Enuf Is Enuf

[ardillacid]

Is it impossible to misspel latin words?

[homeschoolmom]

This really wasn't meant to be debate on the supremacy of Latin.... but if we are going to go that route.... I think you're better off learning Mandarin as the Chinese will be taking over any decade now. I hear they have no love for Latin.

[Anomaly]

I guess the Chinese have got it worse.
The Chinese must have changed their way of writing and spelling and that's why their Country is finally developing.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1376821' date='Sep 3 2007, 01:51 AM']Is it impossible to misspel latin words?[/quote]

Yes, if you know how to pronounce them correctly.

[Brigid]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1376807' date='Sep 3 2007, 01:56 AM']Don't apologize for making perfect sense. You are right. [/quote]
thank you.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']By the "age of faith" I'm referring to the time of St. Pope Gregory the Great (died in 604) until the end of the counter-reformation (c. 1648), the time usually called Mediæval.[/quote]
okay, thanks for clearing that up.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']The reasons why Latin is the best universal language are:
1) It is the official language of the Roman Rite, the rite of the Supreme Pontiff;
2) The majority the documents of the Supreme Pontiffs and Oecumenical Councils are in Latin;[/quote]
okay... these pretty much go together.
[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']3) The translation of the Scriptures from their original languages into Latin contained in the [i]Vulgata Clementina[/i] has been declared by the Church to be without error in regards to faith and morals;[/quote]
I didn't know that... cool.
[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']4) Many of the Early Church Fathers wrote in Latin;[/quote]
this goes with both reasons one and two.
[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']5) Most of the great theological works (such as Summa Theologiæ) are in Latin;[/quote]
goes with one, two, and four.
[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']6) Latin is more precise than many Languages because of its grammar;[/quote]
a pretty big generalization, but I know Latin IS very precise.
[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']7) Many modern languages are descended from Latin or use the Latin alphabet and it is therefore easier to learn for most people than a language which uses another alphabet such as Greek.[/quote]
right... though there are small changes here and there, such as j, w, and u in English.
[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']8) It is not the vernacular of any people and is therefore universal and unchanging.[/quote]
it's not [b]currently[/b] the vernacular of any people - it was once. and I don't think it's possible for a language to be unchanging. if everyone starts speaking it, it will change.

to sum your argument up, Latin would be a good universal language because:
1) It's the official language of the Church, so many documents and theological works (including the Bible) are written in it.
2) It's grammatically precise.
3) Its alphabet is common to many modern languages.
4) It's unchanging.

These are good reasons, but there's a very, very important aspect you're missing - it's not practical or realistic. If we were to seek a universal language, Latin would definitely be a candidate, but I think English or even Mandarin would trump it simply because they're more practical - many people already know them, and many are in the process of learning them.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']By not being understood 500 years in the future, I meant that a language can evolve such a great deal in 500 years that, for example, something that was written in English in 1100 would have been almost incomprehensible to and English speaker who lived in 1600.[/quote]
perhaps... if someone from 1600 looked at something written in English in 1100, they might not be able to comprehend it. however, if they looked at everything written in between, and how the language evolved, it would be much simpler. I don't think this argument is valid.

[kateri05]

[quote]nd I don't think it's possible for a language to be unchanging. if everyone starts speaking it, it will change.[/quote]

this is very true. latin is unchanging now, because by and large, it is a dead language, meaning it is not spoken, read or written in common.

a living language, like English, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, whatever, is a growing and organic thing. it literally changes. as people speak and write, rules come into usage and die out again, based on how people use the language. words and phrases develop new and different meanings with time and culture. hence the term idiom! i'm sure even the ancient romans had colloquialisms

so, if Latin were to again become a living language, it would indeed change and the same thing that happened to English from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Austen could happen again.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1375070' date='Aug 31 2007, 04:55 PM']Pretty much. I don't text, though, and I refuse to talk to people in instant messenger if they constantly use things like "u" and "r" instead of writing out the words. It bugs the snot out of me when they do that.[/quote]
Bugs me too. I type pretty fast with whole words, only because I've excersised the habit.

[quote name='Brigid' post='1376748' date='Sep 2 2007, 11:56 PM']... it bugs me sometimes. it sounds bad, but it pretty much depends on how much I like the person who's doing it. my best friend isn't the best typist, so I end up having to decipher what she says a lot, but I don't really mind, because it's her. if it's someone I'm less than crazy about, I get a little annoyed. I always write out words... occasionally, I'll say lol or brb, but other than that, everything is spelled out and punctuated correctly. well, I do use lots of smilies when I'm on pm, and I always use an overabundance of ellipses. but other than that... [/quote]
I use ellipses a lot. Maybe way too much... oh well...

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376774' date='Sep 3 2007, 12:28 AM']Well, back in the age of the faith, most educated men would have everyday conversations in the vernacular but read, write, debate and discourse in Latin, a language which united all Catholics, especially those of the Latin Church.

I think that works a lot better than having each man read, write, debate and discourse in whatever his vernacular tongue is, because he cannot be understood by all educated men of the world and because he quite possibly will not be able to be understood by those who speak the descendant of his native tongue 500 years into the future.[/quote]


[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376813' date='Sep 3 2007, 02:14 AM']By the "age of faith" I'm referring to the time of St. Pope Gregory the Great (died in 604) until the end of the counter-reformation (c. 1648), the time usually called Mediæval.

The reasons why Latin is the best universal language are:
1) It is the official language of the Roman Rite, the rite of the Supreme Pontiff;
2) The majority the documents of the Supreme Pontiffs and Oecumenical Councils are in Latin;
3) The translation of the Scriptures from their original languages into Latin contained in the [i]Vulgata Clementina[/i] has been declared by the Church to be without error in regards to faith and morals;
4) Many of the Early Church Fathers wrote in Latin;
5) Most of the great theological works (such as Summa Theologiæ) are in Latin;
6) Latin is more precise than many Languages because of its grammar;
7) Many modern languages are descended from Latin or use the Latin alphabet and it is therefore easier to learn for most people than a language which uses another alphabet such as Greek.
8) It is not the vernacular of any people and is therefore universal and unchanging.

By not being understood 500 years in the future, I meant that a language can evolve such a great deal in 500 years that, for example, something that was written in English in 1100 would have been almost incomprehensible to and English speaker who lived in 1600.[/quote]
Yeah Yeah! STM! Preach it brotha!

[quote name='kateri05' post='1377317' date='Sep 3 2007, 09:01 PM']this is very true. latin is unchanging now, because by and large, it is a dead language, meaning it is not spoken, read or written in common.

a living language, like English, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, whatever, is a growing and organic thing. it literally changes. as people speak and write, rules come into usage and die out again, based on how people use the language. words and phrases develop new and different meanings with time and culture. hence the term idiom! i'm sure even the ancient romans had colloquialisms

so, if Latin were to again become a living language, it would indeed change and the same thing that happened to English from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Austen could happen again.[/quote]
Tis all true. An example would be "tomorrow". That used to be two words, "to-morrow". People just dropped the hyphen... oh, and "you" was plural for "thou", "thee", etc.

[Brigid]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1377335' date='Sep 3 2007, 09:25 PM']I use ellipses a lot. Maybe way too much... oh well...[/quote]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1377335' date='Sep 3 2007, 09:25 PM']Yeah Yeah! STM! Preach it brotha![/quote]