Semantics of Semantics
After last week's topic, I decided to delve deeper into the matter, and to view the perspective of someone who believes in the current definition of a dead language, as well as Latin's classification within it. Mr. Black reasonably doesn't deny that some claim that the language is alive and developing, but he makes a point to clearly delineate the difference between a successfully TAUGHT language and a DEVELOPING one. He goes on to express how the fall of Latin derived from the fall of the Roman Empire itself, but also with nothing to unite the continent, there was no need for a uniform language. So slowly, over a period of hundreds of years, Latin began to change as different regions developed their own dialects and idiosyncrasies.
Eventually, each of these would become unique enough to be made a language of their own.
Although Mr.Black makes a valid point, while also respectfully acknowledging the opposing view, he begins his very argument with the statement, "Calling Latin a dead language is a matter of semantics". Just by adressing the question, "Why did Latin become a dead language", he acknowledges the language as life-less, contradicting his previous impartial claim. He expresses the possibility, through others' opinions, of Latin being considered "living" but then denys the same claim in his following statements. Does this web of contradictions and skewed lines of stance on the matter not shadow the complexity of this language debate?
Black, K. (April 13, 2012) "Why Did Latin Bcome a Dead Language?". Conjecture Corporation. Retrieved on May 20, 2012 from http://www.wisegeek.com/why-did-latin-become-a-dead-language.htm
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Definitions
Dead Language: noun A language that is no longer learned as a native tounge.
Clear and cut, by this simple definition, Latin is a dead language. It is no longer learned as a native tongue. End of story. Right?
Wrong. If that were that, and it was an "end of story" situation, there wouldn't be so much controversy as to whether or not Latin was a dead language. So another origin of this dispute should be researched, the definition of a dead language. Of the large contingency of "pro-living" Latin believers, I would dare say many, through their blogs, academic journals and videos, have contrasting definitions from this finite one. Through various claims and proposals of those whom I have researched in previous writings, several points have been made as to what qualities of Latin should prove it to be "alive".
So who is to say that all the facts and strong arguments made cannot override this constricting definition? What's to say that under someone else's definition of a dead language, Latin wouldn't fit into the criteria for a "living" language?
So I ask you, looking back upon all the valid claims that have been made, and all the research that has been done, who has the right to define Latin's state as a language. Moreover, do you think that this definition of a dead language is fitting/fair?
Dead Language. (n.d.). WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved May 13, 2012, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dead language
Dead Language: noun A language that is no longer learned as a native tounge.
Clear and cut, by this simple definition, Latin is a dead language. It is no longer learned as a native tongue. End of story. Right?
Wrong. If that were that, and it was an "end of story" situation, there wouldn't be so much controversy as to whether or not Latin was a dead language. So another origin of this dispute should be researched, the definition of a dead language. Of the large contingency of "pro-living" Latin believers, I would dare say many, through their blogs, academic journals and videos, have contrasting definitions from this finite one. Through various claims and proposals of those whom I have researched in previous writings, several points have been made as to what qualities of Latin should prove it to be "alive".
So who is to say that all the facts and strong arguments made cannot override this constricting definition? What's to say that under someone else's definition of a dead language, Latin wouldn't fit into the criteria for a "living" language?
So I ask you, looking back upon all the valid claims that have been made, and all the research that has been done, who has the right to define Latin's state as a language. Moreover, do you think that this definition of a dead language is fitting/fair?
Dead Language. (n.d.). WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved May 13, 2012, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dead language
Sunday, May 6, 2012
NOT "pro bono"
The editorial, "Try to go a Day Without Latin" takes an interesting approach on the use of the Latin language in modern societies, prompted by the banning of Latin words and phrases in official documents in certain towns in England. All of the alterations that would have to be made to long-standing, traditional phrases are empahsized as ones not "pro bono". Renaming the "status quo" to "the situation in which" is one example, as well as lawyers having to make a "request for the body" instead of "habeas corpus". The author continues to list similar instances of inconvenient amendments to our language of life."It might be true that Latin is a dead language, but it is alive and well throughout the English and other European languages. To ban it would be to get rid of English’s heritage and add a burden of unnecessary words to our everyday talk" as he/she states.
Frequently I observe how often and successfully Latin is implemented in modern languages, so this week I decided to take an opposing route to see what our language would be like WITHOUT Latin. The problem is, it is so ingrained into English that trying to translate every Latin phrase we use everyday would not only be an extremely arduous task but one that would be detrimental to the English language as a whole. Not only would deep exclamations such as John Wilkes Booth's “Sic semper tyrannis!” (after shooting President Lincoln) lose it's gravity, but some phrases would be lost in translation altogther. Therefore, like oxygen for humans, it is necessary for English to have Latin in order to "breathe".
Regarding this analogy, Latin would then represent Oxygen, a non-living element. Would this mean then that Latin would not have to be a "living" language in order for it to play such an important role in another? In other words, although I conclude in the above paragraph that Latin is necessary in some aspects of the English language, does that unconditionally mean it's "alive"?
The Herald Bulletin (November 20, 2008) "EDITORIAL: Try to go a Day Without Latin". Retrieved May 6,2012 from http://heraldbulletin.com/opinion/x518836264/EDITORIAL-Try-to-go-a-day-without-Latin
The editorial, "Try to go a Day Without Latin" takes an interesting approach on the use of the Latin language in modern societies, prompted by the banning of Latin words and phrases in official documents in certain towns in England. All of the alterations that would have to be made to long-standing, traditional phrases are empahsized as ones not "pro bono". Renaming the "status quo" to "the situation in which" is one example, as well as lawyers having to make a "request for the body" instead of "habeas corpus". The author continues to list similar instances of inconvenient amendments to our language of life."It might be true that Latin is a dead language, but it is alive and well throughout the English and other European languages. To ban it would be to get rid of English’s heritage and add a burden of unnecessary words to our everyday talk" as he/she states.
Frequently I observe how often and successfully Latin is implemented in modern languages, so this week I decided to take an opposing route to see what our language would be like WITHOUT Latin. The problem is, it is so ingrained into English that trying to translate every Latin phrase we use everyday would not only be an extremely arduous task but one that would be detrimental to the English language as a whole. Not only would deep exclamations such as John Wilkes Booth's “Sic semper tyrannis!” (after shooting President Lincoln) lose it's gravity, but some phrases would be lost in translation altogther. Therefore, like oxygen for humans, it is necessary for English to have Latin in order to "breathe".
Regarding this analogy, Latin would then represent Oxygen, a non-living element. Would this mean then that Latin would not have to be a "living" language in order for it to play such an important role in another? In other words, although I conclude in the above paragraph that Latin is necessary in some aspects of the English language, does that unconditionally mean it's "alive"?
The Herald Bulletin (November 20, 2008) "EDITORIAL: Try to go a Day Without Latin". Retrieved May 6,2012 from http://heraldbulletin.com/opinion/x518836264/EDITORIAL-Try-to-go-a-day-without-Latin
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Oh Latin, "Mater" figure
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TPh03KsGrAA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Though much of the video, "Latin and it's Indo-European Language Family" focuses generally on Latin and it's relation to certain languages, there are many key points that are made regarding the major influence that Latin has on current romance languages. Even when presented with the same word in languages that are not closely related to/dependent upon Latin, ties are made by factors as small as one-letter changes. Additionally, the impression is given, through the many connections made between Latin vocabulary and that of said romance languages, that such languages would not exist as they do, would not be spoken as they are, without Latin.
Within the video, it is stated that over 800 million people speak a language derived from Latin. That's astounding! Impressive numbers aside, this is clear evidence that Latin is not dead, as it has merely changed, and these new languages, like french and spanish, are but "modern forms of Latin" as the narrartor claims. We can't forget to pay homage to Latin for serving as a parental figure of languages, so to speak, and to give it the proper credit for it's contribution to modern languages. we metaphorically plagerize, and copy off the language without citation, and so many people today don't truly know how much Latin has and will effect the language they speak everyday.
Latin clearly is a piece of many languages, languages which are typically also derived from various others. How do you think this fact will affect how long these types of languages will last, if at all?
latintutorial. (March 13, 2011) "Latin and it's Indo-European Language Family" Retrived April 29, 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPh03KsGrAA
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TPh03KsGrAA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Though much of the video, "Latin and it's Indo-European Language Family" focuses generally on Latin and it's relation to certain languages, there are many key points that are made regarding the major influence that Latin has on current romance languages. Even when presented with the same word in languages that are not closely related to/dependent upon Latin, ties are made by factors as small as one-letter changes. Additionally, the impression is given, through the many connections made between Latin vocabulary and that of said romance languages, that such languages would not exist as they do, would not be spoken as they are, without Latin.
Within the video, it is stated that over 800 million people speak a language derived from Latin. That's astounding! Impressive numbers aside, this is clear evidence that Latin is not dead, as it has merely changed, and these new languages, like french and spanish, are but "modern forms of Latin" as the narrartor claims. We can't forget to pay homage to Latin for serving as a parental figure of languages, so to speak, and to give it the proper credit for it's contribution to modern languages. we metaphorically plagerize, and copy off the language without citation, and so many people today don't truly know how much Latin has and will effect the language they speak everyday.
Latin clearly is a piece of many languages, languages which are typically also derived from various others. How do you think this fact will affect how long these types of languages will last, if at all?
latintutorial. (March 13, 2011) "Latin and it's Indo-European Language Family" Retrived April 29, 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPh03KsGrAA
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Latin and Math, Languages Alike
Building on the topic of discussion in the previous blog, the contents of "Latin and Math, The Best Way to Develop Your Child's Mind" refer to how Latin, as a faction of classical studies, is an integral part of students' education. The question of it's vitality is addressed even so by the author, seen as a living language through it's prevalent influence on the romance languages. Additional evidence provided includes how modern works are being translated INTO Latin, and so the translation of ancient texts is not the only form of Latin discernable. As the article proceeds, the subject of math relating to Latin by the learning structure of a langage is presented. This concept is then built upon, with further suggestion that it is the very method of studying Latin that is what's aiding in the advancement of SAT scores, english skills, and thought processes alike of students.
through this article the connection between the method of studying Latin and it's vitality as a language comes into question. "It is formation, not information" as Lowe states. In any given subject one can be taught information, maybe to be retained (maybe not). But regardless, it's not deemed necessary to retain the knowledge beyond the date of the test on the matter, therefore serving ineffective to the student. Latin, however, requiring the absorbtion and retainment of all information presented (as a cumulative course of study), promotes and enhances the formation of higher-level thinking skills applicable to english grammar as well as everyday life. Similar to the conclusion of the previous analysis, it seems as though the Latin language remains both evident and enduring due to it's ability to transform the minds of students, or at least to have some kind of definable affect, to this day.
What other subjects do you think have a learning structure more related to that of languages?
Lowe, Cheryl. (2006) "Latin and Math, The Best Way to Develop Your Child's Mind". Retrieved from http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Latin-Math.pdf
Building on the topic of discussion in the previous blog, the contents of "Latin and Math, The Best Way to Develop Your Child's Mind" refer to how Latin, as a faction of classical studies, is an integral part of students' education. The question of it's vitality is addressed even so by the author, seen as a living language through it's prevalent influence on the romance languages. Additional evidence provided includes how modern works are being translated INTO Latin, and so the translation of ancient texts is not the only form of Latin discernable. As the article proceeds, the subject of math relating to Latin by the learning structure of a langage is presented. This concept is then built upon, with further suggestion that it is the very method of studying Latin that is what's aiding in the advancement of SAT scores, english skills, and thought processes alike of students.
through this article the connection between the method of studying Latin and it's vitality as a language comes into question. "It is formation, not information" as Lowe states. In any given subject one can be taught information, maybe to be retained (maybe not). But regardless, it's not deemed necessary to retain the knowledge beyond the date of the test on the matter, therefore serving ineffective to the student. Latin, however, requiring the absorbtion and retainment of all information presented (as a cumulative course of study), promotes and enhances the formation of higher-level thinking skills applicable to english grammar as well as everyday life. Similar to the conclusion of the previous analysis, it seems as though the Latin language remains both evident and enduring due to it's ability to transform the minds of students, or at least to have some kind of definable affect, to this day.
What other subjects do you think have a learning structure more related to that of languages?
Lowe, Cheryl. (2006) "Latin and Math, The Best Way to Develop Your Child's Mind". Retrieved from http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Latin-Math.pdf
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Use and Life : One in the Same?
This informational paper not only addresses the existence of Latin in the curriculum, but also it's benefits and positive effects towards "improving English skills, facilitating the learning of another foreign language, and improving critical thinking skills" (Devane, 1997). Throughout the history of education, various factions of Latin, such as grammar, composition, and conversation have not only been implemented, but required as well. The language's presence in the classroom has not gone unnoticed, as much research has been done to prove how Latin can not only increase scores on standardized test, but jointly aid in the enhancement of important higher order thinking skills, a broader cultural and humanistic perspective, communication skills and, thereby, one's social and economic opportunities and self-image.
Yes, the purpose of this blog is to focus on whether or not the language itself is alive, or dead. But maybe it's state in modern language can be defined by it's effects.
"the SAT Verbal average for those taking the Latin Achievement Test . . . was 144 points higher than the national average for all students. . . . Moreover, while national SAT Math averages also dropped slightly . . . , Latin Achievement Test participants scored . . . 122 points higher than the mean for all students." (lafleur, 1980). "In Washington, students who had taken a foreign language and Latin scored in the 58th percentile on their English vocabulary level, while those with no foreign language scored an average percentile of 28" (Mavrogenes, 1977). By facts like these within the paper, on can deduct that kids are not only learning latin, but are retaining it and applying it to other facets of their education. Latin is not just present in the sense that it is being taught, but also in the sense that it is being learned.
So do the results of learning Latin count as evidence of it's "life"? Why or why not? And if so, does the same concept discussed relate to other subjects in life?
Devane, Alice K. (1997) Efficacy of Latin Studies in the Information Age. Retrieved on April 14, 2012 http://teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/latin.html
This informational paper not only addresses the existence of Latin in the curriculum, but also it's benefits and positive effects towards "improving English skills, facilitating the learning of another foreign language, and improving critical thinking skills" (Devane, 1997). Throughout the history of education, various factions of Latin, such as grammar, composition, and conversation have not only been implemented, but required as well. The language's presence in the classroom has not gone unnoticed, as much research has been done to prove how Latin can not only increase scores on standardized test, but jointly aid in the enhancement of important higher order thinking skills, a broader cultural and humanistic perspective, communication skills and, thereby, one's social and economic opportunities and self-image.
Yes, the purpose of this blog is to focus on whether or not the language itself is alive, or dead. But maybe it's state in modern language can be defined by it's effects.
"the SAT Verbal average for those taking the Latin Achievement Test . . . was 144 points higher than the national average for all students. . . . Moreover, while national SAT Math averages also dropped slightly . . . , Latin Achievement Test participants scored . . . 122 points higher than the mean for all students." (lafleur, 1980). "In Washington, students who had taken a foreign language and Latin scored in the 58th percentile on their English vocabulary level, while those with no foreign language scored an average percentile of 28" (Mavrogenes, 1977). By facts like these within the paper, on can deduct that kids are not only learning latin, but are retaining it and applying it to other facets of their education. Latin is not just present in the sense that it is being taught, but also in the sense that it is being learned.
So do the results of learning Latin count as evidence of it's "life"? Why or why not? And if so, does the same concept discussed relate to other subjects in life?
Devane, Alice K. (1997) Efficacy of Latin Studies in the Information Age. Retrieved on April 14, 2012 http://teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/latin.html
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Vendit Vidit Vicit!
"How Latin Outlived The Romans" provides the reader with a brief outline on the language's origin, evolution, and common uses today. It is believed that the pure size of the Roman empire at it's peak is a heavy contributing factor to the survival of Latin, as it woud have been mixed with the dialect of various conquered lands to produce many new languages. Furthermore, frequently-used terms of law, biology, medicine, initialisms, and Christianity derive straight from Latin i.e. (no pun intended) "in loco parentis", a law term referring to those having responsibility of a certain child "in place of the parent". Where the article does mention a certain boundary that classical Latin has today, as much of the original vocabulary is irrelevant to modern day vernacular, it follows with an entertaining short story, filled with commonly used latin mottos and phrases, evidence of the language's prevalence.
I am introduced yet again to the entertaining view of Adam Pulford on the Latin language and it's place in our world. There was a certain line that really enlightened me and made me look at the term "dead" (when referring to language) in a new way. "Ultimately, it is clear that Latin isn’t dead – because languages do not live and die, but rather evolve and disperse their influence into ‘new’ languages" (Pulford, 2011).
Evolve. Evolution. Like the evolution of man-kind. The "Evolution" of the Latin is passionately discussed amongst believers and non-believers alike of it's existence as a "living" language. But here they talk, as do I, as if it's matter of alive or dead. We are doing an injustice to the language by discussing it's existence not only as if there were no grey area, but in the wrong manner altogether. Pulford is right. There is no need for such terms when really "evolved", the one so poorly misunderstood, is most apt of all. Regarding man-kind, we don't declare the neanderthals of prehistoric times as exstinct (the equivalent of "dead" in reference to language), we simply state that they are the former us. That we are the result, the evolved form. What if Latin is the same? It's not extinct, no not by a long shot. But do we see our hairy ancestors running around exactly as they were millenia ago? No! Just as we shouldn't expect to see Latin exactly as it was years past.
So I pose this question to any and all, Is Latin nothing more or less than just, evolved? Are the terms of my question, "dead" and "alive" irrelevant altogether?
Pulford, A. (2011) How Latin Outlived the Romans. Retrieved on April 8, 2012 from http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/09/how-latin-outlived-the-romans/
"How Latin Outlived The Romans" provides the reader with a brief outline on the language's origin, evolution, and common uses today. It is believed that the pure size of the Roman empire at it's peak is a heavy contributing factor to the survival of Latin, as it woud have been mixed with the dialect of various conquered lands to produce many new languages. Furthermore, frequently-used terms of law, biology, medicine, initialisms, and Christianity derive straight from Latin i.e. (no pun intended) "in loco parentis", a law term referring to those having responsibility of a certain child "in place of the parent". Where the article does mention a certain boundary that classical Latin has today, as much of the original vocabulary is irrelevant to modern day vernacular, it follows with an entertaining short story, filled with commonly used latin mottos and phrases, evidence of the language's prevalence.
I am introduced yet again to the entertaining view of Adam Pulford on the Latin language and it's place in our world. There was a certain line that really enlightened me and made me look at the term "dead" (when referring to language) in a new way. "Ultimately, it is clear that Latin isn’t dead – because languages do not live and die, but rather evolve and disperse their influence into ‘new’ languages" (Pulford, 2011).
Evolve. Evolution. Like the evolution of man-kind. The "Evolution" of the Latin is passionately discussed amongst believers and non-believers alike of it's existence as a "living" language. But here they talk, as do I, as if it's matter of alive or dead. We are doing an injustice to the language by discussing it's existence not only as if there were no grey area, but in the wrong manner altogether. Pulford is right. There is no need for such terms when really "evolved", the one so poorly misunderstood, is most apt of all. Regarding man-kind, we don't declare the neanderthals of prehistoric times as exstinct (the equivalent of "dead" in reference to language), we simply state that they are the former us. That we are the result, the evolved form. What if Latin is the same? It's not extinct, no not by a long shot. But do we see our hairy ancestors running around exactly as they were millenia ago? No! Just as we shouldn't expect to see Latin exactly as it was years past.
So I pose this question to any and all, Is Latin nothing more or less than just, evolved? Are the terms of my question, "dead" and "alive" irrelevant altogether?
Pulford, A. (2011) How Latin Outlived the Romans. Retrieved on April 8, 2012 from http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/09/how-latin-outlived-the-romans/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)