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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)