Proditor. 
Any thoughts on the pronunciation of Amadeus thread? Or the speaking velocity one? Iâd be interested in your opinion.
Donât forget that one of the Latin words for a tasty pastery, modern and ancient, is placenta
Ugh. Iâm going on a diet. 
Yeah, it would seem the medical term came from the word for the cream filled pastery of yore. Clinical termonology is ironically vulgar.
Aye, Roberte, modern Latin, such I use to communicate with others on a daily basis, by means of my blog or the Colloquia fora, exempli gratia. As you know, Latin has a tradition going back two and a half thousand years, and the model for modern Latin is the classical Latin of Cicero ââŹâ just as modern Hebrew is modelled after classical Biblical Hebrew, and modern Italian is based on the classical Italian of Petrarch and Dante.
ha! i see it now.
I find it absurd that Cicero remains a model for this day, and that usually is due to a faulty comprehension of all Latin prose. How many budding classicists are thoroughly well-read in the Classics prose? There were even marked differences between Quintilian, the defender of Cicero, and Cicero himself.
what is the problem with cicerone?
Just as there are marked differences between Shakespeare and modern English ââŹâ in fact far more in English, which has changed so much so quickly ââŹâ yet Shakespeare remains our model. Vergil had a similar impact.
optime, luci, salvus sis
Shakespeare isnât our âmodelâ. Although we do in fact borrow much from his works. Our model was already defined before Shakespeare wrote a single line.
Behold, a poem before Shakespeare was even born:
Behold love, thy power how she dispiseth :
My great payne, how litle she regardeth
The holy oth, wherof she taketh no cure
Broken she hath : and yet she bideth sure
Right at her ease, and litle she dredeth.
Wepened thou art, and she unarmed sitteth
To the disdaynfull her liff she ledeth :
To me spitefull without cause or mesur.
Behold love.
I ame in hold : if pitie the meveth,
Goo bend thy bowe, that stony hertes breketh,
And with some stroke revenge the displeasur
Of the and him, that sorrowe doeth endur,
And as his lorde the lowly entreateth.
Behold love.
Iâm not really sure what youâre trying to demonstrate here. That English existed before Shakespeare? As did Latin before Cicero. Exemplar est exemplar.
But your claim is that we should emulate Ciceroâs Latin. This really only became en vogue after the advocacy of Quintilian over a hundred years later. I wrote a paper on the very subject not too long ago.
Perhaps you meant to say that we should advocate the Latin prominent at the end of the Republic? Cicero is merely a part of the movement, albeit one of the earliest types, and his being a prolific writer made him popular. The crowds were cheering for Hortensius before Cicero and Caesar during Cicero.
Actually, Caesar in my opinion is a nice read, as is even Sallust. Celsus is very smooth and readable. Catullus is a poet par excellence, but I guess weâre restricting it to prose - not really sure here. But I donât think that Cicero can claim to be the exemplar Linguae Latinae. I donât think there is one. Certainly he has attracted the praise of most Neo-Latinists of the Renaissance, but there were some who disagreed, and many in real Neo-Latin circles actually opt for Plautine speech for their oral, everyday Latin, and a good thorough mix of the ancients even to the point of it being authentically theirs, for their prose.
You see, when all you do is imitate the Classics, youâve become stagnant, unable to achieve anything of worth of your own. I know many of the 19th century Latin composition books actually make fun at inept students who can only parrot Cicero and Caesar. A good Latinist can weave his own tapestry.
Well, I wonât say that you wasted your words, Chris, although I do agree with you completely, you can imagine. I merely did not understand your argument until you made it clear. And yes indeed, I meant not only the exemplar of Cicero but also his contemporaries, and even Vergil many years after his death.
In my original assertions, I meant to convey the attitude of the modern Latin community, which does seek to model its Latin, at least fundamentally, after Cicero. But that community, just as I myself, will never shun MediĂÂŚval or Rennaiscence or contemporary Latin ââŹâ and how can we? when we are inherently a part of that growing and contemporary tradition?
Iâd like to see that paper.
You might see the paper if and when it gets published. It was written for a class, and so needs revision to make it publishable.
Related to a topic of which you are discussing, there is a writing of a famous Spaniard scholar, whose name is Francisco SĂÂĄnchez de las Brozas (1522-1600). I copy it below in order to make you know it. The author was a great polemist and Grammarian (he also influenced the Port Royal Grammar) in his times as a teacher of Rhetoric (1573), and Greek (at 1576 got his Chair) in Salamanca.
QUI LATINE GARRIUNT
CORRUMPUNT IPSAM LATINITATEM
Lectori salutem. Ultimum posuimus ad linguam latinam praecipuum documentum, quia magna uulnera debent arte atque dolo bono tractari. Timui enim, ne, si hoc remedium in libri fronte proponeretur, omnes medicinam, licet saluberrimam, auersarentur. Quis enim est, non dico in Hispania, sed etiam in tota Europa -quatuor aut sex doctos excipio- qui non et sentiat et praecipiat uerbis latinis exercendam linguam, ut prompte et celeriter possis, quae male cogitaueris, expromere? Quis porro ludi magister grammaticus non subinde pueris crepat -honor sit auribus doctorum- âVel male uel bene, loquere cum Marcoâ? Tanta est stultorum hominum ignorantia, peruersitas et pertinacia. At ego, apud quem pluris est rectae rationis pondus quam multorum praescriptum, assero nihil pestilentius posse iuueni linguae latinae cupido euenire quam aut uerbis latinis effutire cogitata, aut loquentium profluentiae interesse. Quicumque enim aliquando peritiam linguae latinae est assequutus, Petrum Bembum dico, aut Osorium, aut nostrum Pincianum, non loquendo, sed scribendo, meditando et imitatione id sunt assecuti. Hortor igitur sacri uerbi concionatores -quando polite et apposite de suggesto loqui non ultima laus est- ut etiam hispane loquentium coetus fugiant; quam paucissima loquantur ipsi; patianturque uel mutos et elingues in confabulationibus appellitari, dum ex scripto et meditato doctorum hominum aures ducant in admirationem. Non discimus hebraea uel graeca, ut loquamur, sed ut docti efficiamur. Quur igitur in latinis non idem efficiemus, quandoquidem iam nulla natio est, quae latine aut graece loquatur? Stylus exercendus est diligenter; hic enim, ut Marcus Tullius ait, est egregius dicendi magister; hic uere nos docebit communi sensu illos carere, qui linguam latinam in plateis, aut etiam in gymnasiis, miris modis conantur dilacerare. Vale.
Obiectio prima.
Usus et experientia dominantur in artibus, nec ulla est disciplina, in qua non peccando discatur; nam ubi quid perperam administratum cesserit improspere, uitatur quod fefellerat, illuminatque rectam uiam docentis magisterium. Haec Columella, lib. 1 cap. 1.
Responsio. Vere et sapienter Columella, si de artibus loquaris; sed latine loqui nulla est ars; hoc enim obseruatione rerum innumerabilium constat: Grammatica, musica, rhetorica et similes errando addiscuntur; sed, ut inquit Fabius, lib. 1 cap. 6, aliud est latine loqui, aliud grammatice loqui. Quasi dicas Libris opus habeo, adhibeo tibi fidem, crimen laesae maiestatis, ille tenetur hoc facere, ego amo Deum, grammatice quidem dicas, latine non dicas. Nec enim satis est latinas quaerere dictiones; delectus adhibendus est in uerborum coniunctione, quem isti locutuleii miris modis dilacerant. Non enim quicquid latinum est, statim latine dicetur: Habere orationem dicimus, non facere; uerba facere, non agere; agere gratias, non facere; fer opem dicimus, da opem non dicimus; dare uerba usitatum est, tradere seu praebere uerba inauditum. Quid dicam de illis, qui sibi docti uidentur et passim habentur? Quidam enim ex illis scripsit: Vigilant milites in monte, pro speculantur de monte; tentat frangere aciem, pro conatur aciem perrumpere; dimisit suos milites, pro dimisit copias seu exercitum; impediuit commeatum, pro interclusit; uictu carebat Caesar, pro re frumentaria; duxit uineas, pro egit; primi in consilio, pro consilii principes; reportarunt praedas, pero egerunt; milites monuit, pro hortatus est; signum fecit, pro signum dedit; renouauit proelium, pro restituit aut redintegrauit; aciem ordinauit, pro instruxit; redierunt milites, pro receperunt se; misit ad succurrendum, pro misit subsidio; fecerunt uim, pro impetum fecerunt; magnis uiis contendit, pro magnis itineribus; perdidit opportunitatem, pro amisit occasionem. Sic itaque loquuntur qui linguam, non stylum exercent.
Obiectio secunda.
Propter crebras in uariis disciplinis disputationes latino sermone assidue loquendum.
Responsio. Serias et graues disputationes literis, non uentis, debere mandari quis est qui ignoret, nisi clamosus disputator aut cerebrosus uociferator? An ideo semper assuescendum est loquelae, ut postea dicamus noleitas, uoleitas, et per modum praeteritionis, dico quod, et nota quod Pappa habet aures? Quod sit talis urgeat necessitas, qui latine scripserit, blaterones superauit.
Obiectio tertia.
Si quis linguam gallicam assequi studeat, optime illam cum gallis loquendo comparabit.
Responsio. Dissimile admodum est linguarum aliquam cum latina, quae iam nulla est, comparare. Si ulla esset natio quae pure latine loqueretur, non dubito quin apud illos latina facilitas loquendi perdisceretur. Sed nunc soli sunt libri ad quos recurrendum est, si pure latine scribere uelimus. Idem esto iudicium de graeca uel hebraea lingua, quas non ut loquamur, sed ut intelligamus addiscimus.
Obiectio quarta.
Non desinunt isti onocrotali subinde obiiciere seu uerius abgannire: moris esse ut infantes paruuli papas, mamas, taytas balbutiant, qui tamen postea in melius corrigantur.
Responsio. Nemo sanae mentis tale consilium probabit, ut ineptae nutrices doceant, quae postea sint dedocenda. Ego certe, qui plurimos liberos sustuli, nunquam id sum passus, qui Quintiliano auctore didicerim, non assuescendum puerum sermoni, qui dediscendus sit. Quid quod optima eodem labore aut fortasse facilius edocentur.
Obiectio quinta.
Si latine loqui non esset laudabile, non ita passim ab omnibus commedaretur. Et omnes Academiae legibus sanxerunt, ut et latine legatur et disputetur.
Responsio. Quasi uero quidquam tam sit ualde, quam nihil sapere, uulgare, ut praeclare 2 de diuin. scripsit Cicero. Sed quoniam tu mihi stultorum turbam obiicis qui latine loquentes colunt et admirantur, ego tibi contra doctissimorum iudicium et consensum opponam, qui huiusmodi pestem siue loquentiam auersantur. Expende diligenter cap. 84 Suetonii in Augusto. Cicero, lib. 1 De orat., de exercitatione agens, sic inquit: Sed plerique in hoc uocem modo, neque eam scienter, et uires exercent suas, et linguae celeritatem incitant uerborumque frequentia delectantur. In quo fallit eos quod audierunt dicendo, homines ut dicant, efficere solere. Vere enim etiam illud dicitur: peruerse dicere homines peruerse dicendo facillime consequi. Et statim: Caput autem est quod, ut uere dicam, minime facimus -est enim magni laboris, quem plerique fugimus- quam plurimum scribere. Stylus optimus et praestantissimus dicendi effector ac magister. Quintilianus, lib. 1 cap. 1: Ante omnia ne sit uitiosus sermo nutricibus: has primum audiet puer harum uerba fingere imitando conabitur; et natura tenacissimi sumus eorum quae rudibus annis percipimus, ut sapor, quo noua imbuimus, durat, neque lanarum colores, quibus ille simplex candor mutatus est, elui possunt. Et haec ipsa magis pertinaciter haerent, quae deteriora sunt, nam bona facile mutantur in peius: nunc quando in bonum uerteris uitia? Non assuescat ergo, ne dum infans quidem est, sermoni cui didiscendus sit. Erasmus, lib. 8 Apophtheg. sic ait: Pollio dicebat: âCommode agendo factum est ut saepe agerem, sed saepe agendo factum est ut minus commode, quia scilicet assiduitate nimia facilitas magis quam facultas, nec fiducia sed temeritas paratur: quod accurate factum uelimus, raro faciendum estâ. Hac ratione duci uidentur Itali quidam eruditi, qui licet pulchre calleant latine, tamen uix unquam adduci possunt ut in familiari congressu latine loquantur. At quando compellit necessitas, dicunt exacte, quasi de scripto. Noui Venetiae Bernardum Ocricularium, ciuem florentinum, cuius historias si legisses, dixisses alterum Sallustium, aut certe Sallustii temporibus scriptas; nunquam tamen ab homine impetrare licuit, ut mecum latine loqueretur; subinde interpellabam: âSurdo loqueris, uir praeclare; uulgaris linguae uestratis tam sum ignarus quam Indicaeâ. Verbum latinum nunquam quiui ab eo extundere. Haec Erasmus. Budaeus, in Comment. linguae graecae, reprehendens Vallam circa reciprocorum usum, sic ait: Id autem Laurentio non alias accidit quam ex praua loquentium consuetudine, quibus aut legendis aut audiendis inuiti erroris contagionem contrahimus; simul ex sermone extemporali et neglecto, cui inter familiares assuescimus, praesertim purae latinitatis ignaros; qua noxa fit interdum ut quaedam imprudentibus excidant: id quod aliquando experti sumus in autographis, ita ut flagitiosae culpae nos perpuderet. Cornelius Valerius in fine suae Syntaxeos: Hanc proprietatem in uerborum coniunctione qui non obseruat nec delectum habet ullum, is barbarica phrasi omnem peruertit latinitatem. Quod iis fere solet accidere qui linguam latinam ad idioma uernaculum detorquent. Ioachimus Fortius, in libello De ratione studii, cap. de scribendo: Nam fere fit, ut qui loquuntur accurate, minus erudite scribant; dum enim rerum illarum uoluptate afficiuntur, imperfectiores oportet sint in altero. Nemo pari cura res duas unquam tractauerit; et infra: Quo pacto id genus homines, qui tanto plausu in tanta nugatorum corona nugari possunt, accurate quicquam scripserint? Certe neminem nunquam uidi, nisi me memoria fallat, docte scribentem, cui ualde in promptu fuit colloquendi disserendique ratio; et infra: Famam puerilem aspernemur, uulgo inertes uideamur. Ex Bartholomaeo Riccio, lib. 3 De imitatione Ciceronis, in calce: Non soleo ego -ne hoc quoque omittam- meum discipulum cogere, ut fit plerunque in scholis, quicquid ei dicendum usu ueniat, latine ut id proferre conetur. Utrum enim plus commodi an damni ad latinam elegantiam, quam nos quaerimus, hoc afferat studium, non plane satis habeo comprobatum; et paulo inferius: Huc accedit quod infanti puero, dum ea quae uult et ex tempore atque subito proferre laborat, multis partibus ea plura excidant, quae inepte, quae incondite atque incomposite, quae denique nullius dignitatis sint, quamque uix tolerabilia sint necesse est. Ita fit, ut dum locutionis studeant celeritati, orationis ornatum omnem atque dignitatem corrumpant. Quoniam autem quod in quotidiano sermone positum est, nihil admodum latinae orationi prodesse uidetur ad eam dignitatem, quae eius linguae mere germana est, ac omnino ea nobis aliqua exercitatione atque artificio comparanda atque confirmanda est, equidem id diligentiae ab uno stylo, qui dicendi magister et opifex est optimus, petendum esse censeo.
Obiectio sexta.
Propter uaria inter gentes commercia aut ut cum externis hominibus colloquamur, non solum utile, sed necessarium aliquando est latine loqui.
Responsio. Ego latinam linguam non damno, stylum ueneror et amplector, in quo qui probe fuerit exercitatus, si necessitas ingruat, repente dicet: Da mihi panem, uel aliud obsonium. Multis in locis Cicero commendat stylum, et ad Gallum, lib. 7, sic scribit: Urge igitur nec transuersum, quod aiunt, a stylo; is enim dicendi opifex. Ego uero cum doctissimis, neminem excipio, uiris teneo nulla aut aetate aut tempore latina lingua, nisi praemeditate, esse loquendum.
(Franciscus Sanctius Brocensis: Qui latine garriunt corrumpunt ipsam latinitatem, edited by University of Extremadura,1995)
(His complete works: http://books.google.com/books?id=6glzhi21QPcC&dq=sanchez+de+las+brozas&as_brr=1 )
Muchas gracias, Gonzalo, para esto mirable texto.
Iâve only read through his exordium, but I am already compelled to comment.
Non discimus hebraea uel graeca, ut loquamur, sed ut docti efficiamur. Quur igitur in latinis non idem efficiemus, quandoquidem iam nulla natio est, quae latine aut graece loquatur?
It is because of fools like SeĂÂąor SĂÂĄnchez de las Brozas that spoken Latin came to suffer so very much in the centuries that followed. Only in the past few decades has the Latin speaking world begun to recover from this misplaced elitism and snobbery.
It is fortunate for the Jews and for all the worldâs heritage that the Israelis ignored notions, such as SeĂÂąor SĂÂĄnchez declares, that Hebrew was naught but a dead language. It certainly lives today.
I understand his position, of course: at the time, students and others might butcher their Latin when first learning, or perhaps they were already through school and hadnât learned any better. SĂÂĄnchez insists then that it be better not to speak Latin at all. I shall criticize him, however: care Francisce, quam ob rem hos discipulos hominesque alios non docebas igitur melius uti loquerentur? Quid juvat silere, cum verba ipsa reverenda Ciceronia tu ipse aliique magistri effari potuissent? Exemplar tu esto! si recte erudire ac ducere vis.
Speaking Latin, and speaking it properly, is essential, absolutely essential, to learning the language rightly. This goes for all languages.
Now, I can understand Dante being as ignorant as he wasâ⏠, since he lived and died before the Classical Revival of the Renaissance and the rescue of enormous corpora of Latin and Greek litterature from the darkness of history. And moreover, he believed that in the times of Vergil, as in his own times, Latin was just an artificial tongue that was rarely spoken and only written, while Vergil, he thought, would in fact have spoken Italian! (or Mantuan, to be precise).
Like I said, Danteâs ignorance I understand. But this caudex? Unconscionable.
Vere et sapienter Columella, si de artibus loquaris; sed latine loqui nulla est ars
Awful.
Sic itaque loquuntur qui linguam, non stylum exercent.
His elitism and foolishness here is just shocking. In the above, he condemns the ad hoc usage of Latin and coinage of new phrases, where older ones already exsist. This is nonsensical. Having synonyms, and synonymical phrases, strengthens a language, enriches it. This is why English is so extraordinary and powerful a language, full of variety and possibilities, from the sublime to the profane. To insist on such limitation, such incarceration and restriction, is the closest thing philologically to evil.
Serias et graues disputationes > literis> , non uentis, debere mandari quis est qui ignoret, nisi clamosus disputator aut cerebrosus uociferator?
Wow. Too bad SĂÂĄnchez wasnât around to tell this to his buddy Cicero, who swayed the minds of hundreds and the lives of millions by the power of his spoken voice.
â⏠For Dante sought to usurp Latin as the universal language in favor of the native tongue of any person, making way for Italian to take root as a litterary language. Vide âDe Vulgari Eloquentiaâ : http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost14/Dante/dan_v101.html
Speaking Latin, and speaking it properly, is essential, absolutely essential, to learning the language rightly. This goes for all languages.
Hi,
Nice to read your Intelligence here,
What he wanted to say is that one who have not direct contact or trade towards/with native people who speak that Language (ex. gr., Latin), (s)he would not be qualificated to speak it properly.
Sed nunc soli sunt libri ad quos recurrendum est, si pure latine scribere uelimus. (Rensponsio ad objectionem quartam.)
Because we have only the references in Romance languages (such as French, Italian or Spanish -pronunciation) and the texts which were conserved from the Antiquity to our present times, we are not able, ex. gratia, to chat with one another in a proper (real, I mean) Latin; but we can do it, for instance, in English, Hebrew, etc. It is only what he writes, and he also says that he wanted to see a man who wrote a History in a good Latin speaking it.
Then, what resumes the content of this discourse is as follows:
Ita fit, ut dum locutionis studeant celeritati, orationis ornatum omnem atque dignitatem corrumpant. (Responsio ad objectionem quintam)
And he is not saying we shouldnĂ´t talk or practise spoken Latin, he insists on the neccesity of knowing perfectly how to write it, before speaking it. If we did it, it would be like the idioms invented by Scientific Fiction series. Vide: Noui Venetiae Bernardum Ocricularium, ciuem florentinum, cuius historias si legisses, dixisses alterum Sallustium, aut certe Sallustii temporibus scriptas; nunquam tamen ab homine impetrare licuit, ut mecum latine loqueretur; subinde interpellabam: âSurdo loqueris, uir praeclare; uulgaris linguae uestratis tam sum ignarus quam Indicaeâ.
Against the work of the Culteranism, Francisco de Quevedo y Villegas did a composition, which was called âRecipe to compose Solitudesâ (pay attention to the word recipe). When the great Quevedo wrote this, there were a lot of people who imitated a certain style of Poetry (but a lot of them did it badly: See Francisco Antonio Bances Candamo) only cultivated with success by certain poets (Juan BermĂÂşdez Alfaro, Pellicer de Ossau, Sor Juana InĂŠs de la Cruz, Fr. Hortensio FĂŠlix de Paravicino y Arteaga, Francisco de Trillo y Figueroa, etc., but specially by Antonio de Paredes and Don Luis de GĂÂłngora y Argote)
It could be a simile with what we are dealing:
âRecipe to compose Solitudesâ (excerpt)
All Castile already,
with only this breviary,
is burnt by Babylonian poets,
writing confused sonnets;
and in the Blemish(*), shepherds and clumsies,
full their bellies of garlics,
like crumbs (**), make Cultities.
[Que ya toda Castilla,
con sola esta cartilla,
se abrasa de poetas babilones,
escribiendo sonetos confusiones;
y en la Mancha, pastores y gaĂÂąanes,
atestadas de ajos las barrigas,
hacen ya cultedades como migas.
Fco. de Quevedo y Villegas; Poetic works, edited by J. M. Blecua, 1969]
(*)I translate La Mancha like Blemish because of its symbolical significance. I have also taken other liberties in my translation. Excuse my embarrasing English.
(**)Crumbs and garlics is a typical Castillian dish.
P.S.: DonĂ´t you think, oh friend, that if we spoke Latin as if it were our own language it wouldnĂ´t evolve into other Language with the overcoming of the time?
I appreciate your comments, Gonzalo, and in particular the poetic excerpts. Maximas gratias tibi.
You restated SĂÂĄnchezâ assertion, that no one without contact with native speakers of Latin could properly know or speak Latin, ever.
I have heard this argument many times. Although it does seem logical, history proves it to be ironic.
Letâs start with a rhetorical question: how many Roman authors were actually Roman?
Well, letâs start at the beginning. Ennius, the father, so called, of Roman and Latin litterature, was Greek. Plautus was from Umbria. Cato the Elder was a Sabine. Terence was Greek or Carthaginian, having come to Rome as a slave. Varro the poet was from Gaul. Cicero is one of the few famous writers actually born in Latium, in Arpinum.
Sallust was a Sabine.
Catullus was home in fair Verona.
Vergil was Mantuan.
Horace was Lucanian.
Livy was Paduan.
Ovid was from Salmona, in Abruzzo.
Seneca wasnât even Italian ââŹâ he was Spanish!
Again and again and again, we see that the greatest Roman writers were not Roman at all. With only one exception: Julius Caesar. He alone was born and lived his life in Rome.
Most of the above authors, and other multiple authors and even emperors in the centuries that followed, did not grow up speaking Latin. They learned it as a second language. And then they became masters of that language, by speaking it with others, however rudely at first, at length crafting the language better than almost any Roman, or even any Latin.
And this tradition has been maintained throughout history. Erasmus, Newton, Galileo ââŹâ there are countless greats in post Classical Latin litterature who certianly learned Latin after they acquired their native tongues. Therefore, to learn Latin today, we must all do so as foreigners. But this makes us no different from Seneca, Vergil, Ovid, or Ennius.
So our magister SĂÂĄnchez is not only incorrect, but a hypocrite.
I will agree with him, that it is imperative to read and write as much as possible, but these are always secondary to speaking.
As for chatting in Latin, was the vulgar Latin of the plebs in the Subura more Latin than the Latin spoken among Spaniards like Marcus Aurelius who only learned it later in life?
The most important part of Roman history was that you didnât have to be from Roman to be truly Roman. This goes for us in the modern day as well. I know and speak real Latin, as much as Seneca or Ovid or the pleb from Campus Martius. Did they have more experience? Certainly. More perhaps than I ever will. But my Latin is real ââŹâ for it is theirs.
Excuse my embarrasing English.
Actually, Gonzalo, you bring up a good point. Your English, for one, is not embarrassing; it is very good and almost faultless. I would like to emphasize that your English is real, although you are not a native speaker. That puts you in good company with Trajan, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius. 
P.S.: DonĂ´t you think, oh friend, that if we spoke Latin as if it were our own language it wouldnĂ´t evolve into other Language with the overcoming of the time?
You bring up a good point. It is a widely held belief that all languages will evolve and change over time. This is a myth. A language does not inherently change on its own. It only changes when there are speakers of the language that do not know it well, and are imitated. Rome had no formal education system, so the lower classes (who were increasingly populated by foreigners, freed slaves, and others who were not fluent) did not acquire much access to Classical Latin. Hence the evolution of Italian, Spanish, French, and others. When there is education, however, a language becomes standardized and, for the most part, frozen. It may bend and grow some, but it will remain the same language. This is why English experienced such a various and changing history, and was very unstable until formal education was instituted in Britain and in America ââŹâ since this institution, English has, for the most part, remained unchanged. And it will not change for as long as English speakers are properly trained in their tongue.
but a hippocrate
No! Hippocratic, he was a doctor who wanted to stamp out the feign things of this world.
You forget Marcus Fabius Quintilianus⌠yes, but the question is that they had Latin with a living reference.
You talk about Erasmus. I have this for you: http://big.chez.com/asklepios/erasmus/pronuntiatione.htm
I let you this link to Dialogus de recta latinae linguae pronuntiatione by Justus Lipsius: http://www.sflt.ucl.ac.be/files/AClassFTP/TEXTES/Juste_Lipse/rec_pron_07-09.txt
Two great scholars. Personally, I prefer Brocensis&LipsiusĂ´ Neostoicism.
On what authority do you make this astonishing claim? If there is one thing we can say absolutely applies to all human languages, it is that they change over time. Not a single one has ever escaped.
What slows this process is the widespread access to and distribution of technologies to store language, by which I include not only the computers weâre all sitting in front of, radio and television, but also literacy and affordable books. Widespread literacy has the most to do with the pickled state of English.
Broadcast media is also a major force, since it promulgates a fixed variety of a given language ââŹâ whatever has been declared the standard. That standard, decided by fiat, ends up on tv and radio and flattens the regional dialects over time. This has less to do with âproper trainingâ (active) than constant exposure (passive). Cairene Arabic is widely understood (and even produced) all over the Arab world because Egypt pumps out lots of pop music and movies, not because people are getting formal training.
My own feeling is that as long as there are reruns of American TV and itâs easy to get The Simpsons on DVD (or whatever), American English will remain mostly static.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
But Luce, then what actually is a language? Is there a static thing called language that is changed by its (ab)users?
I could imagine an argument that language is that by which people communicate, and as their manners and their subjects of communication change, so does their mode of communication, i.e. their language.
As you say, and I agree, people and/or their circumstances are constantly changing. It then follows that language is also always changing, i.e. there is no such thing as a static, unchanging language.
What I am asking is, i guess, is it not the essential nature of language to be continuously changing, regardless of the causation of such changes? That is to say, is not change an essential part of the make-up of language?
To say it is not, I think, would otherwise - by analogy - be the same as me, as a person, saying that I donât change, but that I am merely changed by my circumstances. I could see that this would be philosophically debatable, but in practice, by whatever causation, I - my body, my thoughts, my perceptions of the world and of myself, etc. - am constantly changing. Change, or adaptation, is a part of human nature.
Similarly I would think that change or adaptation is part of the nature of language.
Would you agree with this?