tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post2723221588188635093..comments2023-04-05T08:04:07.514-04:00Comments on Bryn Mawr Classical Review: 2012.06.52Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-62588828405629372812013-07-26T22:14:24.762-04:002013-07-26T22:14:24.762-04:00This will probably sound like I'm trying to be...This will probably sound like I'm trying to be a smart aleck or snotty, but I'm really not; I ask this question in all honesty: if Fairbairn's book is so problematic, why doesn't the author of this review write his own? The reviewer recognized that Fairbairn's purpose was to make the nature of Greek and Latin easier for students to understand (though by no means does it appear that Fairbairn thought his book was going to replace a Greek or Latin primer, teacher, or required explanations for the languages). It appears, however, that Fairbairn failed (according to the reviewer). Okay, but Fairbairn was trying to explain language to an audience that really has no facility in language anymore--including the one it speaks. So Fairbairn gave the task his best shot and ended up failing. His failure doesn't negate the fact that we still need a book like the one he tried to write. I appreciate the reviewer's perspective, candor, and knowledge on classical languages. However, I would like to see the reviewer take his disappointment in Fairbairn's work and write a book that makes learning Greek and Latin accessible to those of us who want to learn, but who lack the money to go to school for several years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com