarly" interest that it should be grouped with the other original language editions.

As mentioned before (see #7): With poetry in particular, bilingual editions are often the most available versions of a book..

The example given there by SilentInAWay (Virgil's Georgics) is not quite an obscure work.

>14 _Zoe_:

If translations without the original language are widely available, then owning the edition with the original language text included most likely shows some interest in the original language.

Having an "interest" in the original language is far different from being a classical scholar. The reason for the dead language exception is not to separate those with a love for language from those who are interested in ideas. I think that there is too much overlap between these two groups.

If the work is so obscure that it's not available in translations without the original language....

So, if a book is not widely available, it is not available at all? Your argument only considers these two possibilities. Here are some possibilities that don't fit this argument.

I walk into a bookstore, scan the poetry section, and am attracted to a translation of Virgil's Georgics. This book is carried by the bookstore not because it is the only translation of this work (it's not), nor because it's a bestseller (it's definitely not), but simply because it is a newly-published translation of an work by an important writer. It largely a matter of luck and timing that I buy this edition (which happens to be bilingual).

Many people like Penguin classics--they offer good translations of world classics in affordable, yet well-made paperback editions. Furthermore, if a general bookstore carries a work of classic literature, there's a fair possibility that it is a penguin edition. Many of the collections of poetry published by Penguin are bilingual editions, including some originally written in dead languages. I don't think a preference for penguins necessarily implies classical scholarship.

Third case. Beowulf is required reading for many college students--frequently in an edition with old and modern English on facing pages. I would certainly not combine these bilingual versions of Beowulf with the copies in Old English only (which have mainly a scholarly interest).

Now, with respect to this issue, there is a huge difference between poetry and prose. I would have no problem with the assumption that a bilingual edition of a prose work originally written in a dead language implies a scholarly interest. With poetry, however, there are many reasons why someone might have a bilingual edition...

>16 SilentInAWay:
Generally, I agree with SilentInAWay on these issues, but I think his Beowulf example leads to the opposite conclusion that the one in comment 16. The student buys this edition of Beowulf because s/he is studying it in a scholarly environment. The student may be a rookie scholar, but s/he's not reading it simply because it's a ripping yarn as with my latest Beowulf acquisition.

So, I would put the college study edition (with the OE and modern English text in one volume) into the group with all other OE editions.

O.

I considered only two cases because there are only two possible ways to combine it: with the translations or with the original work. I know there are lots of nuances, but in the end it requires a simple decision procedure, preferably one with justification. Mine definitely isn't perfect, but I'd rather see other suggestions then, not just critiques. I'm sure we can all agree that combining is complicated and there will be exceptions no matter what. But what do you all think we should do about it?

Maybe it's just not possible to make a broad distinction. I can see combining Penguin editions with the translations, but I would certainly put Loebs with the original language versions.

I actually do think Virgil's Georgics is a pretty obscure work. Is it really widely read by people without a specific interest in classics?

Incidentally, the Georgics is badly combined right now. There are a lot of Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, which I believe are Latin-only, combined with the translations. Plus, the CGLC editions aren't even the whole work, but amazon (or someone) seems to have entered the titles without specifying the volume, so ISBN-checking will be required....

> 18

Sorry -- I wasn't trying to attack your logic or intentions. I just feel that there are many reasons why the non-classical-scholar might have bilingual copies of a work originally written in latin (or ancient greek, or Old English, or Sanskrit, etc.).

Upon consideration, the main point where I disagree with both you and O (>17 Ealhmund:) is re: the constituency of the group of readers that should be "protected" (insert a better word) by the dead language exception. I don't think the intention here is to separate all readers with a scholarly bent from the pack, but rather scholars with the relevant specialty.

Generally speaking, in cases where exceptions have been identified to general combining practices, we must be careful that the group of affected members is not too broadly defined.

>14 _Zoe_:
If translations without the original language are widely available, then owning the edition with the original language text included most likely shows some interest in the original language.


Er, I think that owning a book in any language shows an interest in that language, whether it's an original or not, whether it's widely available or not. What is my interest in ancient Greek if I had to take classes in it in order to graduate?
Also, I prefer to read books in the original language, even if that's way more difficult than reading a translation. Does that show an interest in the original language? It doesn't.

Reading Homer shows an interest in ancient Greek culture and/or literature, whether you read it in ancient Greek or in English, or in Latvian.

I'm in favor of combining my ancient Greek version of Homer with the translations.

>20 xtien:

I think that owning a book in any language shows an interest in that language
The distinction is that people often own books in modern languages because that's their first language. The goal of combining is to go beyond that and connect people with the same interests in books, not just people with the same first languages.

What is my interest in ancient Greek if I had to take classes in it in order to graduate?
The entire system is based on the assumption that people own books they care about. If people just owned random books from required courses, the whole concept of connecting through your books to people with similar tastes would be meaningless. I think (and hope!) that required school texts of no interest to the owner are greatly in the minority on LT.

I prefer to read books in the original language
Then, in the case of Homer, you might be interested in books like Homeric Vocabularies: Greek and English Word List for the Study of Homer that would be helpful for reading it in the original Greek. That book is on the recommendations list for the Greek version of the Odyssey, but not for the English translation.

Reading Homer in English may show an interest in ancient Greek culture/literature, but it also shows an interest in Beowulf, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and The Divine Comedy, according to the recommendations. None of those books are recommended for the Greek version.

Basically, there's a clear difference in the recommendations for the translations and the recommendations for the Greek versions. So they shouldn't be combined.

>19 SilentInAWay:

I'm still thinking about this and will eventually write a more detailed response.
But I do think that the way it's being done now is generally working. The vast majority of the recommendations for the Greek Odyssey are relevant scholarly works. A Sanskrit Reader is also there as an example of a scholarly work in a different field (well, it sounds scholarly at least), but I think that's an interesting quirk rather than a problem.

>21 _Zoe_:
Then, in the case of Homer, you might be interested in books like Homeric Vocabularies: Greek and English Word List for the Study of Homer that would be helpful for reading it in the original Greek.

Actually, I doubt it would. I can read Homer in its original language, beit slowly and with help of a dictionary, but I manage. Introducing English in the translation process would confuse me more than it would help me.

>20 xtien:
The entire system is based on the assumption that people own books they care about.

You are absolutely right. And even if you do own a book you don't care about, you'd probably not enter it in LT - at least, I don't.

I care more for my school edition Homer in ancient greek than I would for any translation, or for any other copy in ancient greek, or even for any other copy of exactly the same edition. But it doesn't mean that I care for ancient greek more than for other languages.

I maintain that I would want to combine my copy of Homers Iliad and Odyssey with the modern translations.

Reading Homer in English may show an interest in ancient Greek culture/literature, but it also shows an interest in Beowulf, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and The Divine Comedy, according to the recommendations. None of those books are recommended for the Greek version.

Well, I would say that people who read Homer in ancient greek have an above average interest in Beowulf, Gilgamesh, La Divina Comedia, Tacitus, and others. You read ancient greek, then you probably read Latin as well, and a bit of ancient Hebrew, and I bet you know one or two things about the history of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Recommendations are based on statistics, and the number of people who read these things in translation is way higher than the number of people who read the original. That may explain why the recommendations are skewed towards the translated versions.

> 23

Your proposal is actually more radical than that which we are discussing. The combining notes suggest that Homer in Greek should not be combined with Homer in translation because there is a "significant social difference" in the languages (the difference being that a book in ancient greek is only of interest to greek scholars--a fairly small group). Now, the notes mention that this concept is "up for debate." From what I've seen, however, most members are more interested in interpreting these comments than challenging them.

The issue that we were discussing was an even more borderline case than this--albeit one that occurs fairly frequently. The question is whether a bilingual book containing a dead language (say, Latin) and a modern translation is primarily of interest to Latin scholars (in which case it should be combined with the Latin-only copies) or to a wider reading audience, perhaps of a scholarly bent, but not necessarily Latin scholars (in which case it would be combined with the other translations).

(This opposition is perhaps stated slightly unfairly, since there is not complete consensus that the "dead language exception" exists to isolate dead language scholars from the pack, as opposed to isolating anyone for whom possession of a bilingual, dead language book implies a scholarly interest in language)

the difference being that a book in ancient greek is only of interest to greek scholars--a fairly small group

That is not entirely true. All my former class mates have an interest in Homer and I bet they all have their copy in ancient Greek in their book case, together with Sophocles, Cicero, Virgil, Tacitus. They are doctors, musicians, high tech entrepreneurs, lawyers, journalists, housewives.

I'm starting to think that reading Homer in greek is not as common in the US as it is in a lot of European countries. If you talk to someone in Holland who has a college degree, there's a one in six chance that they can recite Homer in ancient Greek, or at least a few lines.

Homer in ancient greek is not something that's of interest to a small group of dead language scholars (scholars in dead languages, not deceased language scholars) but it's of interest to a fairly broad group of people.

Well, _Zoe_ and Osbaldistone (and anybody else) -- what do you think? Should we shelf (at least temporarily) our discussion of bilingual texts and start a thread questioning the validity of the "dead language exception?" After all, the combining notes state that the concept is open for debate. Or should we continue as we were? (I have no problems, either way)

>27 SilentInAWay:
I was just about to post that there are clearly good arguments either way regarding a bi-lingual edition, that we are trying to 'get into the head' of the owner of the book, and that there are many reasons one might own (and enter into LT) a bi-lingual edition. So, perhaps the answer is that we can't decide in this forum how the mind of the bi-lingual Odyssey owner works, and we should simply accept that there are two ways it could go and, as long as a book is combined with EITHER the correct dead language group or the correct modern language group, we combiners should respect that and leave it there.

In other words, this thread seems to have reached a stalemate and should be left as a testament for future combinders to read.

Now, regarding a discussion of Tim's original premise, I have to admit that throwing it out and combining ALL editions of the Odyssey, regardless of language, is pretty attractive. It simplifies the combiners life, and there has been plenty of reasonable testimony in this and other threads to indicate that we really don't know what's in the heads of the owner of a text in classic Greek anyway. Besides, the observation that the distinction shows a strong US bias is probably right - classic language education is pretty rare on this side of the pond, and for that reason, we think of those who read Homer in the 'original' Greek as scholarly and rare. If LT is to be more universal, then we should probably get over this bias.

On top of that, we don't even discuss the fact that many owners of, say, The Scarlett Letter, read it in the original modern English but are still doing so for 'scholarly' reasons. We don't try to separate them from those that read it for the story and/or to learn more about early America. Why only the 'dead' languages? Because we can, I suppose.

O.

I'm certainly in the combine as much together as possible camp - hence to me dead languages I can't read are the same as foreign languages I can't read which are the same as foreign languages I can read, but then I'm not a scholar.

As with the site design arguments: simplicity rules.

Sure, I think it would be interesting to discuss the whole premise of keeping dead language works separate from their translations. As a conclusion about dual-language editions, I'm going to continue keeping Loebs with the original language editions, but I think I'll put Penguin editions with the translations.

So, moving on to the new topic:

I'm very, very strongly against combining all the editions. As someone working on a graduate degree in Classics, I find that the recommendations coming from the Greek language editions are sometimes interesting and useful, while the recommendations from the translations are not.

I don't believe in combining just because it's the easy way out. As long as some useful data is being generated by keeping the two separate, I think they should be kept separate.

Incidentally, I think this whole discussion is irrelevant in the case of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Both of the most common versions of the Greek text, the OCT and the Loeb, are in two-volume editions, while the translations are only one volume. So even if it were decided that the Greek should be combined with the translations, it wouldn't happen in this case.

>31 _Zoe_:
That's funny. In Holland, I've only seen ancient greek copies of both Iliad and Odyssey in one volume, whereas the three different translations I know come in two volumes, one for the Iliad and one for the Odyssey. We may end up combining the ancient greek version as used in the US with the Dutch translations, and the ancient greek version used in Holland with the English translations :-)

The whole issue will be irrelevant as soon as we have a hierarchy in the books, if only just two levels. We'd combine all of Homer into one entry, and then separate all individual editions and volumes out.

I think my first post in talk after I joined was about not understanding the reasoning behind the "Greek/Latin (dead-language?) exception".

As xtien mentioned, there might be a difference between the Euro and US experience, if it's true that most US students don't have obligatory Greek and Latin in school. So perhaps the possession of such texts by Americans indicates (more often) a more specialised or stronger personal interest.

But this illustrates to me a larger problem--the problem with making almost any sort of assumption about why someone owns a book. It seems to me that the reason (sometimes) may be gleaned only in the context of the entire library. So if someone owns Homer in ancient Greek because they really have a scholarly interest in it, I'd expect to see that interest reflected further in possession of other Greek texts, dictionaries etc.

In short, I think it's impossible to make correct assumptions based on the possession of any single book, so why bother? It seems to me that looser combining assumes less, and is therefore likely to err less often too.

Yup, I like to hope that someday a hierarchical system will be implemented to solve all our problems :)

why bother?

Because of the recommendations that stricter combining provides.

Something that seems to be constantly overlooked is the fact that the system as it is now is working. The suggestions for the Greek editions of Homer do include other Greek texts, dictionaries, etc. This is useful to some people. What would be gained by losing all of that information?

Hmmm... what recommendations based on stricter combining? Are you talking about the Suggester?

What would be gained by losing all of that information?

I don't understand what information would be lost how.

I was talking about the assumption that anyone with a text in a dead language has a "scholarly" interest in that language/literature--something that IMO is impossible to determine based on a single text.

I'm saying that the recommendations provided by the works assumed to be more "scholarly" actually are more scholarly.

I mean the recommendations on the works page, and in particular the longer list of suggestions that's linked from there.

as long as a book is combined with EITHER the correct dead language group or the correct modern language group, we combiners should respect that and leave it there.

Of course, there is also the possibility of NOT combining dual-language editions with either. :-)

I don't understand the combining mania. Does it really matter whether you share a book with 1000 people or 500 people or 200 people? Might it not matter more to you to find the ones who have the same edition that you have (and to get suggestions based upon that edition) than to be part of a large group? You can always go to the author page to see more detail.

About combining the Ancient Greek & translated editions:
OK, let's say that there is no big difference to educated people outside the USA. But what harm does it do to the non-USA fans of Homer to let the USA people see how many have the books in Greek, and to get recommendations based thereon? After all, Tim is from Maine, and this thing is his baby. :-)

Another thought:

When we get that hierarchical system, I will bet that it will not magically sort out the works!

Combiners will have to go in, and in some cases separate hundreds of single books from a work to put them into a subgroup. The more combining done now, the more much harder work to do later. What's the rush?

When we get that hierarchical system, I will bet that it will not magically sort out the works!

But it's a nice dream anyway :)

>36 _Zoe_:

I have to investigate how those recommendations are made. In the meantime, assuming work combinations would affect those recommendations to exclude books in original languages (something I don't know at this point), why would an exception be made for dead-language "scholars" and not for all the rest? Why is it more important to make an exception for classicists and not for slavists etc.? I've no idea--which brings me back to the basic randomness of the dead-language exception.

I don't understand the combining mania. Does it really matter whether you share a book with 1000 people or 500 people or 200 people?

The number doesn't matter at all. The connections made matter. They are the very tissue of LT--what it is AND its raison d'etre, in fact (from the point of view of a user. Of course Tim's in it only for the moolah. :))

Of course any single connection means nothing--but their accumulation makes up a network, and then a network of networks, each with new information.

Might it not matter more to you to find the ones who have the same edition that you have (and to get suggestions based upon that edition) than to be part of a large group?

Well, anything might be the case, but since this is a very large international group (and getting larger and perhaps more international) such fine-resolution demands as "same edition" seem impractical until the site can provide fine-resolution identities without shortchanging its function, which is building networks.

But what harmdoes it do to the non-USA fans of Homer to let the USA people see how many have the books in Greek, and to get recommendations based thereon?

Oh, as I've said before, if Tim wants Greek and Latin separate from the rest, so be it--only his reasoning may not hold in all environments. (Besides, as someone noted, he also DID post that he invites discussions of this matter.)

Why is it more important to make an exception for classicists and not for slavists etc.?

It's not that it's more important, just that it's possible. The same can't be done for modern languages because there's no way to distinguish a scholar of a modern languages from someone who just happens to speak that language as their mother tongue.

there's no way to distinguist a scholar of a modern languages from someone who just happens to speak that language as their mother tongue

Annnnnd, back to square one: there's also no way to determine one is a Greek scholar because one has any given title in ancient Greek! :)

Maybe if this could be combined with the number of books in a certain language, or something...

Anyway--good discussion, and certainly not in danger of going away soon.

Well, if this is a vote, I vote for combining all translations regardless whether the language is still spoken.

> 43

Including the "dead Potters?"

I still maintain that in the aggregate the Greek texts do reflect a certain "scholarly" bent. Just look at the recommendations.

Including the "dead Potters?"

Nooooo, who did that? It takes such a long time to separate, and there's absolutely nothing gained from combining!

I vote that those who combine everything be sentenced to hard labor at uncombining, comes the day of the hierarchical system. (Grin)

I still maintain that in the aggregate the Greek texts do reflect a certain "scholarly" bent.

Hmmmm, perhaps it really is culture-dependent. I don't expect LT's membership will ever be significantly non-American, but who knows? It would be interesting to see whether those recs change in that case.

All I can tell you is that I have dozens of books in Latin and Greek and not only am I NOT a classics scholar, I wouldn't even say I have more than average interest in them. Well... maybe a trifle. :)

What I DID have was six years of Latin and four of Greek in school--which was very enjoyable, and useful, to be sure, but not special.

I vote that those who combine everything be sentenced to hard labor at uncombining, comes the day of the hierarchical system.

Haven't you noticed, some people LIKE tending the work pages. :)

The discussion about the validity of Tim's statement regarding classic Greek has brought out a major difference in LTers regarding the purpose of combining - the stated primary purpose of combining is to make social connectionst amongst LTers with similar interests. Some on this thread are (understandably) concerned about how combining effects the recommendations. But the recommendations feature is not really a social connection. That is, it taps into LT to give one ideas for books to read, but does not (except indirectly) connect one to others with common interests.

So, if we accept Tim's premise that the connections are meant to be social, we must put the effect that combining has on recommendations lower on the priority list compared to the effect combining has on 'hooking up' LTers. Right?

O.

>49 Ealhmund:
From what I've gathered reading this conversation though the recommendations are linked to the social differences. If the recommendations were the same, it would show that there is no social difference between the two editions, but because the recommendations are different, this leads to the conclusion that the types of people reading each edition aren't the same and so social connections are accordingly different.

Yup, the recommendations are a way of capturing the social difference. People keep saying that having a Greek book doesn't necessarily mean anyone has a scholarly interest in Greek language or culture, but the recommendations show that overall, people with a Greek text do have more scholarly Greek books.

Though I do also think the recommendations feature is at least as important as "hooking up" LTers. Once the groups feature was added, I think groups became the most common way of finding people with similar interests.

As well, the way the social connections work now, I'd much rather see the Greek works kept separate. Since similar users are matched based on obscurity, a Greek text is pretty obscure and so good for matching people with similar interests, whereas the translations generally have thousands of copies and so aren't considered as important in the weighting formula.

has brought out a major difference in LTers regarding the purpose of combining
Os (if I may :-), you have a point there.

the recommendations show that overall, people with a Greek text do have more scholarly Greek books.

I don't know... From the small print on the recs page, LT relies for some categories also on subject classifications from LoC etc. After all, some manipulation weeds away titles unrelated to the classics from the recs, picking out books by subject and language, it seems. IOW, the selection, although made from users' libraries, is non-random (i.e. does not reflect the majority of users' books, but the special subject-language correspondence between the relatively fewer classics).

Could anyone explain how the classics recommendations are made, or point to a post with an explanation?

In the meantime, I don't understand why would one separate recommendations by language, even if the translations are kept separate from the originals.

Example: suppose the only copies of Terence's plays are catalogued on LT in Latin. Are users who have Plautus in English not to be recommended the former, or Menander in Greek? (Maybe I'm oversimplifying the rec machine; don't think so from the looks of recommendations.) Why is the language of the book its most important feature?

Though I do also think the recommendations feature is at least as important as "hooking up" LTers.

I prefer to consider the network of works and libraries, than "hooking up" with people. It is interesting (because it brings forth new information) to see sub-regions of my library in a constellation of interests completely or largely different from my own except in the region of overlap.

As for the recommendations, well, that I suppose is entirely subjective; I find them largely useless. The Suggester even is more interesting. I rarely need recommendations to identify "like" titles--does anyone? So you have "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets", so you might like "Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban". Ho hum. And when it comes to a closed corpus of works such as the ancient classics, I need them even less (this of course does not apply to works ABOUT them, and those hardly interest me at all).

Let me just repeat that I have no problem with keeping the dead-language works apart--I only want to understand the reasoning behind this and discuss it.

a major difference in LTers regarding the purpose of combining

Perhaps, but I think the difference is one only of degree, not kind. And, if it really reflects a cultural difference, then it can't be helped.

54>
Example: suppose the only copies of Terence's plays are catalogued on LT in Latin. Are users who have Plautus in English not to be recommended the former, or Menander in Greek? (Maybe I'm oversimplifying the rec machine; don't think so from the looks of recommendations.) Why is the language of the book its most important feature?

This seems to be a bit of a disconnect. The recommendations machine isn't relying on the language of the book. In fact, I doubt it looks at the language of the book at all. What it's relying on is the other books in the libraries of users who have the book. So, if the only copies of Terence's plays are catalogued here in Latin, and those same users who own Terence's plays also own Plautus in English, then Terence's plays in Latin will generate recommendations of Plautus in English.

This is actually the reason why some of us want to keep separate the dead-language variants of works. If the recommendations did take into account the language of your book, we wouldn't need to. What we are trying to do is keep the libraries of classicists networked together while not tying them up more than necessary with the libraries of everyone who ever went to a liberal arts college.

I agree with you that creating networks of works and libraries is important, but only insofar as those connections are really meaningful and useful. I don't see a reason just to connect as much as you possibly can for its own sake - less meaningful connections are less valuable.

I'm still curious about how the recommendations are made. There's more involved--subject selection, author selection; contrary to you I'd expect the language to be an element too. If the mechanism is blind to the language, then why are Greek or Latin titles offered only on the pages of Greek and Latin works?

I agree with you that creating networks of works and libraries is important, but only insofar as those connections are really meaningful and useful.

I completely agree. Remember that my starting position wasn't that translations and classics in the original ought to be combined--as a matter of fact I don't have an opinion on that at all. But the reasoning behind the exception made no sense to me--still doesn't, outside the American context.

I think what we have here is really a considerable cultural difference. Limiting myself just to personal experience, I'd say tens of thousands of people of my generation would have various classics (ancient and not) in their libraries, along with dictionaries, anthologies etc. We had centralised programs identical in all high schools in the republic. Latin was obligatory 4 years, Greek 2, with additional "elective" years possible in some schools. As with modern languages, every year came with a program of literature to be read--and we BOUGHT those books, we did not receive them from the school.

So, practically every person of my generation had sets of classics, in bilingual or original language editions. I don't expect everyone hung onto theirs, but even assuming that a very low number did--say a quarter--it's easy to see that LT built with that population as dominant wouldn't reflect the same "Greek title=classicist!" assumption that operates here (and, if I may say so, on a rather low level, if one only got a copy of the Iliad if one went to college. Homer was core in eighth grade elementary.)

I don't see a reason just to connect as much as you possibly can for its own sake

As I hope I made clear, this is a wrong impression. I do not pursue "connection for connection's sake", I don't even know what that means, but let me not go on about my personal vision of LT right now.

Suffice it to say that, IMO, at this point LT is still too small and unrefined to exact too many isolating identities--generally. But if the separations fit the expectations of the majority, as reflected by the classics recommendations (for which members like me, with a very different exposure and relationship to classics, have no use) they are naturally viable.

Since we are discussing philosophy of combining, I'm one of those who still disagrees with combining different translations, never mind combining them all with the original! I have more than one translation of some works (all classfied as the same work on LT), and what stands out to me is how different they are. Keats might have agreed with me that reading a different translation can be like reading a different "work." :-)

Much have I traveled in the realms of gold,. . .

Myshelves, your library is private--do you nevertheless see a list of users sharing your books?

#58

Yes, I do.

(And I'd be happy to have others see the list. It isn't the list of books, but rather info that I now have in the comments field, that I want to keep private. If we ever get the option of having a field that can be private . . . .)

Oh, no worries, I was just wondering. I don't see a problem with having private libraries at all (although I wonder if the fact that you have a shared books list means that your info is also reflected in public shared lists?)

As for

I'm one of those who still disagrees with combining different translations, never mind combining them all with the original!

Well, that would effectively block all the furrin peoples from here! :)

I agree about poetry translations, by the way--that they are very different etc. although not about not combining them, of course.

Lola,

Public shared lists?

Private catalog info is reflected in the totals for books and authors. It isn't supposed to show up elsewhere, but there have been slips. Sometimes a tag page will show that I tagged a certain book with that tag, for instance.

To me, combining any & all prose & verse translations of Homer is like combining the works of Shakespeare with the Charles and Mary Lamb book, or the Classic Comics. (Anyone have Bowdler's version? I can't tell.)

Lots of people have read some version. I'd find it much more interesting to see with whom I share the same version, and to see what versions others have.

LolaWalser,

I'm still curious about how the recommendations are made. There's more involved--subject selection, author selection; contrary to you I'd expect the language to be an element too. If the mechanism is blind to the language, then why are Greek or Latin titles offered only on the pages of Greek and Latin works?

I wish Tim would stop by here, because he could help us out explaining the way the recommendations are done, but I have to say I'm leaning about 95% towards language not being a factor in the recommendation. My impression is that the reason Greek and Latin titles are offered only on the pages of Greek and Latin works is because that's the only place they'd be salient enough based on shared library characteristics to come up.

Part of why I think this is because works don't have a language assigned - they have an original language, but not an actual "work language" - except in the case of these ancient texts where languages are not combined. So I'm just not sure what factor you think language of the work would play, normally, in the recommendations.

(Another reason I suspect language isn't a factor is that so much of the language data is incorrect or missing, and the language field is new compared to most of the other cataloguing fields.)

But again, I'm obviously only speculating. Tim, are you out there?

> 56

I don't believe that Greek and Latin were even offered until I was at the university. Is California weak or what?

Lola, you've shaken my faith in the "naturalness" of the dead language exception (not to mention the bilingual exception to the dead language exception and the scholarly edition exception to the bilingual exception to the dead language exception).

However, regardless of whether this consideration is yankee-centric or not, it clearly provides a practical distinction for several people in this discussion and, by extension, several thousand members of LT (although it is debatable to what extent the opinions of combiners reflect those of the LT membership at large).

It is nevertheless extremely awkward that LT must use work separation to recognize similarities between catalogs--in fact, taken to the extreme, this practice would undermine the very concept of a work as a social construct. After all, the dead language exception is but one of countless possible distinctions.

My library, for example, contains a large amount of Spanish and Latin American literature, both in Spanish and in English translations. Is my library more similar to one that contains many of the same works--all in the original language--or to one contains those same works, but only in English translations? Is it yet more similar to another library that contains slightly fewer works in common, yet also has many in both languages? And what about all the secondary works?; should they should come into play when assessing my library's attitude toward these (primary) books? Surely the existence of secondary literature implies something about the scholarly value of the primary texts within my library.

It would be nice if LT could solve this by looking for patterns within sets of combined books. Until such a day arrives, however, I think that the dead language exception should probably remain in effect. BTW: I'm liking _Zoe_'s suggestion (>30 _Zoe_: above) for the handling of half-dead works--combine the Loeb's (i.e., books intended largely for scholars) with the fully-dead originals and the Penguins (i.e., books that may be of interest to scholars, yet clearly target a wider readership) with the translations.

> 57

myshelves, I agree with you completely from aesthetic, artistic, philosophical and phenomenological points of view. From the LT/combining point of view, however, I'd still combine translations.

taH pagh taHbe'. DaH mu'tlheghvam vIqelnIS.
("you have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon")

So I'm just not sure what factor you think language of the work would play, normally, in the recommendations.

nperrin, frankly I'm getting a bit lost in our discussion--I have a feeling we've reached the point where arguments would sort themselves out quickly viva voce (plus some vigorous gesticulation), but are getting bogged down in writing, as I grope for the best, most precise phrases. :)

I mean--I think--the language of the title that "dominates" the combination (and which is Greek or Latin in our case). This mysterious "selector" I'm picturing "knows" that the title is Greek or Latin or "dead language" in the same way it "knows" it's not about hockey.

Your scheme, I think, would require that people with classics in the original have ONLY classics in the original. I'm assuming that most people (of those who have ANY classics) would have a mix of translated and original works. This is of course a personal bias, and while I'm certainly not the only person on LT with such a classics subset, maybe we're a vanishingly small minority or something.

>Is California weak or what?

It's no Austro-Hungary, that's for sure. :) Not that I'm THAT old--luckily for us ex-Habsburgs, the educational system largely retained the old k.u.k. standards. So yes, I started Latin in seventh grade, at 13--not that early either, there are schools which offer Latin and Greek from the fifth grade.

In my time, there were "technical" schools too, with a less intense classics curriculum, but even there Latin was obligatory a minimum of two years.

Lola, you've shaken my faith in the "naturalness" of the dead language exception

That's funny, because once Zoe and nperrin made me "see" the problem from their POV, the exception began to make sense. I think it's understandable that we all begin with a bias to what we know best... But I'll repeat--I really can't make up my mind one way or the other on the issue, I think it depends on the numbers--the number of users who provide the data with the classics fitting one or the other model. In practice I've always followed Tim's exception from the start, in the few cases when I ventured to combine classics. (Incidentally, I combined a few of my OWN bilingual copies with the translated group.)

It would be nice if LT could solve this by looking for patterns within sets of combined books.

Don't quite follow... What sort of patterns? I've thought about that in relation to individual libraries, how the context increases the accuracy of the assumptions now made based on single titles, but I don't see what pattern can emerge in a (we think--or make it--homogeneous) set of combined books.

Oh--did you mean patterns within shared books? If so, I get it.

>the original Klingon

Now there's a language that just might stop me saying I've never met one I didn't like. :)

There used to be an ideal of a classical education, which meant Latin throughout high school, if not before, and some ancient Greek. I ran across a French book on the decline of this by Francoise Waquet, Latin, or The Empire of the Sign : from the sixteenth to the twentieth century. This is still an ideal at Boston Latin High School, the premier public high school in Boston. I took Latin from 8th to the 12th grade. I have one nephew out of 5 who has followed this route, so far (considering close relatives).

They offered Latin in my high school, though I personally didn't take it (I opted to continue Spanish). The big selling point was that it would help with your vocabulary, which in turn would help with the SATs. And yes, this was an effective selling point.

LolaWalser, I agree with your first point, so I don't want to muddle things further, but I would like to say one thing...(why can I never resist temptation???)

Your scheme, I think, would require that people with classics in the original have ONLY classics in the original. I'm assuming that most people (of those who have ANY classics) would have a mix of translated and original works.

It wouldn't require that those who had classics in the original have them only in the original. What it would require is those that have one classic in the original also have others in the original - regardless of any other translated classics they may or may not have. That is, it only requires original-language-owners to be a "closed" community, where each user has multiple original-language-works, rather than having the original language copies scattered at random, one at a time, among all users evenly.

But anyway, the point of me posting again is that your discussion has made me think about this taking into account of the language of the book. Right now, the language field doesn't really do much other than categorize the book in your own library (this is actually a big deal for me, but probably not for most users) and put the book on a list of top books in each language (presumably in the original? but that's not clear, as I recall). But the recommendations could take language into account, and figure out that so-and-so has the Iliad in Ancient Greek even though all the translations are combined. Then you could keep the classicists together while not separating them from other people who really do have the same work.

>64 LolaWalser:

did you mean patterns within shared books?

Yes, I did mean shared, but I also meant combined (although not in the way my poorly-worded remark implied). It would be nice if all translations of a work could be combined and LT could still trace patterns within a library based on language, the presence of related works, etc.

It is, theoretically, a flaw in the current system that some connections between libraries can only be correctly established by separating works. If dead-language scholars were the only group "protected" by separation, then ok--things would remain under control. Should we, however, also separate out all first editions so that connections and recommendations are useful for collectors of first editions? Should scholarly editions be separated from mass-market editions? If enough special interests were to be supported via work separation, fewer combinations would remain and LT's social foundation would deteriorate.

But the recommendations could take language into account, and figure out that so-and-so has the Iliad in Ancient Greek even though all the translations are combined.
I don't think recommendations for books in ancient Greek or in Latin are relevant to people reading them. They generally know what's available, and there's not so many new ancient books being written.

I do agree that people owning a book in its original language (Greek or Latin) are a more closely related group than just anyone who read a translation. Is there a group for Latin and Greek?

nperrin,

It wouldn't require that those who had classics in the original have them only in the original. What it would require is those that have one classic in the original also have others in the original - regardless of any other translated classics they may or may not have. That is, it only requires original-language-owners to be a "closed" community, where each user has multiple original-language-works, rather than having the original language copies scattered at random, one at a time, among all users evenly.

But doesn't this closed community have ANY classics in translation? That's what I find puzzling. I think it boils down to this: do most libraries containing classics in the original also include classics in translation or are they more frequently classics-in-original-ONLY? If former, then why doesn't a work grouping the Iliad in translation also pull in recommendations of works in the original?

Although--maybe it's just a numbers thing. Maybe so many more people with the Iliad in translation DON'T have any classics in the original, translations drown out the recommendations. And that's exactly the picture of a population which does NOT routinely learn Greek and Latin in school, I suppose.

Sorry I've been working this out so slowly. :) I lived ten years in the US (and now in Canada), but I have only very piecemeal and contradictory impressions of the pre-grad school system.

Okay, so now what happens with Hebrew, Sumerian, Akkadian, Persian etc. ? :)

Silent,

If enough special interests were to be supported via work separation, fewer combinations would remain and LT's social foundation would deteriorate.

YES! And a terrible thing it would be, I keep telling everyone! That's why we should sweep this discussion under the rug ASAP, quench lobbying in the bud before troublemakers get ideas... :)

xtien,

I agree, the recs are sort of superfluous, at least of primary sources.

Is there a group for Latin and Greek?

I saw someone somewhere discussing Homer and Sappho (possibly in different groups).

> 69 Is there a group for Latin and Greek?

There is this group:
http://www.librarything.com/groups/lingualatina

Edited to add another group: http://www.librarything.com/groups/homerthetrojanwaran

Lola,

I think it boils down to this: do most libraries containing classics in the original also include classics in translation or are they more frequently classics-in-original-ONLY? If former, then why doesn't a work grouping the Iliad in translation also pull in recommendations of works in the original?

Although--maybe it's just a numbers thing. Maybe so many more people with the Iliad in translation DON'T have any classics in the original, translations drown out the recommendations. And that's exactly the picture of a population which does NOT routinely learn Greek and Latin in school, I suppose.

Exactly, it's just a numbers thing. Presumably those who own original-language classics do own translations, it seems likely that they would. But they would just be drowned by those who owns classics in translation and not in the original. As for the other languages you mention - the idea isn't just Greek and Latin classics, it's basically that any language that no one would just happen to speak natively, should not be combined, because those languages will always indicate some kind of "special interest."

Xtien,
I don't think recommendations for books in ancient Greek or in Latin are relevant to people reading them. They generally know what's available, and there's not so many new ancient books being written.

This misses the point a bit. The idea isn't to get recommendations of other classics themselves, but to get recommendations of things you might like based on the fact that you are a classicist. This could include secondary sources, recent scholarly works on those classics that wouldn't be of interest to every freshman college student, things like that. And I think the recommendations are infinitely more valuable than the groups. They aggregate so much more data than just me going to a group of interest and saying "what should I read next?" And remember that only a tiny fraction of members participate in groups, but everyone's data is included in the recommendations.

But doesn't this closed community have ANY classics in translation? That's what I find puzzling. I think it boils down to this: do most libraries containing classics in the original also include classics in translation or are they more frequently classics-in-original-ONLY? If former, then why doesn't a work grouping the Iliad in translation also pull in recommendations of works in the original?

The people who have classics in the original do have classics in translation too. But the people who have classics in the original (who I'll now refer to as "original-havers") don't make up a large percentage of the translation-havers. The libraries of translation-havers mostly include other translations and other historical "great books", like Gilgamesh.

I don't think recommendations for books in ancient Greek or in Latin are relevant to people reading them.

That's true, and has occasionally caused me to question the whole foundation of combining. I ultimately decided that the recommendations as a whole are still worthwhile. The recommendations from Greek and Latin works are much more specialized than those from translations, and they sometimes include useful secondary sources.

because those languages will always indicate some kind of "special interest."

Eh, I think I began with disagreeing about this--and I still disagree. I will always disagree! :) There's a range of interest between "scholar" and "layman/accidental passerby". As I think a few other people mentioned before--I hope I'm not misremembering names--henkl, Osbaldistone--many of us who aren't classics scholars enjoy reading Latin and Greek, with aids or not. The assumption of "special interest" is questionable outside the US. I think enough of us non-USians reacted here to make that clear.

To me there is no difference between reaching for the latest McEwan in English or Catullus in Latin. One is a book like the other. Sorry to sound testy, but I really dislike this halo of "specialness" that I perceive (perhaps unreasonably) around ancient classics here (I don't know if I mean LT or America or the discussion or what...)

Classics are not the exclusive province of scholars, just like the enjoyment of good, real literature isn't the exclusive province of the highly educated, and Latin and Greek ought not be the exclusive province of those rich enough to go to proper schools. Forgive my preachiness and please don't take it personally, but this is very odd to me. Otoh, it's probably better not to indulge this digression.

And I think the recommendations are infinitely more valuable

Only if the data is filtered intelligently. For my part, I'm underwhelmed by the recs on the few pages I looked at. Most of the titles are too tightly related to the pick, for instance, all the other works by the author etc. I didn't notice that many secondary works come up either...

everyone's data is included in the recommendations.

Well, it doesn't mean anything if Middle McRoady library from Average, Anywhere drowns out everything, does it? My classics are a mix of dead and modern languages, and reflect a culture and mentality wholly different from the one assumed by the "special interest always", but you won't see any of that in the recs.

This isn't a complaint (I understand how this works better now), rather a plea to remember that we on LT are a very heterogeneous bunch in EVERY regard and remain so even if small minorities are invisible.

I think maybe the word "scholar" is tainting the whole debate. I don't consider myself a scholar even though I'm working on a graduate degree in Classics; I need that much education just to have the general reading knowledge of Greek and Latin that people who went through older or better school systems got in high school or undergrad.

To me there is no difference between reaching for the latest McEwan in English or Catullus in Latin.

There is, though, in that you wouldn't expect to look at the recommendations for McEwan and find Catullus in Latin there.

More to follow--I just realized I was supposed to be somewhere ten minutes ago.

I think I'll probably bow out after this as I'm going away for a long weekend, but:

To me there is no difference between reaching for the latest McEwan in English or Catullus in Latin.

Zoe points out one difference above, but I'll point out the one I care about more. You had to learn English to read McEwan in the original; you had to learn Latin to read Catullus in the original.

The majority of people on LT who own McEwan in English did not learn English in order to read literature in the original. The majority of people on LT who own Catullus in Latin did learn Latin in order to read literature in the original - because everybody, even those who study it in secondary school, learns Latin to read something in the original.

So, the majority of people on LT who own McEwan in English just happen to speak English because it's their native language. Yes, some owners will have learned English as a foreign language, and some of those will have done so specifically to read literature in the original. But those people are a minority and there is no way to use combination or separation to pick them out of the larger group of McEwan-owners-in-English. (And I wager that you, for example, read McEwan in English because you can, but you didn't learn English to read McEwan. Whereas you did, even though it may have been somewhat involuntary, learn Greek and Latin to read whatever, because that's the only real purpose.)

Also, I would really agree with you that people should be learning things like Latin and Greek in school, but I feel compelled to point out that in the US it's not a matter of being rich enough to go to a proper school - even the fanciest of private schools don't teach Ancient Greek to teenagers. Let alone require it! So it really does become more a matter of "special interest." Of course, I digress. Anyway, this whole thing is starting to remind me of the Bible combining conversations. "All Bibles should be combined for the social connection between everyone who owns a Bible! Just because you're a specialist you see differences that don't matter, most people just want the social connection." "Hey, people used to kill each other over these translations! There are different social groups involved!" And now that I see a new Bible-combining thread has started, I'm off!

I meant there's no difference in the reason I'm reading McEwan or Catullus--it's for reading pleasure, not scholarly study.

Whereas you did, even though it may have been somewhat involuntary, learn Greek and Latin to read whatever, because that's the only real purpose.

That's a bit narrow, in justifications of the dead-languages curriculum the enjoyment of ancient literature is probably secondary to the utilitarian aspect. There's a general understanding that Greek and Latin facilitate learning of modern Indo-European languages, as well as all sorts of technical jargons, medical, scientific, philosophic etc. That's why they are still obligatory even in technical schools, although those underwent more radical modernisations.

this whole thing is starting to remind me of the Bible combining conversations

Well, yes, as Silent said, there's no limit to possible special-interest factions! We should break off before everyone realises that. :)

Have a good weekend.

"There's a general understanding that Greek and Latin facilitate learning of modern Indo-European languages..."

In the US Latin and Greek were tossed out of general education in the 60's I believe as not being relevant. In my HS in the 60's we could choose French, German, or Spanish (and for a while we had Mandarin until that teacher left), with Spanish being the most popular (this being in the Los Angeles area).

Regarding Ancient Greek in High Schools, there are some fancy schools which offer it, including Charlotte (NC) Latin School and St. Paul's School (Episcopal) in Concord, NH. In addition, Greek is offered at Boston Latin School which is public.

The problem with combining the great dead language works is the huge volume of variety that exists. When people review Homer in yet a new translation, the reviewer spends a lot of time on the translation and sometimes the translator. So when people want to talk together about Homer, they may want to all look at the same translation, and compare how many have used that translation (which may 8 editions).

Perhaps combining needs sub-categories, so that the Bible and the other frequently translated works can be divided up into versions, but under a common heading. This is particularly true of the bible and poetry, where there are ddebates about how literal a translation should be, or how should you represent the 'sense' of the original.

Bob Campbell

Currently my old high school offers Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Latin and Spanish. According to the front news page though, they are going to start offering Arabic and Classical Greek. And this is a public school (albeit one you need to take an entrance exam for).

Randomly poking around high school sites, though, there's a few lot that offer Latin.

>79 vpfluke: Perhaps combining needs sub-categories

Sure, that would be helpful from a bibliographic point of view. The problem is that LT still derives most of its useful information from identifying connections between libraries. With the current single-level approach to works, this is relatively easy to conceive and implement. How would this be handled if works were organized hierarchically? Would not the same issues currently addressed by combiners (often on a case by case basis) now have to be hard-coded into LT's algorithms?

Should, for example, book recommendations be based on comparisons with libraries that have the same work, the same sub-work, the same sub-sub-work (etc.), or the same book? For the same work, this question could be answered differently from various "special interest" groups*: dead-language scholars, literary theorists, readers interested in the poetic merits of various translations, readers with a love of world literature, students of comparative literature, former students who have kept their course books, collectors of deluxe leather editions of the "great works", etc.

I don't think that a "hard-coded" solution to identifying connections between libraries using hierarchically-organized works is likely to please members any more than current combining practices do now.

Hierarchical works might work, however, if there were a more nuanced approach to identifying connections between libraries. For example, rather than providing only a single list of members with similar libraries, LT could add a connections page that has multiple lists of libraries that contain similar works, similar sub-works, similar books, similar tags (frequency-weighted), etc. There could be a similar stratification within the recommendation engine (recommendations could be based on libraries with shared books, shared works, etc.). Depending on how things are presented, this could, of course, make LT a lot more confusing to the uninitiated. If the options were hidden below the surface, however, it could offer a lot of power without scaring off potential (or current) members who do not need that level of sophistocation.

*Incidentally, I think that all interested parties represent a special interest group of one type of another. There are no disinterested groups.

My old public high school currently offers French, German, Spanish and Latin. Through cooperation with nearby public high schools, they also offer Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Russian and American Sign Language. AP courses (to take the Advanced Placement test before college) are available in French, German, Spanish and Latin.

When I was in high school - 25 years ago - Latin was a very popular elective for the language requirement. I personally took Russian along with French, both of which I continued in college.

LT still derives most of its useful information from identifying connections between libraries.

I'm still trying to figure out what use it is to see that I share a work by Homer with 6000 or so people. We can hardly organize a cozy get-together. :-) I didn't find the suggestions very useful either --- if you liked Hamlet, try Macbeth --- so haven't played with them much.

I wish y'all would stop reminding me that I went to a lousy high school! :-) I was sent there (a private RC school) because my non-Catholic parents thought I'd get a better education. (Not.) The place sorted students into 4 "tracks" based upon the entrance exams. The science track got French (don't ask me why), the language track got French & Latin, the business & general tracks got Spanish. No choices. I got French, and it wasn't well-taught. I think my older sibling (in public school) & I were the first generation in the family not to study Latin. Thank you, dumbing down of American education! (end of rant)

#83

Some people just like statistics, so we do comparisons that may have no effect on what we buy or don't, but find interesting.

I just looked up the Iliad, and there are 5,256 books owned by LT members, while the Odyssey has 6,591 (books with both of them reposit in 435 libraries. So, we might infer that people prefer a travel story to a war story, to be a little flip. Or we might note, like the majority, that we have both the Iliad and the Odyssey in our collection.

Regarding languages, I went to a high school in the early 1960's that had taught Greek before I arrived there, and did again after I left, as there was apparently enough interest to do so, and the Latin teacher also was qualified in Greek. When he retired, I am not sure that Greek was taught again.

I wonder whether any schools teach Modern Greek (Tarpon Springs, FL? which has a large Greek community). The New Bedford High School (Mass) has taught and still teaches Portuguese because it's maybe the largest ethnic group in New Bedford, although it is pretty rare to be taught elsewhere.

Bob Campbell

As a lot of you state that Latin and (ancient) Greek are not offered in most high schools in the US, or are not offered any more, I think I was right in assuming that Americans have a different view on books in Latin and (ancient) Greek than Europeans from countries where Latin and (ancient) Greek are still widely offered in high schools.

This issue will be resolved in ten years, when European high schools will have stopped teaching Latin and ancient Greek. After that, it will probably not be worthwhile to print new editions of books in Latin and ancient Greek.

I have been wondering about books still being published in Latin or Greek. I think the New Testament of the Bible will have Greek for years to come. For Latin books, Francoise Waquet believes that the end in France has already come.

About 25 years ago, I met the compiler of what he called a variorum edition of Thomas Hobbes De Cive in Latin. He also has done a separate volume in English. I couldn't remember his name, so I went to LT's "Add books" and by searching the LC catalog, I found his name was Howard Warrender. The catalog lists it as a 'critical edition.' then, I wondered if anyone in LT owns a Latin edition of De Cive (On the Citizen), and really couldn't figure it out. The book information doesn't tell what the language is, and I think that the Latin title is often used for the English edition. So, unless I check each person's library catalog, I don't think I can find out. Of course, I'm a little embarassed, because I own neither a Latin nor an English version of this book.

Bob Campbell

Bob,

My high school taught and still teaches modern Greek, as does the other high school in my hometown (Norwalk, CT), because of a large Greek community.

Everyone above has been noting that many high schools offer Latin/Greek - I had only pointed out that it wasn't a matter of needing an expensive education in the US, because fanciness doesn't have that much effect on whether they're offered, and regardless they are not required. Latin was the next most popular language offered in my high school after Spanish, because of a hard sell tactic the teacher used regarding SATs, but still only at most 10% of students took it, and only maybe 5% for four years.