I stumbled upon this interesting article. Figured that, at the very least, Mr. Fraggle would find it interesting. I sometimes regret that I have not learned this dead language. It seems to be important on a philosophical and logical basis (the understanding of it seems to open up understanding into so many other things . . . plus it's just good bragging rights). ~String
What is it with Latinophilia? I'm all for delatinizing some aspects of the language. That can be a bit awkward when studying medicine... but it seems obvious that (for example) "low blood glucose" is clearer and no less correct than "hypoglycæmia". It seems to me that if people are keen on preserving a language, they should work on those that are actually in danger of disappearing altogether.
Well, Latin is, kind of. The decline above would be rightly called a genocide if one were killing off ethnic speakers of the language. My brother studied it in high school...and admittedly hated it. But what an interesting world it would be with such an unusual and storied lingua franca.
Latin is in no danger of disappearing. I'm talking about languages that have little or no written form, and few living speakers.
There are merits to learning any foreign language. Of course Latin is a good choice if you wish to read the original writings of Ovid and Cicero, but how many of us actually want to spend our time doing that? Most medieval and early modern scholarship was written in Latin, but Latin was not the native language of those scholars (or of anyone else in those eras) so to read those works in their "original" form is merely to read their own ideas translated into a foreign language. As I have opined before, if you'd like to gain an intellectual advantage by learning a second language (rather than just "bragging rights" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), your best bet is to choose one that is not only unrelated to your native language but as dissimilar to it as possible. Since, for most of us, the vast majority of our important thoughts are formed in words, it stands to reason that the language we have available to think in is going to have a tremendous impact on what we think and how we think. Chinese, for example, has no verb tenses: no present, past or future. Of course it's easy to toss in a word or two like "tomorrow" or "last year" if it's critical to understanding the sentence, but most of the time they get along just fine without them. It's no coincidence that this society also has the world's oldest continuous civilization, anchored by a Confucian world view that discourages change in favor of stability. Why bother putting in a time-word, when what you're saying has always been true and always will be? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, for starters it would help you more accurately determine the etymology of the words you use: Hypo- and glyc- are in fact Greek words, not Latin, for "under" and "sweet." The equally familiar Latin equivalents are cognates--the same Indo-European words with phonetic changes: sub- and dulc-. The gluc- in "glucose" is the same Greek word, just a variant of glyc- via French. Much of our new scientific and technical vocabulary is a mishmash of Latin and Greek roots, such as Greek tele- (distant) crammed onto Latin vision (sight), or Greek auto- (self) joined to Latin mobile (moving). You must love German, which goes to great lengths to avoid borrowing foreign words. They say Fernsehen and Kraftwagen I'm sure more languages have vanished than survived, as nations become larger and assimilate ethnic minorities. Linguists are in a race against time to catalog the remaining native languages of North America. Even tribes that have done a fair job of hanging onto their cultural identity and sense of community have, in all but a few exceptional cases like the Navajo, adopted English. The number of dedicated elders who take the trouble to keep the old tongues alive decreases with every generation. Obviously the same thing happened thousands of years ago when the earliest civilizations spread, when there was no electronic recording technology to preserve them. Go back before the Bronze Age and the technology of writing hadn't even been invented yet!
Icelandic is even worse than German. It is, effectively, Old Norse with some shifted inflections. Eric the Red would be more surprised by the lesbian Prime Minister of Iceland than by the language she used. ~String
I do enjoy some latina immersion! But seriously, my piano teacher who passed away in her 90's recently, used to teach herself latin. I used to see her miles from town walking along in plastic sandals while reading her latin book.
Mmnmmm. Reminds me of that threesome in South Beach back in '97. That was some GOOD Latino immersion as well. ~String
Actually, I'm not fond of any form of intimacy that involves more than myself and ONE other idividual (and sometimes the "just myself" version is perfectly fine). I've had varying combinations from one to five and have discovered that any more than two people is more of a distraction than anything else. Sure, sure, it looks good on paper (or in film, for that matter), but the engineering of such an escapade usually leaves me more frustrated than satisfied (except, that is, for that one spring night at "The Twist" in South Beach. George Michael was right when, back in the late 80's, he said "Sex is best when it's one on one." ~String
I have a suspicion that there would be merit in having all children learn sign language. I'm not convinced it makes any difference in practical communication whether a particular word comes from Latin or Greek. Not at all... what I love is effectiveness in communication; choosing words carefully so that your meaning is understood. At least, I love that ideal... it's hard to put in practice. Borrowing words from other languages is fine. Using an obscure word as a professional shibboleth seems wasteful, or even bigoted. I'm sure you're right. I'm a white Australian with a pastoral heritage... and I'm not sure how to address the conflicts between the proud (anglo) "Aussie" traditions, and the shameful plowing-under of this land's pre-european heritage. Obviously the same thing happened thousands of years ago when the earliest civilizations spread, when there was no electronic recording technology to preserve them. Go back before the Bronze Age and the technology of writing hadn't even been invented yet![/QUOTE]
I retract my overcredulous "Ah". Latin isn't in much danger of loss compared to some native languages, but why must it be one or the other?
The Code of Hammurabi becomes the Code of Justinian (Codex Justinianus) becomes the Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon) becomes the law of Louisiana in the United States and becomes big bits and pieces of law incorporated into law all over the world. Latin is important in courtrooms all over the world to this very day: an ancient and basic legal precept quoted in Latin is hard to ignore. Lawyers use Latin legal phrases in specific ways, so they don't actually need to know Latin, but just think of how embarrassing it would be to use a Latin legal phrase in a grammatically incorrect way in front of a classically-educated jurist. Who would want to be that ill-educated dork? I thought that I could learn Latin easily because of my study and use of Spanish, so I went to my favorite used bookstore and started perusing a few titles. I put them all back on the shelf and left. I think that I got about as far as noun declensions before I decided that Latin is Spanish like English is Sanskrit: related like a crazy uncles overseas, but not terribly similar. Some day, I should learn Latin -- as long as I remain interested in litigating -- but it's going to be an ugly adventure at best.
Is it important for appearances, or for communication? What does Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali mean that you can't say concisely in the vulgar tongue? I think I smells irony, but I'll play it straight anyway... You want the jury to understand what you say, right? So, shouldn't you be more concerned about the jurors who don't understand latin, rather than the one in a thousand who does?
