I like the approach in Lingua Latina per se Illustrata (sometimes called the "natural method"). I've noticed that it was adapted for other languages too, but most of the adaptations seemed old and outdated.

Recently I was wondering if I should work on a modernization of the concept (using audio and a more interactive medium). If anyone has thoughts on this topic, I'd be happy to discuss more.

As a former Latin instructor with literally decades of experience, I strongly recommend not relying solely on Ørberg. The outcomes of those who refused to supplement it with a proper grammar and dictionary were far, far behind those who used Wheelock alone.

It's very popular online, but it's methodologically bunk.

"Grinding tables" might be the most accurate description of my language-learning experience that I've come across.

We quoted that book for years (probably because the accompanying audio version had a somewhat amusing cadence, but I do also think it was a lot more beneficial to learning than trudging through classical texts with a dictionary).

Thanks for sharing this! My wife and I have been interested in refreshing our Latin from high school, and we've been looking for good resources.

We've also toyed with the idea of learning it as a living language, which seems to be an increasingly-popular method among autodidacts these days.

I've seen Scanlon's Latin which was written I think to help people pray the Divine Office in latin

Lifehack: Latin is much easier if you already know a Slavic or a Baltic language (except Bulgarian). While declension patterns are different, the case structures are very similar. Not identical, but close enough that you actually just need to learn the differences.

Most other grammatical structures are also directly comparable.

So you can make your life easier by studying a Slavic (or a Baltic) language first.

(mwahaha!)

Do you find it better than Wheelock’s? As a casual language observing hobbyist, it’s really scratched my itch of learning why Latin is the way it is.