The sneaky roundabout way to reintroduce knowledge of Latin

Baldewin   Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:00 pm GMT
@Thor: Y a-t-il un moyen pour réconstruire les voyelles de l'égyptien ancien? Peut-être à l'aide des stadiums plus recents (comme le copte)? Cette langue me semble très difficile à apprendre, pour ne rien de dire de la relever...
Beaucoup d'historiens l'apprennent pour traduiser les textes anciens en mémorisant seulement les consonants des mots.

@Franco: Yes, Westerners have learned Greek on and off for a long time. Very still, at the height of Hellenism it mainly spread to Anatolia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, India and Egypt (Alexander the Great even considered himself as an Eastern King). Its spread in Western Europe is to be considered marginal until the Renaissance (though Romans have studied it, many were not open to their logic and mathematical knowledge and neglected it, bigotry toward Greek was commonspread among many Romans, because they were jealous at its prestige. Also the split of the Roman Empire and fall of the Western one has cut down the shackles).
Of course Greek is an important language in the history of Christianity as well which has increased its Western association.
Franco   Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:25 pm GMT
Greek is important in the history of Christianity, in Arts, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, Chemistry, Medicine, ... The list is so long. Basically the Western culture exists thanks to the Greeks. They created it.
Thor   Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:07 pm GMT
"Cette langue me semble très difficile à apprendre, pour ne rien de dire de la relever... "

C'est même complètement irréaliste (c'était plus une boutade). Quand on voit les querelles byzantines sur le "latin populaire" vs le "latin classique" (écrit), langue éteinte il y a 1500 ans, comment imaginer relever une langue ayant vécu il y a 3000, voire 4000 ans, le tout sans aucun matériel phonologique. Et si on se base sur le copte actuel pour reconstituer l'ancienne langue, que ce soit pour le vocabulaire ou la phonologie, on n'aura au mieux qu'un "frankenstein" complètement détaché de la réalité ancienne (qui elle, restera à jamais inconnue).
Je ne suis pas expert, mais je suis curieux de savoir dans quelle mesure le norvégien actuel s'éloigne du norvégien ancien qu'on a voulu ressusciter. Même remarque pour l'hébreu moderne.
suggestion   Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:19 pm GMT
Let's reintroduce knowledge of Old Frankish .
.   Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:06 pm GMT
<<Let's reintroduce knowledge of Old Frankish .>>

I'm down for that. Gothic too. The Gothic language of Wulfila is the "Latin" of our leed. Frankish is our French.
Franco   Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:08 pm GMT
English is our English. LOL.
Baldewin   Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:28 pm GMT
It's too bad for us Gothic isn't that well registered and neither is it our ancestral language, it's just a very ancient form of a closely related language.
The lack of significant ancient literature has aided the idea of a 'superiour' Latin culture. It's no coincidence Germanic languages also pick up Latin neologisms even though Germanic equivalents perfectly exist. We don't have a 'common ancient source' like Romance speakers have, which changed the evolution of our language.
Franco   Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:02 pm GMT
The relative sophistication of the Gothic language is due to the fact that they had early contacts with the Greeks when they settled in Eastern Europe, and later with the Romans as they moved westernwards. The Goths were the only Germanic tribe that did already speak Latin when settled in Western Europe, which proves a special ability to absorb the Graeco-Latin culture in comparison to other Germanic nations. Needless to say that Ulfillas had knowledge of the Greek language and translated the Bible from it to Gothic. Other Germanic tribes had much later and superficial contacts with the Romans (the Franks for example) and none with the Greeks. Both were the only sources of civilisation in Ancient times. Maybe the latinisation of the Goths was also theyr condemn as it deprived them from their ancestral spunk and military abilities necessary to expel the Muslisms , so they sucumbed to them. Another stage of Greek influence on the Goths was the late Gothic kingdom in Spain which was heavily influenced by Byzantium. As instance the Goth kings were crowned in a ceremony following the Byzantine fashion. They ended up being a sad caricature of the Greek-Latin cultural world, specially in the most decadent aspects, unable to stand against people more loyal to their ancestral traditions and way of being like the Muslims.
.   Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:16 pm GMT
<<Both were the only sources of civilisation in Ancient times.>>

This is an antiquated view.

Have you never heard of the Nebra Sky Disk, which clearly shows that the Romans and the Greeks were not the only ancient Europeans with a sophisticated culture? The disk is the earliest record of a mapping of the sky by Bronze Eld Europeans (before the Egyptians), and it was found in Germany and proven to be of local origin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_sky_disk
Franco   Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:24 pm GMT
When i talk about "civilisation" I don't talk about being capable of creating more or less sophisticated artifacts like that but for example about systematizing all the available knowledge at those times and storing it in the biggest library of ancient times and millienia to come like the library of Alexandria. That is a true and powerful exercise of civilisation.
Baldewin   Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:40 pm GMT
There's indeed a difference between having technique and having an advanced civilization. In the Middle Ages, also known as the Dark Ages, it was a bad period when it came to intellectual life. Very still, if you look at how clever people were at building fortresses and construction weaponry you can still say these people had technique. The Ancient Germanic also had military technique, but lacked civilization.
This also is correct when comparing the Romans with the Greek. Romans were very efficient when it came to their penal system and administration. They weren't the best mathematicians however and were still less of a philosopher than the Greeks.

Also today I notice Latins are still better/more sophisticated than Germanics when it comes to art. Germanics are better at punctuality, discipline, economics, sciences, etc....
Vinlander   Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:29 am GMT
The greeks were the ones with the knowlege. The romans were all about might and power. There greatness was their massive economy and empire, it was the greatest empire ever but that is all it was. Roman life was generally i believe much worst than germanic, or celtic peoples. They had a superior state, however i wouldn't call theirs lives betters in any way, i'd much rather take my chances at being a poor barbarian, than a poor roman pleb. That is of course before the romans moved into gaul.
The greeks are what define western(greco-roman/white/christian) civilization for the record, regardless of geography.


As far as the revival of Latin. There really needs to be some sort of net movement, like facebook, or myspace, that can really progress language learning in some way. Were in the information age and what information is greater than languages. I would like to see a revivial of gaelic, old english, greek and sanskrit. Any other dieing language as well.
andy   Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:20 am GMT
It's kind of ironic how perceptions of cultures have changed over time. Back in ancient times, southern Europeans/Mediterraneans like the Romans and Greeks were considered the civilized ones on top of the world, bringing culture, science, discipline, and order to the so called barbarians of the untamed world. Those like northern European Germanics and Celts were considered wild, savage, and warlike and their cultures were not as sophisticated. In fact they brought down the Roman Empire and inaugurated an age of darkness that would last for a millennium.

But it seems that in modern times (since the last few hundred years), northern Europeans like Anglos and Germans are considered by some to be more "civilized" or ordered, for lack of a better word, or at least they supposedly show more restraint in their mannerisms, compared to people like Italians and Spaniards, who are sometimes stereotyped as being hot blooded, quick tempered, unruly, vulgar, or even lazy at times. That and in recent times, northerners have supposedly made more strides in the realms of science and technology. It almost seems like the discipline factor was reversed between these cultures. What happened? (I'm not saying any of these things are actually true, it's just how some people generally perceive them. Also, you can look at it the other way and see northerners as being more cold and emotionless as opposed to more warm, family-oriented southerners) I think the rise and fall of civilizations is just meant to happen, like the ebb and flow of the tides, and has more to do with outside forces than personal traits.

And I agree that the Greeks essentially started it all as far as what we would call "Western" civilization, although they too were inspired by Middle Eastern and Mesopotamian cultures. It's also weird how today they're almost perceived as being on the fringe of European society, almost as a connection to the Near East, or at least having some influences from there. I guess the Ottoman domination was a part of that. (Btw I'm not ratting on any of these cultures; I'm part Greek and Italian myself, but I have to acknowledge what I see. To many Westerners the culture seems quite foreign for the place where many of their philosophies of democracy and science came from). Nonetheless they all have great unique things about them and I would visit again soon were it not for the current economic situation.