Talk:Latin

See also Talk:Latin language/archive for discussion of naming and disambiguation issues.

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL If you have questions on the Latin language, please use Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language instead of this talk page.

Legacy?

This section seems unclear to me. Especially the fourth paragraph. The paragraph starts by telling us that modern Romance languages have been used to reconstruct Vulgar Latin. What follows that, however, doesn't explain at all how they relate to stress.

``For example, the Romance languages have distinctive stress on certain syllables, whereas Latin had this feature in addition to distinctive length of vowels.

True, but so what? Latin has the feature (sic) of distinctive stress on certain syllables? Even if true (though I thought Latin was quantity sensitive, and so stress was NON-distinctive) it doesn't tell us anything about how modern languages inherited a putative Vulgar Latin stress system. The paragraph continues:

``In Italian and Sardo logudorese, there is distinctive length of consonants as well as stress; in Spanish and Portuguese, only distinctive stress; while in French length (for most speakers) and stress are no longer distinctive. Another major distinction between Romance and Latin is that all Romance languages, excluding Romanian, have lost grammatical case[3].

This is all nice, but it is totally unclear (to me at least) how this helps reconstruct Vulgar Latin. By the last sentence, I am led to understand that the paragraph is just about differences between Latin and Modern Romance. A real wreck. Its a shame too because Vulgar Latin is fascinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.61.136 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Old comments

The article is wrong — at least two British exam boards offer Latin. The SQA does as well. Either information relating to Scotland needs to be added to that paragraph, or it needs to be retitled to "England". Geoffrey Sneddon 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation?

How can there be a pronounciation of Latina? As far as I have been taught (college level), we do not know how the Romans pronounced their words other than theories. (Such as the V as a wa) And Church Latin (which we do know how to pronounce) is not traditional Latin. Can anyone defend the use of the pronounciation? Canutethegreat (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, we DO know what the real pronunciation of Latin was, mostly from modern linguistics. For instance, we know that the letter "C" was pronounced always "K" because "Caesar" in German becomes "Kaiser" (and Germany was not biased during centuries by ecclesiastic pronunciation). --Gspinoza (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mainly from modern linguistics" you say. Extrapolation, in other words. The bottom line is that nobody today is 100% sure how Cicero or Catullus would have spoken. Weni, widi, wiki, wascally wabbit, or veni, vidi, vidi? Nobody truly knows, except from extrapolation and comparitive linguistics. Educated guesses. Peter1968 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody also knows how Mayans, Etruscans, Phoenicians talked. Nodoby was there with a tape-recorder to record their speech. Nevertheless, we know how they speak from comparative linguistics. It's a science. Maybe the reconstruction isn't 100% correct, but I think it's much more than an educated guess. I mean, we've never been to Andromeda Galaxy, but we know (for su re) lots of things about it. --Gspinoza (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The best indication of how Classical Latin was pronounced is probably how Latin names were transcribed into contemporary ancient Greek works. Caius Julius Caesar becomes Γάιος Ἰουλίος Καίσαρ, so we know his praenomen began with a g sound rather than a k sound, his nomen with a y rather than a j, and his cognomen with a k rather than an s or a ch sound. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Most latin medical terms are pronounce one way in Italy and in a completely different way in UK/US. Is there a wiki policy guideline on pronounciation as several pronounciations are anglosaxon guesses spoken that way in hospitals. That is still correct in a twisted way, right? (like US english) --Squidonius (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bit of an addition here- romance languages are descended (straight?) from Latin. That's how we know, too. Lunakeet 14:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as we pronounce English words differently from place to place; just as we spell and define words varyingly over stretches of time (don't believe me? look in the OED for your choice of archaic and obsolete words or definitions which have fallen out of use); and, just as words, phrases, and gestures vary over broad distances and time spans: thus do we have reliable evidence that in no way do we "know" how exactly the Romans spoke their words. It would be highly presumptuous of any person living to claim to truly "know" such a complex aspect of language as pronunciation in regards to Latin or any ancient language. Thus far, science has yielded a great understanding of what Latin might have sounded like when spoken by a Roman. However, it is folly to believe that the subject is closed, leaving no room for improvement. Please consider that in the early nineteen hundreds, there was a belief among mathematicians that the field was near completion and was therefore finite. Not long afterwards, Gödel, as well as several other giants of the field, destroyed the possibility. And in recent years, there are hundreds of theorems proved each year, or thousands. Anyway, sorry it's so long. It just seems lacking in discretion and circumspection to believe that we've come to know everything about Latin's pronunciation. Let's make a realistic and honest agreement and get the "unanswered" tag off of this discussion. Thanks for reading. DeftHand (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a stab at it. Everything you say about the way pronunciation changes from place to place and over time is true, but your supposition that this prevents us from reconstructing earlier pronunciation is not valid. You are, if you're a native English speaker, probably projecting the large disconnect between English spelling and pronunciation, itself an accident of peculiar history.

The Romans, on the other hand, had no concept of silent letters and we can see when they change pronunciation because spelling changes as well (for example, quom->quum->cum, equos->equus (and occasionally v. late ecus), etc. We can tell about what time ci/ti began being pronounced as they are in modern Italian because words like nuntio and dicit get misspelled as nuncio and ditit, respectively.

It's also worth pointing out that vowel sounds in Romance languages (except Romanian, owing to Russian influence) are quite stable, in some cases even more stable than consonants. So, to put it all in perspective, we can't say with absolute, 100% certainty exactly how the Romans would have pronounced things, but the margin of error there is about as much as saying that Napoleon existed. To have that be wrong an absolutely enormous amount of positive correlation would have to be due entirely to chance, and such a coincidence is far, far more unlikely than any other explanation so far proposed..

One aspect of pronunciation that might be useful are the primary sources - the actual documents discussing linguistics and pronunciation by the actual Romans. Speech and oratory was finely disected, and any odd habits of diction or accent were punced upon. I'll see what I can turn up... Mdw0 (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

History

The History section needs significant expansion. RedRabbit1983 14:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem paragraph

In his book Language for Everybody (1957), linguist Mario Pei showed the development of the language from what he said was the oldest sample of the language, the "Praenestine Fibula," from the 6th century BC. The inscription translates into English as "Manios made me for Numerius."

Can we make this about Latin instead of Mario Pei? RedRabbit1983 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello?

Does anyone visit this talk page? If so, I'd like to extend my greetings and talk about the article. RedRabbit 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not many people, apparently, but I'm listening! Djnjwd 11:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. I just wanted to raise certain points about the article.

The History section glosses over details and just describes broad facts (where Latin came from; what influenced it at first; and so forth). Although the section should be kept to appropriate length, the statements lose the reader's attention by their sheer randomness.

The Legacy section mostly covers material of little relevance to the general reader. Here is one example: Attempts to prohibit split infinitives, which do not exist in Latin, have been met with resistance from those who believe that occasional splitting of infinitives improves the clarity of English. The statement is, at best, peripheral to the subject of Latin, and only of any real interest in a trivia section.

The Education section has too many annoying one-sentence paragraphs, and it is boring to read.

How can we instigate some kind of improvement in the article? I've already copyedited certain sections, and I'm probably useless now. However, it is good to hear from another editor. I'm pleased to meet you. RedRabbit 16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RedRabbit, hi, I think the article suffers from having had its major content hived off into the more detailed articles (History of Latin, Classical Latin etc). The History section therefore can hard;y be much longer. However, I agree with you that the Legacy section contains a lot of apparently random stuff which should either be pruned or expanded into some sort of coherency.

Since the main content is now defaulting towards a consideration of the status/teaching of Latin country-by-country (which is interesting, and should be expanded), perhaps we ought to consider reforming the article on the following lines:

1. Make the article an introduction to the subject with clear and ordered links to the more detailed articles
2. One of which ought to be a new article devoted specifically to the status/teaching element
3. Copyedit and expand the history bit, and edit and maybe prune the legacy bit
4. Provide a decent bibliography
5. Have a good look at all the external links
6. Sort out all the "see also" section

leaving a straightforward orderly introduction without too much detail, as this would all be in the easy-to-follow-linked detailed articles.

Is this sort of what you had in mind yourself? Djnjwd 20:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would please me. RedRabbit 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's annoying how Institutionalized modernization and History are the same length.

Praeneste fibula

The Praenestine Fibula, one of the oldest samples of Latin, has an inscription that translates into English as "Manios made me for Numerius."

Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi

In classical Latin it would be rendered:

Manius me fecit Numerio

It would have appeared thus in Vulgar Latin of Italy in the 7th century A.D.

Maniu me fece per Numeriu

In modern Romance languages it would be:

Manio mi fece per Numerio (Italian)

Manio me hizo para Numerio (Spanish)

Manios me fit pour Numère (French)

I removed this text from the article. My understanding is that the consensus that the Praeneste fibula is a nineteenth century hoax, and not an authentic artifact of early Latin, is fairly well accepted at this point. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we replace it with an authentic text? RedRabbit 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The next closest text in time is the much more difficult Duenos inscription. But it isn't anywhere near as simple, and there is no single agreed on translation. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vocative

1. Vocative: used when the noun is used in a direct address (usually of a person, but not always, as in O Tempora! O Mores!).

Surely these are not vocatives, and not direct address, but exclamations, and are accusative, although the endings don't make this obvious. Cicero was not addressing the times and the customs of the Romans (or of Catiline) but apostrophizing them. There is a similar construction in Virgil's 'O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint, agricolas' (Georgics II 458-9), and here the ending makes it obvious that the accusative is used.Impert 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Another example: 'me miseram' (Aeneid). Reference Latin, Gavin Betts, Hodder & Stoughton Teach Yourself Books,1986 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impert (talk • contribs) 22:30, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Agree. There was probably some confusion over the O, which often comes before the vocative or the accusative. RedRabbit 03:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, obviously accusative. --BiT 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

TBA Belgium

Hi, I live in Belgium and I can tell you there is still latin education in secundary schools. I read our minister of education is planning to change the system by 2011.(De Morgen 01/09/2007 that is a newspaper :p)

Thomas271104 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"If anyone wants tho go through and copy-edit the clunky wording, be my several-hour-long guest."

I did it. Leave a comment on my talk page to tell me what you think. David G Brault 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I liked the previous version more, even though that clearly needed work. RedRabbit 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I redid the introduction. RedRabbit 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a big improvement on what was there before, esp. in the introduction; two points:

• Shouldn't the "orthography" section be close to or a subsection of "grammar"
• The "legacy" section should then be a more natural part of the "history"

at the moment, they are rather uneasily yoked together. Djnjwd 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article status being reassessed

Looking at the article in its current state, it appears that the good article criteria are not being met. Specifically, criteria 2 is the problem; this article is well below standard with regards to its level of referencing. There are no inline citations at all, and many places seem to beg for them. If you would like to see this article brought back up to GA standards, please join the discussion at good article reassessment --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been delisted. The discussion is linked from the article history. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Two words for black/white

Over in this article, a lot is made of Hungarian having two basic words for red, where one isn't a variant of the other. Would Latin with ater and niger for black and albus and candidus for white be in the same boat? If so, do you think something could be added to the article to illustrate this? Peter1968 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think the two languages are alike in this respect; but no, I don't think it is worthy of comment. RedRabbit 14:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be relevant on a related article though. I'll have a search Delvin Kelvin (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Anyone know what petarum means? I just can't find out for the life of me what the meaning of this word is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I worked it out. It seems to mean peat or peatland. The authors of Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources appear to have missed it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Could it be a contract form for "poetarum" (of the poets)? --Gspinoza (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern Uses

I'd like to remove the following from the Modern Uses section:

Spells in the Harry Potter series are sometimes made from Latin words. For example, accio, the Summoning Charm, is Latin for "I summon".

While an interesting fact to some, it seems to be more appropriate for a "trivia" section or a "uses in popular culture" section rather then as an example of a modern use of Latin. Dpes anyone have any objections? --Xaraphim (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Popular culture trivia cruft like this gives me the vapors. Mlouns (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed x2. While it doesn't quite give me the vapors, there is enough of this sort of trivia on Wikipedia now (Roadrunner vs Coyote, pseudo-Latin binomial nomenclature anyone? Peter1968 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the comment. If someone has a desire to add it again, may I suggest putting it in the Harry Potter article or discuss the idea of having a trivia section in the article on this talk page. --Xaraphim (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means, mention it in the Harry Potter article. But I do hope that this article can remain without a blinkin' blankin' Trivia section. Mlouns (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Harry Potter reference that was re-added today per the previous discussion here. However, would it not be noteable to mention in general the magic spells in television today are almost always said in Latin? Maybe this can be mentioned and if needed, then give a couple of examples of tv shows/films such as Harry Potter. I do think that is noteable for modern usage since it's such a wide spread thing. Kman543210 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Q

Why does this article get vandalized so much? Balonkey (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My theory is that Latin, taken in schools, is, while fulfilling sometimes when you're in the mood for it, is a source of terrible frustration at other times. David G Brault (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a terrible theory. No offense, i'm not flaming you or anything. I just feel that that is not why this article is so often vandalized. I feel that is due to its likeliness to pop-up on any search for a Latin information article. This leads to an abundance of yahoos who think the know what they aretalkinga bout typing random junk that is not useful.--HermXIV (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Medieval

Is anyone besides me confused by the multitude of dialects as well as corruption of medieval, or church, Latin? --HermXIV (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

?

it states that latin was spoken by the romans during the roman republic and roman empire what about during the roman kingdom did they not speak latin than?

Also i see italian is the closest to latin, funny i always thought listening to latin spoken than here any of the romance languages spoken i always though french was the closest thing.--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the non italicized latin text in the Nouns section, and put them all "definition" "translation" for ease of understanding. The rest of it needs going over by a dedicated editor for awhile to get it all right or at least consistent though. 98.209.100.83 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Case ending example

I've commented this part out as these examples are given far more exhaustive treatment in the Latin declension article. Peter1968 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, since nobody objected to me commenting it out. Peter1968 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Need article?

Why does French Wikipedia have the article fr:Roman (langue), yet there's only one interwiki, to the Italian WP? Do we need an article on this? Badagnani (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this extinct if people still speak it?

Is it because it's a different dialect (sort of...) now?

Lunakeet 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lunakeet. I think that your question is valid and important, and I would like to give you my opinion. I shall do so, though I think the discussion page is not truly the Forum Romanum (pun?) through which you should seek the answer. These pages are meant to discuss the article and its improvement; they are not meant for instruction.

Re: your question: Latin is not extinct; well, sort of. The Latin taught in schools is the heritage passed down by the original speakers and writers of Latin. We have the primary tools for learning, understanding, and utilizing Latin much as the Romans did. We also have the benefit of more interconnected Latin scholars, and more comprehensive linguistic histories than did the Latin experts of the Middle Ages, etc. People can speak it because they can approximate the soundings of Latin diphthongs, vowels, consonants, stresses, and their combination. The terms "dead" and "extinct" when said of Latin are, to me, similar to the term "imaginary" when applied to numbers. These are misnomers which have been appended to the detriment of understanding and appreciation. Many times I've told people of my interest and studies in Latin; just as many times the question arises, "But Latin's dead. What are you going to do with that?" Latin is, by my estimation, alive in every language that owes it a vocabulary (Romantic, that is). And pronouncing it "dead" or "extinct" is just a fool's way of dismissing something that can unlock meaning and understanding of the Romantic languages. (Mind, by no means do I call you a fool. Latin has long been damned by those who never took it, both educated and ignorant; those who never applied it; and who believe its uses limited at best. This, among many other reasons, has cast a shadow over its instruction; sadly, this estimation is now part of our Latin heritage. The disdain of Latin is commonplace, and common knowledge. It has bred the "useless" and "extinct" rhetoric which you blamelessly apply in your question.) Please don't take my opinion as fact. I have cited no facts because I give you none. But it's hard to call a tool broken when it's a little rusty. Will Latin ever be spoken again by large groups of people, as it was two thousand years ago? I certainly doubt it. But I argue against the terms "extinct" or "dead," because that would mean gone forever. Right? DeftHand (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's referred to as a dead language because of the lack of native speakers — people who grew up in Latin-speaking communities, learning to speak it as their first language, and so on. If so that might explain it, I think Vatican City is the only state that uses it as a matter of course. Does that make sense? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Most people in Vatican City speak Italian. Even mass in St. Peter's Basilica isn't held in Latin these days. Now, I'm by no means a fan of the Catholic Church, but it's sad that even they have come this. Btw, I started a new discussion below (about extinction), before I saw this one. Please contribute, or I might start thinking about changing the wording of the article.--Alexlykke (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Is there a definitive rule on capitalisation of titles, such as aedile, questor, censor etc. I know its traditional in English to capitalise Senate, so does that translate across to capitalising Senator? Mdw0 (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not in classical or archaic latin. Although what we now call 'miniscule' (i.e. lowercase) forms evolved in 8th century, they would not have been combined with uppercase forms within a document until much, much later, long after the decline of Vernacular latin. In fact, in classical and earlier texts, there would usually not even be spaces in between words, and it was usually necessary to read a passage aloud to understand it.

Extinct language?

I am a latinist, and as much as I always like to tell people that Latin lives on to a very high degree, I cannot defend that Latin is not an extinct language. A lot of people know the language, some know it very well, good enough for long, fluent discourses even, but it is not the mother tongue of anyone. Therefore, although still a language in use, it is by definition extinct. Counter arguments? --Alexlykke (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)