![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
... you have the reaction of "that's the most useful new site I've seen in months!" when you come across the Latin 1086 - 1733 For Beginners page.
I have no idea whether it's a good tutorial yet -- I just got the link from
sca_today. My suspicion is that it is focused on a subset of the language (official documents), so it's only a start. But it's the first introductory course I've come across that is specifically for *period* texts, rather than classical ones. And given that most of the latin sources I really care about are 16th and 17th century, that's rather interesting...
I have no idea whether it's a good tutorial yet -- I just got the link from
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 08:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 08:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 08:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 08:31 pm (UTC)It's bound to be (within a very limited sphere, as you duly noted), given that it's from the National Archives site, which is loaded with helpful information.
On quick glance, it looks like a very abbreviated and condensed overview of Latin, and is probably geared more towards people who have a document in front of them and are wondering how the hell they're going to decipher it (their "reference" information is somewhat a dead giveaway). The reality is that none of the lessons seem to be presenting some of the more period-specific issues of late Latin (e.g. bastardization of grammar, disuse of more compact and sophisticated constructions, etc), with the exception of certain stock phrases and constructions that are common in medieval documents. The Latin it presents is pretty simplistic, and with the exception of certain telling medieval words (e.g. maneria), it could be mistaken for a very basic overview of Classical Latin. I wouldn't say that the majority of this tutorial is useful only for the period 1986-1733, though the word list certainly is based on documents from that period.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-02 01:43 am (UTC)Or go to a proper Catholic Latin mass. Wonderful.
- Eric
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-02 01:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-02 03:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-02 12:10 pm (UTC)I was recently reading Her majesty's spymaster (about Walsingham), and it discussed the ciphers of the time and codebreaking methods.
Growing up, I used to be a whiz at the cryptogram puzzles in Games magazine, and then I thought about the lack of standardized spelling in Elizabethan English and became much more impressed with the efforts of Phillipes and others...