Print

Print


On 06/01/2014 02:10, Christian Thalmann wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 15:20:42 -0800, Padraic Brown wrote:
>
>> For all practical purposes, Ecclesiastical Latin is
>> identical with Classical Latin (though with rather
>> more alleluias and fewer futatrices).

I have already commented on this in an earlier email.
Post-Renaissance Church Latin has been influenced by the
Classical language; even so, it is not the same.  This is
still less true of medieval Church Latin.

>> As I understand it, the Latin of the Vulgate is the
>> same as the Latin of other written works of the age.
>
> Oh, good, that makes everything easier!

Does it?  The Latin of the Vulgate is not the Latin of
Caesar & Cicero, it is what is known as 'Late Latin', which
was the Latin of the 4th century AD.

I don't know when the genesis of Jovian is supposed to have
taken place; from what I understand now, it is not meant to
be a direct descendant of Classical Latin, but to be
descended from a _revived_ Classical Form (maybe rather like
the Katharevousa of 19th and 20th century Greece?); so I am
rather confused at what is going on.

> I was under the impression that EL was already quite a
> ways downhill from CL.

_Downhill_!!! You mean in the same way that modern literary
English is way downhill from Shakespeare!

I abominate the view that at some particular time in history
a language reaches 'perfection' and that all that follows is
downhill.

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
If /ni/ can change into /ɑ/, then practically
anything can change into anything.
[YUEN REN CHAO]