What's the point?

[procrastinator]

There is nothing inherently more powerful about Latin than Romani, the language spoken by the Roma/Gypsy people.

I totally agree. I think I read somewhere that the Romans thought Ancient Greek was the most elegant and that Latin was a poor man's Greek.

[Lavrentivs]

Certainly, that's what groups like to believe who consider themselves superior to others.
Certè sic habeant classes quae se credunt superae.

Ohne das Pathos der Distanz, wie es aus dem eingefleischten Unterschied der Stände, aus dem beständigen Ausblick und Herabblick der herrschenden Kaste auf Untertänige und Werkzeuge und aus ihrer ebenso beständigen Übung im Gehorchen und Befehlen, Nieder- und Fernhalten erwächst, könnte auch jenes andre geheimnisvollere Pathos gar nicht erwachsen, jenes Verlangen nach immer neuer Distanz-Erweiterung innerhalb der Seele selbst, die Herausbildung immer höherer, seltenerer, fernerer, weitgespannterer, umfänglicherer Zustände, kurz eben die Erhöhung des Typus »Mensch«, die fortgesetzte »Selbst-Überwindung des Menschen«, um eine moralische Formel in einem übermoralischen Sinne zu nehmen.

Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, Was ist vornehm?

[adrianus]

Are you quoting this passage (§257) from Beyond Good and Evil because you want to make a case for what constitutes a good and healthy aristocracy or a noble soul? If I were an aristocrat, I might be interested. I used to read Nietzsche for different reasons. I am not endebted to the aristocracy, and do not seek their patronage. And I have ennobled my soul already.

Citasne hunc locum operis Trans Bonum et Malum nomine cum arguas pro eis quibus bona et sana nobilitas animave nobilis constitutur? Si nobilis classis sim, fortassè id mihi curae sit. Aliter apud Nietzsche legebam. Nullum nobilitati debeo, nec clientelam eâ quaeso. Et jam nobilem feci animam meam.

[KrobinSong]

Also just in case someone builds a time machine and you want to go see the roman empire!

[Dominus]

I think English as your native tongue is the perfect position to judge a elegant language from a barbaric language. Look here:

English - My Lord, My God

German - mein Herr, mein Gott

Latin - Domine, deus meus

I chose German against Latin as that is a perfect oppenent from an English point of view, with our language being made from Latin and German. So you tell me, which looks the nicest. Of course its all down to personal opinion.

Another example (notice the word have/habe/habeo - remembering v and b are often cross-translated with English and foreign tongues)

English - I have a book

German - Ich habe ein buch

Latin - Habeo librum

[adrianus]

It is a matter, indeed, of personal opinion, which one looks and, more importantly I believe, sounds nicer. In my opinion, "deus meus" looks better than "mein Gott" but sounds clumsy and even slightly comical. In barbaric Irish "Domine, deus meus, habeo librum" is "A Thiarna, mo Dhia, tá leabhar agam" [pronounced "A hirna, muh Yia, ta leor agam."] but why would anyone say it looks and sounds less elegant? To my ears, bar the guttural "g", it sounds beautiful! I would imagine that, to the barbaric Celts without written language, the Latin of Imperial Rome sounded devoid of beauty, with plenty of sounds to mock. Certainly, guttural C and G sounds in Latin later become replaced. And insular script in handwriting visually celebrates the word more beautifully than angular forms. The latin of the Romans was far from perfect but tastes change, of course.

Res gustum quidem spectat: quid ex istis ad oculos vel aures (et hos maximè, ut credo) sit praeferendum. Non dulcis auris meis sonus huius "deus meus", immò comicioro modo mihi sonat.
Per hibernicam linguam barbaram totum ità datur "A Thiarna, mo Dhia, tá leabhar agam" , quod verè sonitum iterùm auris meis perbellum est, separatim sonus "g" litterae gutteralis. Quomodò id minùs elegans esse dicere? Sine euphoniâ vel dissonantiarum plena, ut imaginor, lingua imperii Romani plenaque rerum quae illudendae barbaris celticis qui linguam scriptam caruerunt. Certum est, C G soni Romanorum gutterales mutati sunt. Et insularis scriptura modo formosiore formis manûs angulosis verbum celebravit. Certùm imperfecta Latina Romanorum, de gustibus autem non disputandum.

[Grochojad]

Latin - Domine, deus meus

As far as I know vocative of "meus" is "mi".

[...] with our language being made from Latin and German.

Nope

[...]remembering v and b are often cross-translated with English and foreign tongues

Translating letters, that is interesting.

[adrianus]

As far as I know vocative of "meus" is "mi".

The vocative of "meus" is both "meus" and "mi"
Et "meus" et "mi" est meus vocativo casu.

Translating letters, that is interesting.

The letters follow the sounds.
Litterae sonos sequuntur.

[Grochojad]

The letters follow the sounds.
Litterae sonos sequuntur.

Translate the sounds than.

[flamendialis]

in Spain when someone is very smart, we say of him "he knows latin"

[Nooj]

The letters follow the sounds.

Consentio. I find it interesting how easily I say the expression "you pronounce the letters this way".
But of course letters and writing are really a representation of the most important bits of a language, which are the sounds. So in actual fact, the letters pronounce the sounds.

[Dominus]

Nope

Well not technically, but one would consider Aenglish to be mostly composed of Latin based words and Germanic-Scandinavian-Norwegian based words.

[Sinister Petrus]

Nope

Well not technically, but one would consider Aenglish to be mostly composed of Latin based words and Germanic-Scandinavian-Norwegian based words.

I speak a Germanic tongue with some Latin window-dressing. It's much, much more than the words, of which the bigger bit of the work a day words are Germanic. Which is to say, the syntax, morphology and grammar are pretty Germanic, and most quotidian lemmata are of Germanic origin.

To pick a nit: Why are you writing "Aenglish"? I don't know anyone pronounces it with the first vowel as /æ/. While English isn't the most phonetic language in its spelling, I can't, off hand, think of any native words that begin their spelling with ae (though I can think of a few Latinate words that everyone does begin with ae—aeronautics, for one). My forebears, however, spoke Ænglisc. Is that what you meant?

[adrianus]

Personally, I think it a little silly to write Ænglish so.
However, there are hundreds of words in Anglo-Saxon beginning Æ, plus proper names, such as Ælfrid (or Ælftrud).

Meâ parte, ineptius est anglicè "Ænglish" scribere, puto. Sunt autem anglosaxonicè numerosa verba per AE vel diphthongum vel cum diaerese incipiuntur, non minùs nomina propria.

See // Vide http://ia600209.us.archive.org/11/items/AConciseAnglo-saxonDictionary/

[jaihare]

From a practical stand point, I wonder if it is more difficult to learn English. It is my only tongue right now (though I had some French in high school) so I could not judge. I have always heard that English is difficult because the rules have a lot of exceptions and/or alternates. Plus the language is so mashed up between Anglo-Saxon and French that definitions and uses of words are sometimes strange. I only know that I sometimes observe a rule in English that I take for granted but suddenly realize how difficult it would be to explain to someone else!

Actually English is VERY easy to learn, one of the easiest out there.

I'd say that the worst part of English is the tenses (not the verb forms, for heaven's sake, but the tenses themselves). It's confusing for ESL learners how there can be so many tenses to distinguish time in English.

For example, in Hebrew (I teach English to Hebrew and Russian speakers for a living) there is a system of only three tenses (that is, in modern Hebrew) – past, present and future. There is also one compound tense (similar to "would + verb" in English) that's used for hypotheticals, but they don't consider a tense. It takes a long time for a Hebrew speaker to acquire the difference between "went," "have gone," "have been going," "had been going" and "had gone." As a native speaker growing up, I wasn't aware that we had so many tenses in English!

The noun system in English is extremely easy, even with the irregular plurals. The simple verb tenses are quite easy, except for the insertion of the meaningless "do"/"did" in negatives and interrogatives.

Overall, I would agree that learning BASIC FUNCTIONAL English is quite easy. That is, one can arrive at a good level of functionality with the present simple, present continuous, a few modals, future simple, past simple and present perfect (the minimum for a lower intermediate level of English) without much struggle. That's enough to get you through a job interview and to make day-to-day communication tolerable (though not altogether comfortable).

Good English, however, comes as the result of hard work and dedication, however. I wonder if the same could be said about attaining some level of fluency in Latin?

[jaihare]

The letters follow the sounds.
Litterae sonos sequuntur.

Translate the sounds than.

Did you mean "then"?

[Dominus]

Nope

Well not technically, but one would consider Aenglish to be mostly composed of Latin based words and Germanic-Scandinavian-Norwegian based words.

To pick a nit: Why are you writing "Aenglish"? I don't know anyone pronounces it with the first vowel as /æ/. While English isn't the most phonetic language in its spelling, I can't, off hand, think of any native words that begin their spelling with ae (though I can think of a few Latinate words that everyone does begin with ae—aeronautics, for one). My forebears, however, spoke Ænglisc. Is that what you meant?

I was a little bit drunk that night, I did mean Ænglisc.

[jaihare]

I was a little bit drunk that night, I did mean Ænglisc.

Ænglisc is the name of Old English specifically. Is that right? You're not talking about modern English but the form of the language before the 12th Century, right? Were you aware that Wikipedia is in Old English here, though it doesn't have too many articles?

[Dominus]

I was talking of old english, but I prefer to call it Ænglisc, even in modern day English, its just a historical quirk of mine, I prefer to use Old English words sometimes in modern English, never mind, back on topic. Because I know Latin (via French) wasn't really introduced into English after 1066. So there was no Latin, or very little due to the Anglo-Saxon dominance of Britain after the lack of Roman presence.

[beerclark]

I'd say that the worst part of English is the tenses (not the verb forms, for heaven's sake, but the tenses themselves)......

For example, in Hebrew (I teach English to Hebrew and Russian speakers for a living) there is a system of only three tenses (that is, in modern Hebrew) – past, present and future. There is also one compound tense (similar to "would + verb" in English) that's used for hypotheticals, but they don't consider a tense. It takes a long time for a Hebrew speaker to acquire the difference between "went," "have gone," "have been going," "had been going" and "had gone." As a native speaker growing up, I wasn't aware that we had so many tenses in English!

Good point! I was trying to remember some examples I've heard of in what I thought was difficult. Yours seems to be one of them.

Another issue I thought people have with english are the use and pronunciation of many words. To get straight to the point, look at the word "bow". And add to the mix "bough" and "beau". Aside from the definition quagmire, how do you easily explain the different pronunciations of "bow" to someone?

Along these lines, I have had some people [who spoke multiple languages] tell me that spelling of words is not nearly as difficult in other languages as it is in english.

But all that said, I understand your point that learning the basics to get around are not so difficult. Someone completely messing up on the above points is still going to be understood by most english speakers or at least get by. I guess the Devil is in the details!

[Alan Aversa]

Much of the world's greatest wisdom is written in Latin, e.g., the easy-to-read Latin works of St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Do you not want to be wise?

[adrianus]

Learning latin to become wise doesn't sound wise to me, Alan.
Latinum discere ut sapiens fias non sapiens mihi videtur, Alane.

[Sceptra Tenens]

Nevermind the fact that the stupidest Roman knew Latin fluently.

Not to detract from your point, but surely the "stupidest Roman" didn't speak the same Latin that we study, at least not any more than I speak Legal English. Of course, not even all intelligent Romans necessarily knew, so far as I know, the ins and outs of the classical dialect; it doesn't take education to be intelligent, but certainly intelligence is required in order to be educated?

[Baker]

What is the point of learning Latin? I say learning Latin is a way to be human. It is not the only way.

So far, the answers given have revolved around three reasons for learning Latin. The first is that it is useful. This reason took many forms. See above. The second reason is a hidden one; hidden because we, at least most of us, respect a certain sense of humility. That reason is that we like the way it makes us look in front of others. It gives us, as is sometimes said, "bragging rights." The feeling of this self-importance was felt by more than one reader, I suspect, but best isolated by Nooj:

Of course the world's been affected by Latin. But is it such a big deal if we are ignorant of this influence? ... This website actually seems to be implying that we must learn Latin, or at least that it should be strongly encouraged, since if we do not, we'll be living in great shame and ignorance. Really guys? I can't agree with that.

I imagine that my observation of this second reason will meet with derision. But if you truly read Latin for personal enjoyment and fulfillment, you have no need to defend your activity in a public forum. Why are you doing so if not to meet with others who will say, "Yeah, you're right!" And if that is true, then there is at least some desire for recognition of your activity from others. I will call this the desire to learn Latin for the sake of adornment.

Lastly, there is the argument from beauty, as I will call it. This is the part that I think needs more exploration and is the best reason to study Latin (or Greek, Euclid, Shakespeare, Mozart, the Upanishads, Rembrandt, etc.) When we think something is beautiful, and wish to study it intently, we are acting most human. We are not concerned with use or ornament and in that way we are not acting as all other animals. We are doing something for its own sake. What it is to be this strange thing we call "human" is a wonderful question in itself, and deserves consideration, but most importantly, I think, we must know that there is such a being, that it is different, and that it is worthy to be one.

As an example of this "third way," I particularly want to point to the following:

it also seems plausible to me that an aristocratic culture will tend to develop its language into something inherently more beautiful and intelligent, as it is more open to the spirituality and poetry of language, its being something different from and more than a means of communication.

Certainly, that's what groups like to believe who consider themselves superior to others.

Lavrentivus' comment often meets with something like adrianus' response. But I think there is an important truth here. Societies where at least some citizens have the leisure to pursue an activity for its own sake are acting in a uniquely human way. We may wonder at the complex rituals of ants or bees, but we will never see the queens sitting down to enjoy their meals while their servants entertain them with a comedy or a sonata. As such, I do not wish to use the loaded word, superior, but do think that some groups act more human than others when they focus on the poetry of language versus its use in getting them a job.

Eliot

[Sceptra Tenens]

I imagine that my observation of this second reason will meet with derision. But if you truly read Latin for personal enjoyment and fulfillment, you have no need to defend your activity in a public forum. Why are you doing so if not to meet with others who will say, "Yeah, you're right!" And if that is true, then there is at least some desire for recognition of your activity from others. I will call this the desire to learn Latin for the sake of adornment.

Since you do not want me to defend my own position, I will simply say that I have not met very many Latinists who seem to have any sort of inflated ego.

[adrianus]

Lavrentivus' comment often meets with something like adrianus' response. But I think there is an important truth here. Societies where at least some citizens have the leisure to pursue an activity for its own sake are acting in a uniquely human way. We may wonder at the complex rituals of ants or bees, but we will never see the queens sitting down to enjoy their meals while their servants entertain them with a comedy or a sonata. As such, I do not wish to use the loaded word, superior, but do think that some groups act more human than others when they focus on the poetry of language versus its use in getting them a job.

A queen sits down to enjoy her meal, while her servants entertain her. The queen is acting more humanly than her servants because she's enjoying the entertainment for its own sake while it's their job to entertain and she's not a bee. Nice.

Regina quaedam considit ut prandeat, dum servi oblectant. Humaniùs quam servi agit regina, quae oblectamento in ipso fruetur et negotium servorum oblectare. Porrò, apis non est regina. Placet.

[MatthaeusLatinus]

Placet et mihi. Nos reges/reginae sumus omnes!

[timeodanaos]

I hope Baker's intention was something about human nature wanting to pursue aesthetic goals and the inability of most of all humans all through history to do that because of intense labour, and not to start a debate about class struggle. I personally don't think Latin and class struggle necessarily have anything to do with each other, although I have recently learned that it was brought up as an argument in the debate in Denmark of 1978/79 when the government replaced obligatory Latin in ninth grade with an hour of extra history and an hour of extra exercise: Latin gives the children of the Working Class an opportunity to make the elitist Bourgeois culture their own, thus eliminating a part of the old feudal/capitalist system of repression.

[Baker]

My point, if there was one, was to encourage further thought on what it is to be truly human. Doing something because it is useful or so as to show it off is not acting in a uniquely human way. That is not to say that we do not need to act in those ways in order to live but that acting in those ways is merely living and not living as a human being.

My point is never to start a debate, if by that you mean a back and forth where one side could "win". Rather I wish to provide a small amount of fuel to make the collective fire grow brighter.

[MatthaeusLatinus]

Here is food for thought: do you think that if Latin were mandatory for absolutely everyone, at least in the West, would it make general thinking and ideas more "common", i.e. less multiculturalism, for instance?

[timeodanaos]

general thinking and ideas more "common", i.e. less multiculturalism

General thinking, I hope so. Less multiculturalism, I hope and think not.

[adrianus]

My point, if there was one, was to encourage further thought on what it is to be truly human. Doing something because it is useful or so as to show it off is not acting in a uniquely human way. That is not to say that we do not need to act in those ways in order to live but that acting in those ways is merely living and not living as a human being...I wish to provide a small amount of fuel to make the collective fire grow brighter.

It's far from illuminating, instead a fallacy, to say that someone who does something useful is not living as a human being because doing useful things is not uniquely human. This is just a straight contradiction.

Contrarium illuminandi immò fallax est dicere non ut humanum vivere eum qui utilia faceat quod non solum utilia faceat humanum animal. Haec est clara et justa contradictio.

[Baker]

It's far from illuminating, instead a fallacy, to say that someone who does something useful is not living as a human being because doing useful things is not uniquely human. This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

You will have to illuminate for me how you understood what I said. I was repetitive so as to illustrate my point in two slightly different ways, but I was not fallacious. From the way you state it above, it is a truism, not a fallacy. If we assign it as such:

A = doing something useful
B = living as a human being

you have,

If A, not B
Yes A,
Then not B.

I should clarify that, by saying "living as a human being," I meant the same as "acting in a uniquely human way." Perhaps you were taking those to be different things. As such, "living as a human being" should be, "living as only a human being can," which is what I meant by "uniquely." Even so, as you restate what I said, it is not a fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Eliot

[adrianus]

I should clarify that, by saying "living as a human being," I meant the same as "acting in a uniquely human way." Perhaps you were taking those to be different things.

They don't mean the same, but you mean them to loosely, so OK. Similarly, to be truly human doesn't mean to be uniquely human (I'm truly human despite what I do) but you may mean that in a loose way.
Synonyma non sunt at sic ea laxè esse audeas. Licet. Eodem modo, verum humanum non significat unicus humanus (verus humanus sum, separatim quod faciam) at sic forsit vis laxè dicere.

Doing something because it is useful or so as to show it off is not acting in a uniquely human way. That is not to say that we do not need to act in those ways in order to live but that acting in those ways is merely living and not living [in a uniquely human way].

So a medical doctor or a scientist doing something useful in helping someone else to live through science is not acting in a uniquely human way and is merely living?
Medicusne vel physicus tunc qui rem utilem facit in vitâ alii sustinendo per artem suam non unico et humano modo agit et dumtaxat attenuatè vivit?

Is written communication not useful and unique to humans?
Nonnè humanum solum et utile est systema communicandi scriptum?

Is cooking useful and uniquely human?
Coquere, estne utile et humanum solum?

Even so, as you restate what I said, it is not a fallacy of denying the antecedent.

No it isn't. That's why you'll see I had already adjusted this to call it a "straight contradiction"
Non est. Eâ ratione, vide, id jam mutaveram et claram et justam contradictionem vocaveram.

[Baker]

I'll accept your clarification and only focus on "in a uniquely human way" but lets minimize it now that we, I think, understand what we mean by that. Lets say that when we write "acting qua human," we mean "acting in a uniquely human way."

A medical doctor, insofar as he is doing something useful, is not acting qua human. The means by which he does something useful is separate. A mother bear can also help her cub to live, a useful act, but she will not use "science" to do so.

Communicating is doing something useful. Doing it by means of writing is acting qua human.

Preparing food for consumption is useful. Using heat as means of preparation is acting qua human.

Eliot

[adrianus]

So one can do useful things in a uniquely human way, and useless things in a uniquely human way. Nor is the pursuit of aesthetic pleasures useless, nor is play useless. And all classes have pursued them in various ways, whatever nonsense is claimed for "high culture". I'm a fan of high culture but I'm not so stupid I can't see art in the gutter. Humanus sum, nihil humanum mihi alienum est. You don't need to be "more human" than another to say that, nor can you be. As for bees, without possibility of communicating with the species I've no idea how sophisticated they are aesthetically or at play, if they do play, so it seems rather absurd to claim superiority over them out of ignorant prejudice. If superiority means having life and death control over their existence, even then, we might conceivably be able to exterminate bees but we would suffer as a species without them (given their role in pollination), whereas they surely would not miss us. In bee terms, we certainly count as the planet's most silly, self-destructive parasite.

Tunc potest qui humanus utilia facere, non minùs et inutilia modo speciei suo proprio. Nec inutiles deliciae vel ludi adsecuti. Porrò multimodis omnes classes omnia adsequuntur et negligo eos qui superiorem classum superiorum humanitatem esse postulant. Fautor sum artum altarum; non autem tam stultus quod artem humillimis in locis non aspiciam. "Humanus sum, nihil humanum mihi alienum est." Non "humanior" dicitur, nec dici potest. Demagìs de apibus, sine communicandi inter specibus possibilitate, quantum cultae sint apes locis aestheticis ludicisque (siquidem ludunt) ignoro. Quocirca absurdum est nos eis superiores clamare quoniam tanta ignota manent, tantas avias colimus. Si superior is qui opem vitae mortuique supra alium habet, fieri potest nos apes exterminare capaces esse, sine apibus autem quae pollen tranferant nonnè patiamur, atqui profectò eae nos non requirant. Quoad apes, eae sine dubito nos parasitum ineptissimum sui-perniciosissimum in terrâ ducunt.

[Baker]

See above for my explicit avoidance of the word "superior."

You say that because you cannot communicate with a bee, you cannot know "how sophisticated they are aesthetically or at play." And yet the following statement is a recognition that humans are different than bees in a "silly" sort of way; almost as if you do understand how a bee might see us and recognize the inseparable rift between us.

In bee terms, we certainly count as the planet's most silly, self-destructive parasite.

Eliot

[MatthaeusLatinus]

Haec disceptatio mihi valde placet.

[adrianus]

I forgot you were an expert on bees, Baker.
Oblitus sum te apum peritum esse, Baker.

we will never see the queens sitting down to enjoy their meals while their servants entertain them with a comedy or a sonata

I wouldn't have the confidence to suggest that.
But thanks for complimenting my insight. I ventured what I did say with much more confidence.
Id non dixissem qui audaciae egeam.
Gratias autem ob blanditiam de acuitate meâ. Quod dixi multùm audaciùs ausus sum.

It is silly, indeed, in terms of bees, in any terms, to act in a uniquely human way by destroying your environment by waste and greed.
Stultum quidem est locis apum, quibuscunque locis, modo unico humano circumjectum abutendo aviditateque perdere.

Truly, you didn't say we were superior to bees, you preferred to avoid that and suggest we were just more human than bees, in casting light on the subject. Nor did you say that some groups of humans are superior to others, but "some groups act more human than others".
Verum est, non dixisti nos superiorem apibus, sic vitare voluisti, modò nos humaniores esse quasi suasisti in rei illuminando. Nec dixisti aliquos hominum greges aliis superiores esse sed aliis humaniùs agere.

[Baker]

Nor did you say that some groups of humans are superior to others, but "some groups act more human than others".

Is this not true?

Eliot