[Potemkin]

But can we say latin is dead then?

Yes. Borrowing words from a dead language does not magically revive it. No-one today speaks Latin as their native language.

[Alexandros]

Then why do you make language such a big issue in this topic? What relevance does language have in this thread? Latin is a dead language, Greek apparently is not. Ergo, in the context of this thread, the point of you discussing this must be... ? Roll eyes

Firstly I didn't make anything out of it, the language factor was being discussed prior to my participation in this thread and would have ended had you seen the evident but the complexes won't allow you to accept that you're wrong.

You would correct in your assumption if I actually cared about what someone said on the internet; especially in such a trivial issue as this.

Obviously not trivial, otherwise you wouldn't have resorted to petty provocations by throwing that "nationalist" title..

If every Jamaican started speaking English as is spoken by the Queen, Jamaican English would effectively be dead. English however would remain. "Middle" English is dead, English is not. Regional and temperal variants can come and go, yet if the language in other forms survives and is used, the language continues...................Latin circa -100 BCE.............

Your example of Jamaican english isn't totally accurate. While Jamaican english does indeed derive from english "proper", it is mutually intelligible by all english speakers indifferent of the "variant". However French, Spanish, Romanian, Italian while all derive from Vulgar Latin are not, hence why they're classified as separate languages and not as dialectic forms of the same language nor as some evolutionary phase of a single language

Growth and development could be interpreted as the death/End of an earlier stage, but the process does not kill that which is growing.

As long as you see that the previous stage ceased to exist, I'm quite fine with this interpretation of it.

[Doomhammer]

Yes. Borrowing words from a dead language does not magically revive it. No-one today speaks Latin as their native language.

No one speaks it as a native language but there are people who speak it. If it is spoken, it is not dead.





Hatw bouta igp atinl? Eadd?

[Potemkin]

No one speaks it as a native language but there are people who speak it. If it is spoken, it is not dead.

There are scholars who can speak ancient Sumerian. Does this mean that ancient Sumerian is not a dead language? To try to argue that Latin or ancient Assyrian or Sumerian are not dead languages is simply intellectual perversity. If no-one speaks a language as his or her mother tongue, then it is a dead language. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Thunderhawk]

Your example of Jamaican english isn't totally accurate. While Jamaican english does indeed derive from english "proper", it is mutually intelligible by all english speakers indifferent of the "variant".

My english is rather good, its become my mother tongue since I was ~7. I however, cannot understand the stronger version of Jamaican English. I have Jamaican friends who speak with an accent - that is standard English with an accent and speach pattern. Jamaican English, "I and I", "bumbclit", etc.. is considered English, but it is not interchangable with standard English of Toronto, London, etc..

As long as you see that the previous stage ceased to exist, I'm quite fine with this interpretation of it.

I recognize the previous stage no longer exists as it was. None the less, it was simply a stage in development.

[M.ta]

As already provided by definition a "dead language" is that which bears absolutely no native speakers, so when you prove that the Latin language is taught not for purely educational purposes but to bestow them with the absolute essentials for communication in their everyday lives, then and only then is your argument considered of some value.

There are scholars who can speak ancient Sumerian. Does this mean that ancient Sumerian is not a dead language? To try to argue that Latin or ancient Assyrian or Sumerian are not dead languages is simply intellectual perversity. If no-one speaks a language as his or her mother tongue, then it is a dead language. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Hmmm... some would object that it is not exactly the same. And I think you may be wrong.

There isn't any place where you'll find people (be they even scholars) speaking in Sumerian or Assyrian as a common, vehicular language.
And you won't find any contemporary texts or documents printed in Sumerian nowadays. I mean: texts relating to contemporary events, still printed in Sumerian.

Yet all this still happens in Latin. Which is still used as an official language for texts and documents in Vatican, and which is spoken as a sort of lingua franca by religious members - even if not by all of them, of course.
Don't forget that Latin is among the official languages spoken in Vatican, by the way, as others have pointed out.
And - I can assure you - it is really spoken by some priests not sharing the same mother tongue.

During a holiday in Rome I was staying at a hotel near Vatican City, where various priests, sisters and religious members form all over the world where staying as well, and while having breakfast I was bemused to overhear conversations being held in Latin as well as in other languages.

Would you find something similar with people using Sumerian or Assyrian or another dead language for communicative purpose?


Here is an article where a Latinist laments that Latin is almost extinct, dying out (which means... not already dead):

Latinist laments 'dying language'

One of the world's foremost scholars in Latin has said he believes the language is dying out.
Father Reginald Foster, who was appointed the papal Latinist 38 years ago, says Latin is almost extinct.
He says priests are no longer compelled to study it at seminaries and find it impossible to read important theological texts.
Father Foster has also condemned the loss of Latin teaching in schools across most of Europe.

'Missing out'
Father Foster has just opened a new Latin academy in Rome near the Pantheon, in his final effort to preserve the official language of the priesthood.
He hopes to attract 130 students a year.

But the chief Latinist, who has translated speeches and letters for four popes, says he can see no future for the language he is teaching and has been forced to acknowledge that Latin is dying out.
The reason is that more junior members of the Catholic hierarchy are less enthusiastic about Latin than the recent Popes.
At the Vatican, bishops appointments are still written on papyrus in Latin as are letters of congratulations from the pope, but many bishops and cardinals write back asking for translations.

He has also condemned the loss of Latin teaching in Europe.
In Italy, most schoolchildren are still taught Latin for at least four hours a week until they are 18.
But in other European countries it has been replaced by the more modern languages.
Father Foster believes that without Latin they are missing out on important elements of history.
"St Augustine thought in Latin, you can't read his text in English, it's like listening to Mozart through a jukebox," he says.

Reports that Pope Benedict XVI might re-introduce Latin mass are way off the mark says Father Foster, not least because of the pontiff's desire to avoid more controversy.
In any case, he says, it just makes the Vatican look medieval. Father Foster does, however, propose a solution - he has called on the Pope to lead by example.
Instead of a siesta, he says, Benedict should announce that he will be reading Latin in his Vatican quarters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6308281.stm

[Thunderhawk]

Church Latin is a branch of older Latin. It too has changed from the older forms.
The official usage of Latin by the Catholic church is probably why Italian is called Italian, and not (modern) Latin.

[M.ta]

I was speaking about Latin. I didn't even mention Italian.

[Thunderhawk]

As I dont view languages as set static pieces (except those that are stagnent) I consider Italian one development of the Latin language continuum.

[noemon]

Latin is considered dead because there is no ethnic-group that carries this language. The Vatican is not an ethnic-group.

Italian is not Latin because of the loss of various word-endings and noun cases.

Italian is officially classified as another language and Latin is officially classified as "dead".

Arguing against this is officially impossible.

[Christian Lion]

I must say I find noemon's determination to hold the line on ANY and EVERY possbile argument favourable to the greeks (who are they anyway?) quite laudable but amusing at the same time.

Now on to the topic at hand I will say that whilst the GREEKS? undoubtedly influenced the thinking of the western world though philosophy and the sciences I have always believed their contributions to society to have been overstated. The greeks were a semi artificial starting point (popularised only in the past few centuries) by people eager to infer thier own history through roman and then greek rootes (byron). Quickly glorifying, romanticizing and exaggerating the impact of greek history and culture upon us. Our view of history is so warped from an early age about Greece? and its importance. It's almost a singlular argument, all we are taught, all we know, our starting point if they are to be believed is greece. Because of this Greek? culture can be viewed in nothing other than a positive light, there was no light before. Our concept of the historical 'known world' is greek simply because of a lack of our own history. This completely invalidates the arguments of neomon and many others as we are started from a sqewed basis, and as he would say have no 'point of reference' other than the greek.

To the question of the thread, I would argue that the Roman Empire was far superior to any greek(empire??) military, linguistic or political contribution. I can understand noemon arguing that culturally the greeks might have been superior the the romans, but I cannot for the life of me understand how he could ever argue that militarily they were.

Even if we are ASSUMING Alexander the Great was a greek? a short lived series of conquests has absolutely nothing on what is thousands of years of roman supremecy and influence. From the republic to the fall of constantinople.

How noemon can argue that the Eastern Roman Empire was greek is beyond me. The very nature and heart of the empire was emphatically roman from the political and social mores to the actual founder himself.

Anyway enough of my rant on the GREEKO-centric obsession of our society.

[Doomhammer]

^^ Christian Lion, you've basically articulated all my thoughts in one post.

*looks around and sees storm clouds accumlating* Zeus (and his underlings) will smite you though.

[noemon]

"To the question of the thread, I would argue that the Roman Empire was far superior to any greek(empire??) military, linguistic or political contribution. I can understand noemon arguing that culturally the greeks might have been superior the the romans, but I cannot for the life of me understand how he could ever argue that militarily they were."

Argue first, and then comment....

The greeks were a semi artificial starting point (popularised only in the past few centuries)

For this you must argue analytically to substantiate artificiality. EDIT: Can you explain dear Sir how almost 2 million people at the start of the century were forcefully deported for Greece from Turkey? The Greek political presence in Turkey was short-lived 1920-22. Did we manage to semi-artificially convince all these people that they were Greeks within 2 years of military activity in Asia Minor specifically, while Greek refugees came from Istanbul and Pontos, too. Why does everybody loves to call the Greeks non-Greeks? Is it something the cool people do, nowadays?

Too much talk, no arguments....



EDIT: As for this and Imperium Greacorum:

Even if we are ASSUMING Alexander the Great was a greek?

One must really have a distorted view of History, and maybe issues after the series of evidence that have been presented around, to try to argue the non-Greekness of the Hellenic Empire or of Imperium Greacorum.

[noemon]

And something i will clarify for those that it is needed.

My attempt to "hold the line", has nothing to do with the Romans and their achievements.

It has to do with the constant negation of the Hellines.


If the Hellenic Empire and the Byzantine were ruled by the same ethnic-group which is the same ethnic-group that rules over Greece at the moment. Then the Greeks are hands down superior than many others. And this hurts plenty.

Noone in this thread has brought any arguments that actually compare the Greeks and the Romans. The only arguments that have been brought against the Greek arguments is the non-Greekness, nothing else. Now, the ones who are able to read, are able to make their own conclusions too.

[unknown_GR]

that is vogue,

greex started it, then romans continued and then again greex continued in the byzantine empire.

often, we the greex, call ourselves as romioi (romans) and turks are calling us Rum. I guess that there is strong linear btw greece and roman civilisation, hence dont try to find differences.

it will be interesting to make a comparison btw greek-roman civlisation and jewish-christian-islamic civlisation.

[Efstratios]

Greeks! By far....
Greeks created philosophy, the arts, science etc..
Look at Alexander the Great, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes..

And don't forget our brave soldiers <3

[Potemkin]

Congratulations, Efstratios! You've managed to raise this old, dead thread back to life. Now if only you could apply your miraculous life-giving powers to the Latin language, I feel sure that Doomhammer would be eternally grateful....

[Doomhammer]

[JohnRawls]

HOLY NECROPOST !

Was a funny thing to read this thread from the start . Oh our greekish champion of pofo .

[Imperatrix_Iuliana]

This topic is not that interesting but there it goes... As an archaeologist I would say that both were important and played a crucial role in the construction of the western world. The origins of both Roman and Greek societies happened in the same basic environment (Mediterranean) and there were interaction between them. Not forgetting that greeks were already highly evolved (concerning science, philosophy, politics, arts,...) when the romans started to acquire their identity as a state, it is important not to forget that the romans learned a great deal of things not only from them but also from other civilizations from the Italian Peninsula and North of Africa (Carthage). This kind of simbyosis is quite visible in the similarities we can pinpoint between not just romans and greeks but a great number of different societies in antiquity. As the question was who was better... Well it depends. Better in what? I have to say that if we talk about philosophy obviously the greeks ruled. But when we turn to army and military tactics and also to architecture I have to say the romans were much much better. One aspect I value from the greeks is their mythology and the cult of the hero. I think is very poetic and beautiful and the romans don't have many things we can compare (Ovid and Virgil being some of the exceptions). But one characeristic of the romans was pragmatism and practicality. It's like poetry and law. It is possible to see that clearly in their approach to religion, contrary to the greeks, who had real faith in the Gods and Godesses, religion for the romans was something practical, necessary and with very rigid rituals. So I think it is impossible to answer that question without ignoring important elements that made us, as a society, what we are today.