What I want to say is that its importance is only philological and liturgical. Also linguistical of course. Mainly the latter... No one should be speaking it as a contemporary language, except for these who have the hobby of reviving a dead tongue and speaking some modernized form (thus it has a recreational use as wel).
Does Latin have any usefulness nowadays?
Evolution doesn't mean, "getting more complex". Besides, it's wrong to lable Romance languages as "Simplified Latin". The fact they're to different makes it all the more interesting to study it's evolutionary process from Vulgar Latin.
I personally don't view the Latin language as superiour to it's daughter-languages. The Romans have done a great job in making the position of Italic languages as strong as they are today.
I'm curious how English will sound in 1500 years. I'll never know. ^^
I personally don't view the Latin language as superiour to it's daughter-languages. The Romans have done a great job in making the position of Italic languages as strong as they are today.
I'm curious how English will sound in 1500 years. I'll never know. ^^
How come Romance languages are simplified? For the contrary, they're richer now, also with new sounds.
Yes
England: Person A studies Latin at High School.
Germany: Person B studies Latin at High School.
Years later while travelling they meet and find out that they have a language to communicate with each other in. Something like this is a true storey.
England: Person A studies Latin at High School.
Germany: Person B studies Latin at High School.
Years later while travelling they meet and find out that they have a language to communicate with each other in. Something like this is a true storey.
Romance languages did not evolve from Latin.
That has always been assumed amid much speculation, and the speculation continues today.
Romance languages are more dissililar to Latin than they are like it.
That has always been assumed amid much speculation, and the speculation continues today.
Romance languages are more dissililar to Latin than they are like it.
Romance languages did evolve from Vulgar Latin, the language spoken by people. Classical latin and Vulgar Latin can be considered different languages. Classical Latin was a kind of an artificial language , so if you think that Romance Languages had to evolve from Classical Latin to derive from Latin, the answer is no, they don't derive from Latin, but if you consider Vulgar Latin, yes, they derive from Latin and the changes that provoked the transition from Vulgar Latin to Romance are well attested .
<<Romance languages did evolve from Vulgar Latin, the language spoken by people. Classical latin and Vulgar Latin can be considered different languages. Classical Latin was a kind of an artificial language , so if you think that Romance Languages had to evolve from Classical Latin to derive from Latin, the answer is no, they don't derive from Latin, but if you consider Vulgar Latin, yes, they derive from Latin and the changes that provoked the transition from Vulgar Latin to Romance are well attested . >>
"Classical Latin" and "Vulgar Latin" were made up terms invented in order to explain a derivation of Romance from Latin.
All we know is that Classical Latin was a language, at one time understood and spoken.
What I want to know is the relationship between this "[Classical] Latin" and "Vulgar Latin". Separate languages? Yes, definitely. But was Vulgar Latin a child of Latin?
"Classical Latin" and "Vulgar Latin" were made up terms invented in order to explain a derivation of Romance from Latin.
All we know is that Classical Latin was a language, at one time understood and spoken.
What I want to know is the relationship between this "[Classical] Latin" and "Vulgar Latin". Separate languages? Yes, definitely. But was Vulgar Latin a child of Latin?
As far as law goes, there are only so many phrases one has to learn, so I would hardly say it's a prerequisite, although it is helpful.
Classical Latin was never spoken by people, and probably if you said "equus" to a Roman person from the I century he would not understand you because he said "caballus". Vulgar Latin did exist, see the numerous inscriptions and graffitti in Pompeii. This is the language the Romans did speak and was considerably different with respect to Classical Latin. It already had Romance traits. Classical Latin was an artifical language created by intellectuals but not a a real means of communication aside from writen works.
<<Classical Latin was never spoken by people,>>
Not even in the early days of Rome?
Really? *"Never"*?
Perhaps then Indo-European was never spoken by people either
the ultra-polished form of Latin perhaps was a literary only, like bokmal, but this was still understood by people, otherwise who would write in it?would seem rather pointless to me.
Not even in the early days of Rome?
Really? *"Never"*?
Perhaps then Indo-European was never spoken by people either
the ultra-polished form of Latin perhaps was a literary only, like bokmal, but this was still understood by people, otherwise who would write in it?would seem rather pointless to me.
The grammar of PIE was far too complex to have been spoken by ordinary people.
Navajo is extremely complex, but its native speakers don't seem to have trouble speaking it.
<<The grammar of PIE was far too complex to have been spoken by ordinary people. >>
LOL
but they learned how to talk that way, so it was no more complicated to them as using prepositions is to us
PIE was actually spoken, and prolifically so
I know, it's hard to imagine
LOL
but they learned how to talk that way, so it was no more complicated to them as using prepositions is to us
PIE was actually spoken, and prolifically so
I know, it's hard to imagine