The name “vulgar” simply means “common”; it is derived from the Latin word vulgaris, meaning “common”, or “of the people”. “Vulgar Latin” has a variety of meanings to Latinists:
It means variation within Latin (socially, geographically, and chronologically) that differs from the perceived Classical literary standard. As such, it typically excludes the language of the more educated, upper-classes which, although it does include variation, comes closest to the perceived standard.
It means the spoken Latin of the Roman Empire. Classical Latin represents the literary register of Latin. It represented a selection from a variety of available spoken forms. The Latin brought by Roman soldiers to Gaul, Iberia or Dacia was not identical to the Latin of Cicero, and differed from it in vocabulary, syntax, and grammar.[1] By this definition, Vulgar Latin was a spoken language and “late” Latin was used for writing, its general style being slightly different from earlier “classic” standards.
It means the hypothetical ancestor of the Romance languages (“Proto-Romance”). This is a language which cannot be directly known apart from through a few graffiti inscriptions; it was Latin that had undergone a number of important sound shifts and changes, which can be reconstructed from the changes that are evident in its descendants, the Romance vernaculars.
In an even more restrictive sense, the name Vulgar Latin is sometimes given to the hypothetical proto-Romance of the Western Romance languages: the vernaculars found north and west of the La Spezia-Rimini Line, France, and the Iberian peninsula; and the poorly attested Romance speech of northwestern Africa. According to this hypothesis, southeastern Italian, Romanian, and Dalmatian developed separately.
“Vulgar Latin” is sometimes used to describe the grammatical innovations found in a number of late Latin texts, such as the fourth century Itinerarium Egeriae, Egeria’s account of her journey to Palestine and Mt. Sinai; or the works of St Gregory of Tours. Since written documentation of Vulgar Latin forms is scarce; these works are valuable to philologists mainly because of the occasional presence of variations or errors in spelling that provide some evidence of spoken usage during the period in which they were written.[1]
Clearly, this is not a term one should just throw in without explanation. Item 2 is my personal preference, as you might notice. The statement “Jerome wrote in Vulgar Latin” does not fit well any of the definitions listed. Hence my objection. Frankly, it was meant as a commonplace remark.
Okay. I wrapped up Ecclesiastical Latin. After Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, Latin is pretty easy. Well, Ecclesiastical at least. So now I move on to Classical. I have some gret books from here downloaded. However, I want a physical book also, that I can take anywhere. But, sadly, right now I cannot even afford a little Classical Latin Grammar. But I got one donated to me. It is from the 1950’s. Old I know. But Latin is a little older so it can’t be too off. It’s called “Latin for Americans”. The term “American” scared me at first. But it just means it shows a lot of similarities in our gevernment as Rome. Okay, cool. It appears to be a High School book perhaps. I’ve heard bad things about them, but it seems cool. I can do tons of lessons a day out of it, so it’s not bad. But today I read something shocking. I was wondering if anyone had any input on it. It is especially shocking, considering my languages I’ve already studied. It said that Latin was originally a Semitic language. That it started out very similar to Hebrew, then the Greeks took it and added written vowels, and ultimately, the Romans modified it to what we know today. Is this true? Forgive my ignorance on this topic. And as always, your input is most appreciated.
In Truth,
Avraham
… [an undefined reference] said that Latin was originally a Semitic language. That it started out very similar to Hebrew, then the Greeks took it and added written vowels, and ultimately, the Romans modified it to what we know today. Is this true?
That does sound, though, like some garbled version of the history of the Latin alphabet, and it’s not uncommon for the language to be confused with the standard way it’s written. Maybe that explains it, because otherwise, yeah, it makes no sense.
I do remember learning as a kid, something about language or writing originating in Phoenicia. But, as you can see, it is a wild claim. That’s why I brought it up. Thanks for your input!
I agree with modus.irrealis; this sounds more like a potted history of the Roman alphabet, than an account of the development of the language. It’s amazing how as children we latch on to things which stay with us even though they are only half-truths
Ah, so then it seems that Latin indeed does have a semitic origin. Very interesting. Thank you all. It is most fascinating. However, this is only the alphabet then? No relation with the language itself?
Chris: ahhh… Ego possum lego Latine. Non bona. Sorry. I think I just angered the Roman gods. I can read better. And Ecclesiastical is of course, RC stuff. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus. Nunc et in ora mortis nostrae. Shoot. Think I just angered them even worse. I’ll get there on my Latin. I’m doing classical now at least. Hopefully by the time I finish this, I can afford a real grammar
Yes, only the alphabet, not the language itself. There are a couple of words from Latin, but only from borrowings.
Chris: ahhh… Ego possum lego Latine. Non bona. Sorry. I think I just angered the Roman gods. I can read better. And Ecclesiastical is of course, RC stuff. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus. Nunc et in ora mortis nostrae. Shoot. Think I just angered them even worse. I’ll get there on my Latin. I’m doing classical now at least. Hopefully by the time I finish this, I can afford a real grammar >
A real grammar is quite a nice thing. Have you looked into Wheelocks? (or hardcover)
Ah, looks very good. Thank you. The example texts all taken from Classical writings. Has to be the hard cover of course. To this bibliophile paperback is a sacrilege. Only $20. also. Even this poor monk could afford that. Well, soon hopefully. I almost bought it last night with my debit card. My usual reasoning is “who needs food anyhow, your just going to get rid of in a few hours, but knowledge, you can keep that forever”. We all heard of starving artists, but when are they going to coin the phrase “starving scholar” So, you have used this then? And how long ago was it? Also, how many grammars, etc. for Latin have you done since? To me, it seems like it would not take all too much to be able to read ancient texts. How much does it? Just curious. Hebrew for instance was only the equivalent of a semester. After that, it’s just a matter of amassing additional vocabulary. Thanks again. I’ll be coming at you with Latin in no time. You work on the Hebrew
Anyone else’s input on their study ammount is appreciated also. Mind you, not because I don’t have patience, that I have. But rather, because I want to know what resourses I’ll be looking at. Grammars, Lexicons, et cetera. Latin is going to soon take the dominate role in my grammatical studies (as I’m finally finishing the rest).
Here are my thoughts on Wheelock if you’re interested:
I worked through that copy of Wheelock’s in an Accelerated Latin course at my University over the summer. Out of the 40 chapters, we covered 30 in 6 weeks. I quickly covered the last 10 on my own. I’m told that in the previous year they managed to get through all 40. This gave me a very good grounding in classical Latin. I’m still learning as I’ve move through the regularly paced second year courses, but I find that I definitely knew at least as much as the other second year students who took two semesters.
The course itself is very straight-forward and useful. Wheelock moves you systematically through the bulk of the grammar. His explanations are clear and useful, and he gives you plenty of interesting and fun opportunities to put what you’ve learned to use. The body and format of the hardcover book are excellent.
I’m quite surprised by the speed at which you progressed through the ecclesiastical grammar. You could probably do the same thing with Wheelock’s, though there is quite a bit to take in… mostly memorizing declensions and conjugations. Work-wise, I’d estimate that for the six week class, in addition to the two hours of in-class time five days a week, I spent from 2-3 hours per night doing homework/studying. That would make about 20-25 hours of Latin a week… like a part-time job. Kept me busy that summer. Nota Bene: this was the first foreign language I’ve studied in earnest, so you’ll surely need less time.
As for multiple grammars, I’ve really only used Wheelock’s. The regularly paced classes used the Oxford Latin Course, and we used part of Book III at the beginning of the semester. I don’t think it covered much beyond Wheelock’s, though. So it’s possible to jump straight from Wheelock’s into authentic Latin. I’d advise this, as it will probably hone your skills faster than a grammar. I find it prepared me well for Caesar last semester, and while Vergil this semester has been a struggle, I’ve gotten the hang of him.
On a side note, it seems you’re quite dedicated when it comes to your language studies. Are these all for Biblical research? As someone hoping to pursue similar goals, may I ask about your background?
I once looked around for university courses that had a syllabus online, to see how much of Wheelock’s they would cover in a semester or a year. I don’t think I came upon any that got through the whole book in a year. It seemed like most were set up to do about 15 chapters a semester, but if they had their actual progress they’d get through a little less than that.
It sounds very good Thesaurus. Quite encouraging. From the sound of it, it may be easy enough, not too long, and not to many books. Of course, purchasing a lexicon will come. And some ancient texts… But nothing to worry about for now. I have to always say, Hebrew was very easy to me. Greek, very hard. But getting over Greek (Koine), the Latin I have done so far, has been pretty simple. Though what I have done, I know is not as intense perhaps. So it seems I am just about sold on Wheelock’s. As for studying for Biblical research?(for those who don’t know about me)Well, it’s hard to anwer that without religious cannotations. My personal main focus is on the Hebrew and now Greek Scriptures. However, I am not “religious”. I am a spiritual person. but I am not a part of a church, mosque, or synagogue. Though I do associate with a few. I was raised Catholic in New York. 6 days a week of mass. Then as I grew I became a philosoper and secular humanist. Then I adopted the belief’s of my mother’s side of the family- Judaism. Of which I became Orthodox- Chasid. Ever since I was a child, I have had a deep love of other religions, cultures, and languages. To me, studying the ancient Latin and Greek texts, for example, is spiritual. Not that I may agree with everything, nor that everything in them is spiritual based. But it is where western society and thought comes from. Much is to be learned from them. So, I hold no base of dogmas. I am very spiritual. But I am still a philosopher. I make sure not to allow faith or philosophy to inhibit the other. But I harmonize them. So they both grow together.
(As far as formal academic education, I am not ashamed to admit, I have none. I admire those who can and do accomplish such. However, it has not been my lot in life. I’ve attempted to go to college twice now. I just simply cannot fit working to pay my bills in around my regular school schedule. Nor am I able to pay for the tuition. I’m in that income bracket, where I don’t make enough money to survive AND attend college. Though I make too much money to receive financial aid. What I have learned, has either been self taught, or in religious institutions. I learned Hebrew at Shul in Synagogue [and taught it for several years there], and Arabic in the Madrasa, at the Masjid. I work on Koine Greek with Eastern Orthodox, and establishing such with the Catholic for Ecclesiastical Latin. I stay fairly academic in my research, though I admit, at times the spiritual overtones are palpable. )
I did Wheelock’s at Glasgow University, Scotland. The whole book was indeed covered in the three terms of first year, as was a portion of Ovid’s Metamorphoses a few other things. The late Paul Jeffreys-Powell took no prisoners, but was also a wonderfully kind and competent lecturer.
By the end of second year (I didn’t do second year Latin, more’s the pity), a student was expected to be eligible to sit for the Blackstone Medal, if they so chose. This consisted in studying additional set texts and being examined on them publicly viva voce in Latin
Glasgow 1993: I wonder if standards have deteriorated there to the extent you describe. I do remember that of the twenty-five first year students, only one passed the entrance exam for Latin A, and all the rest whether or not they had Higher Latin from school were placed in the Latin B - Beginners group. The single A - Group student had been tutored privately in some South Pacific island and was not the product of the education system…
Sean, I’m currently studying abroad for the semester at the University of Glasgow. I’m in Latin 2B, which is the second year course. We are doing Aeneid IV and Ovid’s Metaphorphoses III (?). I wouldn’t say that modern education has “slipped”. Perhaps some of us aren’t as studious as we should be when it comes to memorizing our conjugations etc., but my has seemed very dedicated.
I’ll have you know that the Blackstone chair has been revived. Granted, I just learned about it for the first time, since I’m new here. Apparently the chair is kept in the Hunterian Museum, but they are getting special permission to use it for the event. Someone from my class (of eight) will be sitting for it. I’ll be witnessing the event, and maybe I can get some footage of it for Texkit. There will be jeering and heckling crowds and a panel of ruthless Latin professors harassing the poor man. It should be spectacular.
