Quackers
The Frog
Thats what you think. I don't believe that at all. Every Scott and Black man can contribute to the language. In fact I'm realy disappointed in your colonist views Traitorfish, I thought better of you.
Latin as the universal European language
- Thread starter Veles
- Start date
Thats what you think. I don't believe that at all. Every Scott and Black man can contribute to the language. In fact I'm realy disappointed in your colonist views Traitorfish, I thought better of you.
You must've confused us with the French! We don't hate the LIBERTY to speak how you like
Seriously, I don't think doing this is a good idea. Language is shaped by the people who speak it to suit their needs. Central control of "proper" language, as well as any normative approach to language in general, just doesn't make sense because it only limits our ability to express ourselves.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Danielion, I was being ironic. You were not supposed to agree with me.
I got your irony.
Ice_Tyrant
Prince
Of course not. It should be Arabic instead of Latin.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I think picking a language that nobody knows is a bad idea. If its gonna be done, the language that the most people know (This is NOT being done for the Catholic clergy, apologies to Jehoshua and Civ_King, who quite predictably voted yes
) should be used.
I don't care, the only Spanish phrase I bother to remember is "Hablamos Ingles en Estados Unidos" and other than learning that in every language, I'm good)
OK, I am taking Spanish in High School so I know a little more than that, but I don't NEED too.
) should be used. I don't care, the only Spanish phrase I bother to remember is "Hablamos Ingles en Estados Unidos" and other than learning that in every language, I'm good
)OK, I am taking Spanish in High School so I know a little more than that, but I don't NEED too.
People don't know it because it was reserved only for upper class males for centuries. Unlike with Jews, who all learned Hebrew as a liturgical language. This also played a role in making it possible reviving the language. It was a taboo using it as a language outside the synagogue and for every-day conversation, that was also a huge obstacle. Secularism kind of made it possible.
I don't see, however, why one cannot do the same with Latin.
I don't see, however, why one cannot do the same with Latin.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The Hebrew Revival didn't take place in a vacuum, it was part of a wide-ranging nationalist. (Indeed, it was only half the project, the pro-Yiddish tendency being for a long time more prominent.) Unless there emerges some equivalent to the Zionist movement which can carry this sort of project along in its wake, then the analogy simply does not function.
Almost literally Dog Latin
It also shows how Latin is quite unwieldy. So many unnecessary syllables to carry genders and cases.
Just wanted to mention that this translates to 'this is how I sodomise'...
Almost literally Dog Latin
It also shows how Latin is quite unwieldy. So many unnecessary syllables to carry genders and cases.
I'd better delete it, before it's too late. Google wasn't very useful.
Not necessarily. Russian, for instance, has changed very little since its birth as a language of literature in early 19th century. There are different accents, but overall it's homogenous throughout the whole huge country. Which is quite remarkable, actually. Compared to, say, Germany or Ireland.
So as long as there are standarts, and an instutution which regulates them, it's gonna be pretty stable, imo.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Hasn't Standard Russian always been a secondary dialect for most people, though? Secondary dialects tend to be more static and homogeneous than primary dialects, because when people speak in them they are moving into a consciously formal register, and so don't allow themselves the same level of flexibility. The Queen's English is pretty much identical from Christchurch to Aberdeen, but you can find half a dozen distinct vernacular dialects in London alone.
I'm no Russian nor do I speak it, but I do know that the language has little dialectic variety (just accent differences mainly, some vocabulary). I also know that the Russian language is very expressive and flexible, and it doesn't do under for English (depth gets reached when civilised people speak it and when the population allows it). The Russians got rid of their dialects and it comes as natural to them to speak standard language and slang only.
Before it became a literary language Church Slavonic was the written language and Eastern Slavic dialects the language of the people.
But English, outside of the UK has little dialectic diversity too, but more than languages like Russian, far less than Dutch or German. I wanted to include French as a similar example, but then I forgot about Canadian French which is very different.
Before it became a literary language Church Slavonic was the written language and Eastern Slavic dialects the language of the people.
But English, outside of the UK has little dialectic diversity too, but more than languages like Russian, far less than Dutch or German. I wanted to include French as a similar example, but then I forgot about Canadian French which is very different.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I would vote English too, but not for any grammatical or lexical reasons.
English is one of the most irregular languages on the planet and. well, it sucks to learn it for that reason. But I'd still vote for it.
Similar threads
