Quick question -- what do you guys think of Wheelock's Latin? I've got a basis in it now (nothing huge--basic grammatical structure, essential vocab, etc.), and while it isn't necessary to get proficient, as I'm sure you all can attest, a working knowledge would be very beneficial. Anyway, I have Wheelock on my shelf, so I was just curious as to y'all's thoughts.

Wheelock's Latin and also Workbook for Wheelock's Latin does help you read classical writers such as Cicero, Horace, Pliny, etc.

The book does not teach you Ecclesiastical Latin, however.

You read my mind! I'm aware of the difference, but not aware of how deep the difference runs. Is it primarily vocabulary, or is it like the difference in classical and koine Greek, where there are subtle accidental and syntactical differences as well? The Latin I have familiar with is that which was used from 1086 to 1733 in England as taught by the national archives. Obviously there are differences in Ecclesiastical and Classical . . . I just figured I'd start "at the beginning," and hence, my choice of Wheelock.

So how stark are the differences in the various types of Latin?

Ecclesial Latin is pronounced differently. Grammatically, liturgical Latin tends to be easier; for example, it tends to use prepositional phrases rather than relying as heavily on noun case, and it tends to use periphrastic constructions rather than more complicated verb forms.

I see. So ecclesiastical is to classical what koine is to classical. As I've no concern for speaking the language (I can certainly see where priests would, however), then I would do well to work through the classical then, I suppose.

Much obliged.

I see no problem when you want to learn the Latin grammar from Wheelock's Latin. But you'd better get a Latin dictionary. For example, in chapter 2, page 15, you can find a word basiat with a reference to basiare (to kiss). In the Latin-English dictionary of the book, there is only one related word basium (the kiss). So,

Lucia crucem basiat.

The author, Frederic M. Wheelock, did have some help from Catholic priests on his book, and there are several Christian passages in Loci Antiqui such as the Lord's Prayer from Vulgate, Matthew).

The only main difference is in the pronunciation whether you're talking classical Latin or ecclesical Latin. The latter is just like speaking Italian.

Good to know. I have Collins (Concise), which I hope will be sufficient. I think I may pick up Ecclesiastical pronunciation as well, if it helps with Italian. I know absolutely nothing of the latter, but my studies will require me to get proficient in French as well, so if I already know Latin, then I expect it would be very easy to pick up. My wife is very fond of Europe, and it would be nice to be able to converse more easily.

I did much the same with Hebrew (and I regret that I did not with Greek, although at some point I may take the time to remedy that). I made it a point to go with modern pronunciation to make communication today possible. So perhaps I was wrong when I said earlier that I would no concern for speaking it. You are all a wealth of information. Thanks again.

I still have my copy of Whellock's from college and I didn't find it very "user friendly" compared to other Latin textbooks as far as actually trying to learn the language. It's more handy as a grammar reference book, IMHO.