Is Ecclesiastical Latin Gods language? - Page 5

TEPO · #61 Jul 30, '12, 10:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkThompson

It is a shame that this has not yet been pointed out, but the truth is that there is actually no such thing as "Ecclesiastical Latin." People wrote in the Latin of their day, and to talk about religious- and Church-related concepts they invented or imported new words and phrases when necessary. But "Ecclesiastical Latin" is a different species of Latin only in the same way that "Mathematical English" or "Oratorical English" is a different species of English. There is, for instance, no such thing as translating a sentence from "Ecclesiastical" Latin into "regular" Latin. That's because they are the same language. Latin, of course, changed substantially over its history, just like any other living language. In fact, it continues to change somewhat, which is why you are much more likely to see "cum" today where you would have seen "quum" 150 years ago. But this was true of what you would have called "Ecclesiastical Latin" as well. That's because it was just, well, Latin, in which people wrote prayers and otherwise discussed religion.

Well, that's just strange. They made-up so many new "words" they just couldn't stop themselves -so one day they decided to invent a new "name" for their so called "new language"... Yeah, no I don't think so.

IbnFiktur · #62 Jul 30, '12, 10:20 pm

Sir, this is truly going nowhere. I charitably encourage you to consider your viewpoint carefully, read the truly excellent New Advent article free of your personal bias, and think logically about the argument you are making. It truly doesn't make sense. Blessings, I'll be leaving the thread.

dzheremi · #63 Jul 30, '12, 10:29 pm

I am not sure why it seems strange to you, TEPO. Neither "Ecclesiastical" nor "Vulgar" are part of the name of the language -- they describe its function or social context of usage. You should read up on diglossia when you have the chance. For some time the Classical and the Vulgar forms of the language would likely have existed in a diglossic relationship to one another, with the Classical being reserved for certain official uses (as it had an official orthography and standardized pronunciation), and the vulgar being used in the streets by non-elites. Then, starting at some point in history, the vulgar speech of particular regions begin to be codified according to local usage, leading to the development of regional dialects, and from there the modern Romance languages ("Proto-Romance", which linguists hypothesize as the ancestor shared by the modern Romance languages, may have been one of these regional dialects that gained a certain prestige while surrounding dialects died out).

TEPO · #64 Jul 30, '12, 10:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IbnFiktur

Sir, this is truly going nowhere. I charitably encourage you to consider your viewpoint carefully, read the truly excellent New Advent article free of your personal bias, and think logically about the argument you are making. It truly doesn't make sense. Blessings, I'll be leaving the thread.

You've agreed with Mark that there is no such thing as "Ecclesiastical Latin", when the term itself is listed in the trustworthy Catholic Encyclopedia. That's a shame.

IbnFiktur · #65 Jul 30, '12, 10:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEPO

You've agreed with Mark that there is no such thing as "Ecclesiastical Latin", when the term itself is listed in the trustworthy Catholic Encyclopedia. That's a shame.

Do you speak Latin??? I've taken college courses on classical Latin. I can just as easily read Virgil as I can a missal. They are NOT separate languages. It was NOT an intentionally created language. There is NOTHING in the (again, truly excellent) New Advent article to suggest otherwise. Please take a linguistics course.

I'm convinced your trolling at this point (successfully apparently, since here I am again

) but seriously I implore you to research linguistics if you are truly passionate about this. You will find that reality is not nearly as simple as you are suggesting.

TEPO · #66 Jul 30, '12, 11:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IbnFiktur

Do you speak Latin??? I've taken college courses on classical Latin. I can just as easily read Virgil as I can a missal. They are NOT separate languages. It was NOT an intentionally created language. There is NOTHING in the (again, truly excellent) New Advent article to suggest otherwise. Please take a linguistics course.

I'm convinced your trolling at this point (successfully apparently, since here I am again

) but seriously I implore you to research linguistics if you are truly passionate about this. You will find that reality is not nearly as simple as you are suggesting.

You said this earlier: "This new language was not "created." It developed as a result of the rise of Latin theology in the 5th century."

...so they're not seperate languages, but yet one is a "new" language according to you earlier. I point this out because you have made mistakes here just as well as I have. I'm not trying to cause problems, but you have been trying to debate me here when I have no position (or opinion) on this issue. The title of this thread is a question, so obviously I'm not claiming to be a professional, but you do claim this, but you still make mistakes. If you knew it wasn't a seperate language then you should have said that sooner, but instead you let the whole conversation go out of control. I'm here to learn a little and to get people to think a little and to have fun while I'm doing it. So please stop taking this so darn seriously and lighten up a little.

Alfonsus · #67 Jul 31, '12, 12:03 am

Ecclesiastical Latin to Classical Latin is no more new language as American English compared to Victorian English... It is the same language that evolved.

Alfonsus · #68 Jul 31, '12, 12:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEPO

You said this earlier: "This new language was not "created." It developed as a result of the rise of Latin theology in the 5th century."

...so they're not seperate languages, but yet one is a "new" language according to you earlier. I point this out because you have made mistakes here just as well as I have. I'm not trying to cause problems, but you have been trying to debate me here when I have no position (or opinion) on this issue. The title of this thread is a question, so obviously I'm not claiming to be a professional, but you do claim this, but you still make mistakes. If you knew it wasn't a seperate language then you should have said that sooner, but instead you let the whole conversation go out of control. I'm here to learn a little and to get people to think a little and to have fun while I'm doing it. So please stop taking this so darn seriously and lighten up a little.

To be fair, from my perception reading the whole thread, I believe you is the one that let the conversation went out of control.

Baelor · #69 Jul 31, '12, 12:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEPO

I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion, when my whole point is that Ecclesiastical Latin is both non-cultural and non-national in every way...

It is clearly not. It developed from a particular secular language and incorporated particular cultures and purposes into its vocabulary and grammar. Furthermore, it is Latin. It is not a separate language.

Quote:

In fact my point revolves around the concept of that entire language "deriving" from both Latin and Greek combined. Because that's exactly what it is. But at the same time, it is neither. Does that make any kind of sense?

It is not a derivation of Latin and Greek combined. It is Latin with Greek vocabulary thrown in because Latin lacked some technical vocabulary that was necessary.

Saying that it is Latin and Greek combined is exactly like saying that English and English and French combined because we have words like bon vivant and a la carte.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEPO

In the third century B.C. Ennius and a few other writers trained in the school of the Greeks undertook to enrich the language with Greek embellishments."

Ennius was a poet, as were Vergil, Lucan, etc. The Greek "embellishments" were mostly vocabulary, like hymenaeus. The one exception of which I can think is the Greek accusative, used in Latin poetry on occasion. That hardly constitutes changing Latin, especially when such embellishments were used exclusively in poetry for archaizing purposes.

Furthermore, when you read Latin prose masters, you will find that they put in Greek words and expressions in Greek script without any transliteration. This indicates that Greek and Latin were indeed kept separate.

Quote:

This is why Ecclesiastical Latin is held as something special - It's actually neither Latin or Greek but rather it's a thought out and developed language that was created during a very influential moment in time.

It was not created; it developed organically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEPO

Did you read the part where it says: " In the third century B.C. Ennius and a few other writers trained in the school of the Greeks undertook to enrich the language with Greek embellishments"... This is referring to Ecclesiastical Latin, in the third century before Christ.

See above about why this is irrelevant and also taken out of context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEPO

Well, that's just strange. They made-up so many new "words" they just couldn't stop themselves -so one day they decided to invent a new "name" for their so called "new language"... Yeah, no I don't think so.

Words were invented over time and drawn into the language over time in order to describe things that could not be described with the current Latin vocabulary.

That is like saying that since we have had lots of new technological vocabulary in the last twenty years, we have invented a new language. No one would claim that because it simply is not true.

TEPO · #70 Jul 31, '12, 4:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfonsus

Ecclesiastical Latin to Classical Latin is no more new language as American English compared to Victorian English... It is the same language that evolved.

Yes, that is a pretty good comparison. Thanks.

TEPO · #71 Jul 31, '12, 4:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfonsus

To be fair, from my perception reading the whole thread, I believe you is the one that let the conversation went out of control.

And thank you sir for your two cents.

TEPO · #72 Jul 31, '12, 4:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baelor

It is clearly not. It developed from a particular secular language and incorporated particular cultures and purposes into its vocabulary and grammar. Furthermore, it is Latin. It is not a separate language.

It is not a derivation of Latin and Greek combined. It is Latin with Greek vocabulary thrown in because Latin lacked some technical vocabulary that was necessary.

Saying that it is Latin and Greek combined is exactly like saying that English and English and French combined because we have words like bon vivant and a la carte.

Ennius was a poet, as were Vergil, Lucan, etc. The Greek "embellishments" were mostly vocabulary, like hymenaeus. The one exception of which I can think is the Greek accusative, used in Latin poetry on occasion. That hardly constitutes changing Latin, especially when such embellishments were used exclusively in poetry for archaizing purposes.

Furthermore, when you read Latin prose masters, you will find that they put in Greek words and expressions in Greek script without any transliteration. This indicates that Greek and Latin were indeed kept separate.

It was not created; it developed organically.

See above about why this is irrelevant and also taken out of context.

Words were invented over time and drawn into the language over time in order to describe things that could not be described with the current Latin vocabulary.

That is like saying that since we have had lots of new technological vocabulary in the last twenty years, we have invented a new language. No one would claim that because it simply is not true.

It's fine it's fine it's fine. Lets just say I got exactly what I deserved for even starting this stupid thread. I thought it would be fun, but my being dubious bit me right in the butt... As usual.

...and yes, I said dubious!

TEPO · #73 Jul 31, '12, 5:20 am

But in an educational light, what can be said about the language of Hebrew, which was used to construct the old testament in ancient times..? Were the words of that language as equally descriptive as Greek? Maybe there existed an underdevelopment of language that was similar to what we find in Latin -which might explain some of the harshness of tone used in the old testament... Is it possible?

Maybe it also would explain Jesus' use of parables to the Aramaic speaking peoples..

thewanderer · #74 Jul 31, '12, 9:12 am

Ok, maybe somebody answered this and I missed it, but what exactly is meant by 'Gods language'? Are you trying to imply that God Himself thinks in Latin? Or merely that God, in His providence ordained that Latin would have a special role to play here on earth?

TEPO · #75 Jul 31, '12, 10:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewanderer

Ok, maybe somebody answered this and I missed it, but what exactly is meant by 'Gods language'? Are you trying to imply that God Himself thinks in Latin? Or merely that God, in His providence ordained that Latin would have a special role to play here on earth?

I'd like to know why the Latin Mass is so important to so many Catholics if the language itself is not superior or extra Holy in any way. If it were "special" to God, then we should all support it but if God doesn't favor it then why should we.

According to pretty much everyone here, it's nothing special at all, whatsoever.