Print

Print


On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:11:30 +0000, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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.

Jovian is not based on Post-Renaissance Church Latin. It
became its own language around the same time as the 
other Romance languages became mutually unintellegible
and went separate ways (I guess between the 4th and 8th
centuries?).  It is around that time that the revival of CL 
features by a snobby aristocracy would have needed to
take place.

>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 guess Jovian would not be dramatically different if it
were based on Late Latin rather than Classical Latin, 
right? Is there a good online source for the differences 
between LL and CL?


>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.

Yes, the Katharevousa is actually a great analogy to Jovian, 
since it's also an artificially imposed "classicism". However, 
the "cleansing" that produced Jovian happened at the very 
start of the language's evolution from the Romance family
tree, not in modern times. It happened while people were still
considering themselves to speak Latin.

My analogy with the Mormon church was only an analogy in 
response to your "preserved KJB English" analogy. I did not 
mean to suggest that Jovian had that short of a timescale, 
or happen in such modern times.



>> 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.

I don't subscribe to that philosophy either, but the aristocracy
that caused the Jovian language certainly thought like that.
Most modern-day Jervans still do, and are proud of whatever
"ladindade" their language has managed to cling to beyond 
the other Romance languages.

Cheers