Ossa Ostensa: A Proven System for Demystifying Latin, Book 2

This book contains a number of oddities, is poorly organized, and contains serious errors with respect to Latin grammar.Issues of GrammarSequence of TensesThe most serious issue in the book is that it seems to lay out the Sequence of Tenses incorrectly (p. 80). Here, as with the other issues addressed, Pooley is following Reginald Foster (Ossa, pp. 309, 314).The book claims that a perfect subjunctive in primary sequence can represent the future perfect. Thus, Nescio quid feceris, can mean "I do not know what you will have done."Likewise, for secondary sequence, the pluperfect can represent the future perfect.Any standard textbook or grammar (e.g. Gildersleeve, section 514) would state that a tense future to the main verb has in an indirect question has to use the periphrastic (e.g. facturus sis). Any other kind of condition would use the present subjunctive to denote any action incomplete at the time of the main verb, including the future perfect (e.g. Gildersleeve, Moreland and Fleischer, etc.).GerundiveThe gerundive with sum, such as Carthago delenda est, and the gerundive that is used when one does a gerund/gerundive "flip": e.g. ad effeminandos animos, are not the same parts of speech according to Pooley/Foster.The first is called a "necessity" particle and it is categorically denied that this is a gerundive.This seems very odd and I haven't seen anything like it anywhere else. If it can be defended, I would have liked to have seen some citations or sources.Later on, when the gerundive is introduced, we are told that it is active, not passive, and that it is just the gerund made into an adjective. Again, no citations or sources are provided. Is this is "Reggieism" or a serious linguistic viewpoint?Issues of TerminologyFuture Active ParticipleThe changes to traditional terminology are in full swing again. I'm not inherently opposed to using better terminology, if it helps clarify things, but really--renaming the Future active participle the "subsequent participle" (p. 102)? I suppose it saves on syllables, but "future active participle" rolls off the tongue and is descriptive.Vol. 2 introduces the "ablative absolute." The problem here is the inconsistency with respect to traditional grammatical jargon. Volume 1 refrained from using the word "ablative" and called it the "by, with, from, in" case, or rather "function." Now, the word ablative is back, with the ablative absolute.Concerning this section, the only other point of criticism I would raise here is that students are told NOT to give a literal translation of the abl. abs. with "with."Instead, it must be:"a boy playing outside our lecture-room yesterday, we were studying" (p. 125).Later, words like while, when, if, etc., are allowed to "smooth out" the translation (just as well).Future passive participleThe future passive participle (which, remember, is not the gerundive) is called the "necessity participle"!Problems with OrganizationSequence of tensesThe sequence of tenses is introduced in Lesson 9, and yet subordinate uses of the subjunctive are not introduced until Lesson 16.Between lesson 9 and 16 Pooley deals with gerundives (or rather "necessity participles") and the ablative absolute.At the same time, since there aren't really exercises (just excerpts from real Latin), you don't really get to see the sequence of tenses in action in the book anyway, even after subordinate uses of the subjunctive are introduced.ConclusionI think if the name of Reginald Foster were not attached to this methodology, I doubt it would win much praise on its own merits. The terminology is eccentric, the organization bewildering, the grammar errors inexcusable.