@metivier said in a recent podcast that most of the grammar in language learning is optional if you’re not interested in being a grammarian.
But it seems like there are some things that you’d need if you want to interpret the language.
For instance, in Latin, I’ve found being able to spot the endings for present tense and past tense, and for perfect/imperfect forms of past tense to be useful.
Similarly, understanding what the object of a sentence is and what the accusative is is useful.
So I’m curious if anyone here, or @metivier specifically thinks there’s a minimum viable product of Latin grammar that someone who just wants to understand would learn.
Technically, I did not say it’s “optional.” I said it’s often not the best starting point, nor the starting point of most polyglots I’ve known and learned from.
Further, I discussed exactly how I memorized the grammar considerations I needed in German and Latin. I stuck with basic declension and conjugation, but discussed how you would need to deal with matters of tense, gender and number with recommendations on how to do so.
I don’t know what “minimum viable product” means relative to the goal of “interpratation,” but there is one thing I realized I should have added to the podcast:
That is anticipatory reading.
I may elect to completely re-record the podcast and cite your post to help further clarify the points. Yours is not the takeaway I intended by making something of an extended joke based on Bruno’s commentary (in Latin) on the behaviors of grammarians.