It's a quixotic dream, but one I think is quite beautiful. In terms of 'revived' languages used today in everyday life, the most successful one that comes to mind is Hebrew (and there was a strong desire for national cohesion for a newly created state that in part drove its revival). I don't think anything remotely similar exists in Europe today to drive the widespread adoption of Latin, especially as the drive for further European integration in general has been battered in recent years.
Latin is still in daily/weekly use in those Catholic churches around the world that celebrate the traditional form of the Roman liturgy, or use the Latin edition of its modern form. Many clergy and laity alike study, learn and treasure the Latin readings, prayers, chants and hymns that form such an important part of the Western Church's heritage.
In Saint Louis, Missouri, USA we have a church where the traditional Latin Mass is celebrated daily, the Oratory of St. Francis de Sales[1].
If you're not familiar with how the traditional Roman liturgy looks and sounds, there are a number of video recordings online[2].
Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council in 1962, and it ended in 1965 during the pontificate of Paul VI. Karol Wojtyła, who took the name John Paul II, was elected in 1978.
Otherwise, you're correct – most parishes now celebrate in the vernacular (local language), but that's why I included the qualifying phrase "that..., or..."
He knows; he's pointing out that you can go to Latin High Mass / Tridentine Mass in certain parishes in big cities. There's a bunch of places in Chicago that do it once a week too.
I'd share your warm view if it were just adults doing it among themselves. But children rely on the advice of their teachers and aren't yet able to truly make their own choices; I think adults steer them towards these dead languages to satisfy their own nostalgia rather than for the children's benefit. And I think that's wrong.
Latin, literature, algebra, philosophy, history, and geography are all the same. Almost no one will ever use them on the job or for "work" they're almost purely educational.
There's more to life and the world than purely vocational training.
Certainly won't happen anytime soon.
English is certainly the lingua-franca of the modern world and will probably stay that way for a while. While mastering English is hard, you can get quite far with a modicum of English.
Latin is an extremely important language and we should keep teaching it as a large portion of the grammar and vocabulary of Europe's languages derives from it, but it's fraught with complexities that make it really hard to master unless you really want to spend the time and energy to specialise in it; certainly a worthy goal in itself, but not what most people would aspire to.
I spent a good few years studying Latin at one of the last few state-operated high schools in Australia to offer it. Later, I spent a decade in China.
Though I've been to Europe and did find the formality of Latin grammar useful for dalliances with Indian classical language, on the wohle I wish I could have learned Sanskrit or classical Chinese instead.
Europe is young and, in unpopular reality, rather monotonous. It just doesn't feel as philosophically broad-minded or historically interesting as Asia, where so much more has happened and continues to happen.
I agree with your main point, but you're making an unfair comparison. If Latin were an internationally popular language alive today, then I imagine you could also get quite far with bits of broken Latin.
Also, if you think English isn't "fraught with complexities that make it really hard to master", I know an entire nation made (mostly) of people who've been learning English since twelve and still failing miserably at basic reading comprehension...
The true power of English is that you can say it's the de facto lingua franca and everyone gets it : the language seamlessly adapts. Some languages care about purity, e.g. French, whereas English gleefully absorbs new words.
The EU is not going to add Latin as an official language, and it has nothing to do with financial difficulties; every official language of the EU has that status because it is the national language of a member state. In general, the Union is a (con)federation of national states, and adding Latin as a Union-wide language wouldn't really be compatible with that.
Languages are living things. They morph and change, evolve and grow, and die. Latin lives on in English, French, Italian, Spanish and other languages. So in a sense it is not dead. Reading Beowulf (Old English) would not be much less intelligible to a modern audience than reading the Aeneid in Latin. Time changes all languages... and fugit interea, fugit irreparabile tempus, singula dum capti circumvectamur amore.
Edit: that is, "meanwhile it flees: time flees irretrievably, while we wander around, prisoners of our love of detail."
I think it's fair to say that Latin lives on in English, although one might quibble over the definition of "lives on". Old English was derived from a number of closely related Germanic dialects. The English language, however, is a fusion. It was influenced by Old Norse, and borrows from many languages. It has a more-than-significant number of words with Latin roots, beyond, I think, merely borrowings. Latin is used particularly heavily in scientific and legal domains, but Latin roots permeate English vocabulary, and Latin phrases are peppered through common use in various forms -- e.g. "i.e" :-)
>"Where is the liberty of the people?" Mr. Licoppe asked. "Because there are many who want to preserve the study of Latin."
Is it really necessary that I've got to explain that there are also people who don't want to preserve it? Do I have to explain how the idea marketplace, competence, academic freedom and other systems actually works?
The whole idea of embracing Latin for everything is dumb. If Latin were actually a lingua franca, then, like that school completely ignores, linguas francas (francae?) aren't there to replace the mother language (which includes all of the region's folklore), just to complement it when talking to an outsider (that school isn't, it is teaching reticulum interretiale only instead of internet first and then reticulum interretiale).
Also, from a pragmatist point of view, learning Latin today, and either using it as a lingua franca or not is pretty useless (there are exceptions, of course, like Philosophy, law, medicine, etc; but they aren't that important in a day-to-day context).
I am in favor of using Latin in some circumstances. People miss the fact that the great thing about a dead language is that it doesn't change. However, if you write about science in English, for example, you can guarantee that 50 years from now your text will feel dated -- just try to read papers from the beginning of the 20th century. On the other hand, we still can read the great works of antiquity (from 20 centuries ago) in Latin. Also, a lot of scientific works were written in Latin during the renascence, and they are still available to us. Sadly, what is written in English will hardly last for more than a few hundred years. The only saving grace is that future generations will have automatic translation systems that will solve a lot of these problems.
Another issue with English is that it is a very imprecise language. You have to be extremely careful to write precise sentences in it. Latin, because of its grammatical nature, is much easier to handle in this respect. This is the same reason why it is much easier to understand philosophical concepts in German than in English. Just because English is widely understood (due to the cultural dominance of English-speaking countries), it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to use a better language to express ourselves. Latin seems like a natural option due to its large impact on the western world.
> "However, if you write about science in English, for example, you can guarantee that 50 years from now your text will feel dated -- just try to read papers from the beginning of the 20th century. On the other hand, we still can read the great works of antiquity (from 20 centuries ago) in Latin."
Starting as somebody exposed to only modern english, getting off the ground with 17th or 18th century english is going to be much easier than getting off the ground with any latin.
Seriously, I'm not sure what english works you have been reading, but it really doesn't get bad until you get really get back into the mid-17th century or so. Even with 16th century stuff, I would say that most of the difficulty comes from antiquated idioms (and rarely vocabulary). Trouble you had with scientific papers from the early 20th century probably had more to do with your inexperience with the subject matter of the paper, not the language it was written in. Books written in the 19th century are still considered reasonable reading for children today (Twain, Carroll, Dickens, Thoreau, etc.)
Shakespeare from around 1600 is rewarding but pretty much needs a translator into English to be understood by moderns. On the other hand Gibbon writing around the American Revolution in 1776 is modern, and is a very easy read.
The biggest issue you'll find is a variation in what moderns would consider grade level. Modern journalism is not allowed to rise about 3rd grade level reading ability because of the "need" to maximize potential readers aka profit. Bad writing drives out good writing just like bad money drives out good, or some say bad code drives out good code. (or coders?)
Gibbon is at a higher grade level of reading ability than modern average, which is going to be intimidating. I'd say its around high school level. It IS harder than the average newspaper sports page. However its not harder than any modern high school level text. Compared to a college level physics textbook, Gibbon is a pretty easy read.
> Shakespeare from around 1600 is rewarding but pretty much needs a translator into English to be understood by moderns.
Nobody in 1600s England spoke the way Shakespeare wrote. Shakespeare was writing poetry. His plays are famous for their use of iambic pentameter especially, which is beautiful to hear and read but not a natural part of English prose.
To pick another example more-or-less at random from the same era, the work of Thomas Hobbes is much less poetic and, therefore, substantially more readable. The major stylistic difference I can see is that they were absolutely addicted to what we'd now consider overlong, or even run-on, sentences.
Two-hundred year old English is perfectly readable, and it would be entirely impossible to write a paper in Latin on, for example, computer science without very creative reinterpretation.
Torturing English to turn it into a relatively regular language would make much more sense than trying to torture Latin into something remotely adequate for conveying modern concepts.
There is no way to change English into a regular language, unless you create a completely new language. Latin is already a highly regular language by the definition of its grammar.
As for writing CS papers in Latin, there is no reason why you can't do it by importing the existing vocabulary, the same way English imported the vocabulary it needed from other languages.
I can't imagine this growing beyond a fringe movement. Countries are pretty attached to their languages, I doubt it would accomplish more that aggravate eurosceptics: The european nationalism one of the quoted proponents dismisses is a pretty powerful force that hasn't exactly accepted the degree of integration these Latin-advocates envision.
Also, the history in this article is so atrocious I had to write a blog post about it.[1]
The use of Latin would do great damage to the European dream of unity. There's already a great distance between those who (are suppose to) represent the European population and the European citizens themselves. If they started using their own language it'd be like the old days where one could only come close to god via the church because the bible was written in Latin, a language only the men of the church understood. Controlling the language meant great power (as Martin Luther found out when he translated the bible so common man could read it).
The historical social relevance was most of the German peasantry couldn't read or listen to Aramaic at that time. Most of them couldn't understand written German but the stats for literacy were good enough that they'd understand someone reading it aloud.
Its also relevant because of lack of control and a rather concrete expression of rebellion. "We forbid you to do this" "Been there done that". Rabble rousing always happens and never amounted to much; publishing an illegal book was a substantial escalation.
But in the western (roman catholic) parts of europe, the latin vulgata was about the only relevant version of the bible during most of the middle ages. So for practical purposes, the argument is correct.
Trying to preserve a language by '...instead of using the modern Latin word for train (ferrivia), you must write something like vehiculum in binaris ferris currens: "vehicle running on two irons."' is an excellent way to ensure that the language stays dead, permanently.
If people want a 'lingua franca' not based on languages of large nations, then a quick googling seems to indicate that there are much more esperanto speakers than fluent latin speakers...
It's quite a romantic idea and somehow I like it, but it will not happen and should not happen.
There is one language that is understood/used much more in Europe than any others and that language is English, it's also the one language that is understood in most if not all civilised corners of the planet. The cognitive and all other efforts implied to change this would be just too big.
European nations hold dear to their languages, some more than others, but slowly and surely this grasp will weaken: your films are in English, your internet is in English, your smartphone defaults to English, your code comments are in English and so on.
For those who love Latin, English is not such a bad language to use; its lexicon is ~30% based on Latin.
What is criticised (especially from French or German native speakers) is that most European languages are more exact in their wording and grammar than English. Thus translating from English into such a language (French or especially German) often involves interpreting what the author probably meant and express it more exactly. This especially makes automatic English -> German translations particular dreaded for computer-generated translations.
47 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadWe do. Its called English.
I am fine with losing it.
In Saint Louis, Missouri, USA we have a church where the traditional Latin Mass is celebrated daily, the Oratory of St. Francis de Sales[1].
If you're not familiar with how the traditional Roman liturgy looks and sounds, there are a number of video recordings online[2].
[1] http://www.institute-christ-king.org/stlouis/
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c32brXXx5k8
Otherwise, you're correct – most parishes now celebrate in the vernacular (local language), but that's why I included the qualifying phrase "that..., or..."
Latin, literature, algebra, philosophy, history, and geography are all the same. Almost no one will ever use them on the job or for "work" they're almost purely educational.
There's more to life and the world than purely vocational training.
Latin is an extremely important language and we should keep teaching it as a large portion of the grammar and vocabulary of Europe's languages derives from it, but it's fraught with complexities that make it really hard to master unless you really want to spend the time and energy to specialise in it; certainly a worthy goal in itself, but not what most people would aspire to.
Though I've been to Europe and did find the formality of Latin grammar useful for dalliances with Indian classical language, on the wohle I wish I could have learned Sanskrit or classical Chinese instead.
Europe is young and, in unpopular reality, rather monotonous. It just doesn't feel as philosophically broad-minded or historically interesting as Asia, where so much more has happened and continues to happen.
Also, if you think English isn't "fraught with complexities that make it really hard to master", I know an entire nation made (mostly) of people who've been learning English since twelve and still failing miserably at basic reading comprehension...
:b
Edit: that is, "meanwhile it flees: time flees irretrievably, while we wander around, prisoners of our love of detail."
Only through borrowings. English is a Germanic language.
>"Where is the liberty of the people?" Mr. Licoppe asked. "Because there are many who want to preserve the study of Latin."
Is it really necessary that I've got to explain that there are also people who don't want to preserve it? Do I have to explain how the idea marketplace, competence, academic freedom and other systems actually works?
The whole idea of embracing Latin for everything is dumb. If Latin were actually a lingua franca, then, like that school completely ignores, linguas francas (francae?) aren't there to replace the mother language (which includes all of the region's folklore), just to complement it when talking to an outsider (that school isn't, it is teaching reticulum interretiale only instead of internet first and then reticulum interretiale).
Also, from a pragmatist point of view, learning Latin today, and either using it as a lingua franca or not is pretty useless (there are exceptions, of course, like Philosophy, law, medicine, etc; but they aren't that important in a day-to-day context).
Another issue with English is that it is a very imprecise language. You have to be extremely careful to write precise sentences in it. Latin, because of its grammatical nature, is much easier to handle in this respect. This is the same reason why it is much easier to understand philosophical concepts in German than in English. Just because English is widely understood (due to the cultural dominance of English-speaking countries), it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to use a better language to express ourselves. Latin seems like a natural option due to its large impact on the western world.
Starting as somebody exposed to only modern english, getting off the ground with 17th or 18th century english is going to be much easier than getting off the ground with any latin.
Seriously, I'm not sure what english works you have been reading, but it really doesn't get bad until you get really get back into the mid-17th century or so. Even with 16th century stuff, I would say that most of the difficulty comes from antiquated idioms (and rarely vocabulary). Trouble you had with scientific papers from the early 20th century probably had more to do with your inexperience with the subject matter of the paper, not the language it was written in. Books written in the 19th century are still considered reasonable reading for children today (Twain, Carroll, Dickens, Thoreau, etc.)
Shakespeare from around 1600 is rewarding but pretty much needs a translator into English to be understood by moderns. On the other hand Gibbon writing around the American Revolution in 1776 is modern, and is a very easy read.
The biggest issue you'll find is a variation in what moderns would consider grade level. Modern journalism is not allowed to rise about 3rd grade level reading ability because of the "need" to maximize potential readers aka profit. Bad writing drives out good writing just like bad money drives out good, or some say bad code drives out good code. (or coders?)
Gibbon is at a higher grade level of reading ability than modern average, which is going to be intimidating. I'd say its around high school level. It IS harder than the average newspaper sports page. However its not harder than any modern high school level text. Compared to a college level physics textbook, Gibbon is a pretty easy read.
Nobody in 1600s England spoke the way Shakespeare wrote. Shakespeare was writing poetry. His plays are famous for their use of iambic pentameter especially, which is beautiful to hear and read but not a natural part of English prose.
To pick another example more-or-less at random from the same era, the work of Thomas Hobbes is much less poetic and, therefore, substantially more readable. The major stylistic difference I can see is that they were absolutely addicted to what we'd now consider overlong, or even run-on, sentences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
Leviathan: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207
Torturing English to turn it into a relatively regular language would make much more sense than trying to torture Latin into something remotely adequate for conveying modern concepts.
As for writing CS papers in Latin, there is no reason why you can't do it by importing the existing vocabulary, the same way English imported the vocabulary it needed from other languages.
Also, the history in this article is so atrocious I had to write a blog post about it.[1]
[1]http://sdpo.pe/2013/12/which-roman-empire/
The Old Testament is mostly written in Classical Hebrew (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Classical_Hebrew), except for large sections of the books of Daniel and Esra - these are written in Aramaic (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic)
The New Testament is originally written in Koine Greek (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Greek#Biblical_Koine).
The Latin versions are just old translations.
Its also relevant because of lack of control and a rather concrete expression of rebellion. "We forbid you to do this" "Been there done that". Rabble rousing always happens and never amounted to much; publishing an illegal book was a substantial escalation.
If people want a 'lingua franca' not based on languages of large nations, then a quick googling seems to indicate that there are much more esperanto speakers than fluent latin speakers...
[1] http://search.cpan.org/~dconway/Lingua-Romana-Perligata-0.50...
There is one language that is understood/used much more in Europe than any others and that language is English, it's also the one language that is understood in most if not all civilised corners of the planet. The cognitive and all other efforts implied to change this would be just too big.
European nations hold dear to their languages, some more than others, but slowly and surely this grasp will weaken: your films are in English, your internet is in English, your smartphone defaults to English, your code comments are in English and so on.
For those who love Latin, English is not such a bad language to use; its lexicon is ~30% based on Latin.