This is probably a good spot to advertise the Latin News by Finnish Broadcasting Company, they're downloadable from http://www.yleradio1.fi/nuntii/
Latin falling into disuse
- Thread starter Smellincoffee
- Start date
This is probably a good spot to advertise the Latin News by Finnish Broadcasting Company, they're downloadable from http://www.yleradio1.fi/nuntii/
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
True, all Roman literature from that time is classical Latin, but in that time, the language spoken by the masses of people was called Vulgar Latin (or popular Latin), as the classical Latin was a bit more difficult and polite and used by the elites, politicians, writers, and phylosophers. The people spoke an easier variant of Latin, a bit closer to most Romance languages today.
Felix Luce
Warlord
Yeah, like Romansch is becoming almost an endangered language. To my knowlege, the only country on Earth that counts it as one of the thier official/national languages is Switzerland. It is quite sad.Which are the three Romantic languages from Europe?Last time I checked there were 5 official ones, 6 important ones in total, and over 10 if we count the small ones.
Back on topic, I really, really don't see how this explanation would be plausible...
Edit: Made a stupid mistake in my post.
But I am learning French and Latin, and Latin has helped me in numerous ways, so many that I can't explain. It has really opened my eyes to language and helps me understand even English better.
Felix Luce
Warlord
Yes; "non-classical" Latin, or Mediaeval/Medieval Latin, was used, as you can infer, during the Medieval Ages and was almost more like a Romance language than Latin. Soon after, during Chaucer's time, the Angol decendents spoke a form of English, called Old English, that was a "blend" of French and English. Although some words are recognizable from Old English, most of the text, as you can see if you ever try to read "Canterbury Tales", looks like a foreign tongue.
Shakesphere's English, which is oft confused and thought to be "Old English" (because some associate "Old" as an adjective), is simply a "formalized" version of English, with different sytaxes and pronouns (thou, thy, etc.) and verb tenses (cometh).
Actually, I believe the English of Chaucer's time was "Middle English," with "Old English" being the language of the Anglo-Saxons (which morphed in to Middle English under heavy influence from the Normans after 1066). You're right, though, that Shakespearean English, as different as it may seem, is still modern English.
I didn't say that! I didn't say that some languages are somehow superior to others. I said that I don't see any languages as intrinsically valuable. Of course the knowledge of all languages should be recorded, just as all knowledge should be; and one of the reasons for this is so we can continue to read texts written in those languages. But I don't see any intrinsic value in having them as living languages; I certainly don't see any value in trying to change or influence what languages people speak. It's cultural imperialism, and bad, to try to force speakers of a minority language to change to speaking a majority language - everyone agrees on that; but I think it's equally pointless to try to preserve a minority language, as if it's an endangered species. You say that when a language passes out of common use a way of life - or a part of a way of life - goes forever; but really, so what? Cultures change constantly. That's just life. You can't cling on to the past for ever.
So I would agree with Herder, at least as you represent him. There's no more intrinsic value in some obscure minority language than there is in Mandarin. There's no more intrinsic merit in people speaking Gaelic than there is in speaking English. Because there's no intrinsic value in any of them.[/QUOTE]
Felix Luce
Warlord
Pardon! Hey, anyone can get confused once in a while (speaking of confusion).
But yes, you do get my point; it is very hard to talk to someone about Old English, since they think that you're going to start talking about Hamlet and Othello!
cthom
3,011,451,295
Felix Luce
Warlord
Although Esperanto is an "international language" built upon grammar from a combination of many languages, one does not learn "Esperanto roots" in his English class, does he?
The point is that many things in life, including medical and law jargon, English roots, and the foundations of Romance languages, are impacted by Latin. Even some Indo-European languages, such as Turkish, were slightly impacted (mostly due to the Byzantine/Eastern Roman empires).
For an extension, one could say that Indonesian is a bridge to understanding language; all languages share many of the same philosophies, and even learning Croatian could help you understand Japanese whilst learning it. For me, however, Latin was my choice, helping me learn a language for knowledge of grammar instead of focusing on conversation (e.g. as in French or modern languages).
Felix Luce
Warlord
However, every day hundreds of traditional Catholic churches are abolishing Latin masses in replacement of English (or another modern language). Although almost every word relating to Christianity (e.g. candle, alter, priest) are Latin, the language is slowing slipping away from today's Christian communities.
On the other hand, Hebrew, the traditional language of Judaism, is being taught to members of the Jewish faith regularly as part of almost every worshiper's experience as a Jew, both in its classical and modern forms. I believe that Latin should be a part of young Christians' education, much like Hebrew is in Judaism.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Actually, "priest" along with very many other words relating to Christian belief and practice, is originally Greek. In this particular case, from Gr. presbyteros "elder".
Felix Luce
Warlord
Oh, sorry. But when Christian Missionaries came to the New World, they did spread many Latin religious words.
I'd say that if all Christians were to learn a foundational language connected to their religion, it should clearly be Greek, not Latin. Not only the New Testament but all of the works of the early church fathers were written in Greek, even the ones living in Rome. Not until the time of Tertullian do you get Latin Christian literature, and not until the time of Jerome do you get anything approaching a standard Latin Bible. Moreover, only the Catholic and Protestant churches have a Latin heritage worth speaking of at all.
But I don't see why Christians should have to learn any languages, at least from the point of view of being Christians. Christianity is a "translating religion" that has rarely attached much importance to what language things are in; it is not like Islam, which regards Arabic as a specially holy language because it is the language of the Koran.
But I don't see why Christians should have to learn any languages, at least from the point of view of being Christians. Christianity is a "translating religion" that has rarely attached much importance to what language things are in; it is not like Islam, which regards Arabic as a specially holy language because it is the language of the Koran.
Felix Luce
Warlord
But Jews learn Hebrew to preserve the language. And Judaism is arguably to most reformed Western religion, and certainly is the most open one.
Plus, was it not the presence of Christianity in the Holy Roman Empire that led, after a series of events, including the fall of the Western Roman Empire, that led Europe to the Medieval Ages? And I am not trying to have Christians learn just the language I say; I wish that Christians would try to preserve their roots more carefully. To an extension, Christians could learn Aramaic; but besides for the fact that Jesus spoke it, it had little impact on Christianity today. Although Christianity is a "spreading" religion in that a fundamental belief of its worshippers is to spread the religion, it cannot turn its face upon its heritage. In my opinion.
Certainly Christians ought to be more aware of the history of their own religion. Certainly, also, people in general ought to be more aware of history and of the role of Christianity, as well as other traditions, in their history. And certainly their roots should be preserved, as you put it, but they are being preserved anyway - that's the task of scholars. I don't see what difference it would make if all Christians learned Latin or Greek. What would be the point? Should all English people learn Anglo-Saxon? People can always learn these things if they want to, but it is of only antiquarian interest. When it comes to learning about the history of their own traditions, there are more important things to know than the languages, which are necessary only for specialists.
Pokurcz
Emperor
I wonder if anyone knows what sort of Latin the noblemen spoke in Poland in fifteenth-sixteenth century?
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
I'm guessing that medieval Latin, the same that was used by the Catholic church. I might be wrong though. 
Felix Luce
Warlord
I don't know, but you're probably right. Medieval (Mediaeval) Latin became sort of a "universal Latin," taught to many children in many Western European countries. It was used as a formal language, sometimes for official situations. (I'm sure you, Mirc, know this; I'm just getting it out there for others).I'm guessing that medieval Latin, the same that was used by the Catholic church. I might be wrong though.
Leifmk
Deity
The Roman literature, sure; however, that is not to say that post-classical/medieval Latin literature is not also heavily studied. When I took Latin, the intro courses used about equal amounts of classical and medieval texts, and then later there were separate courses focusing on different periods.
Verbose
Deity
I know you didn't. I was drawing out a very nasty possible conclusion, but not a necessary one. Since it was me pointing it out here, I certainly won't try to hold you to it.
I still think you tend to overemphasise the written word though.
What has been going on is that the modern nation state has spent the last two centuries killing diversity. The nation states are utter bullies in this respect. It's what they do.
It will work out for some languages who become vehicles for a national project, but not for those which don't. Linguistic nations like Welsh caught under a bigger neighbour like England needs to get out from under there and establish a national project of their own asap. Same thing with for instance Finnish and a lot of other languages. We can of course adopt a kind of social darwinist approach to this and say "So what?" and claim that if they fail to become the vehicle for national modernity it's their fault. But I think that would be to misunderstand how modern states operate and what they do to minorities. There's nothing neutral or inevitable about these processes.
As for "clinging to the past" these languages are completely contemporary. There's nothing to indicate Welsh or Sami or whatever can't be an excellent vehicle for modernity, it they're just allowed to be that. The figure of thought relegating them to represent "the past" is always current among the people with the language perpetrating their strangulation. It assumes that history has a progressive direction, and these languages aren't part of it. One can hardly be surprised their speakers tend to fight back as best they can, preferably setting up their own independant nations if possible. When they are inhibited to do so, they tend to languish.
I think Herder would claim they all have equal intrinsic value. It's a culturalist thing.
Similar threads
