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