Looks so, lol. Thanks! But it's a shame, the zombies don't seem to speak... If Roman zombies should come, they must speak!!!I don't think it has a english version, it was very crappy. xD
Looks so, lol. Thanks! But it's a shame, the zombies don't seem to speak... If Roman zombies should come, they must speak!!!I don't think it has a english version, it was very crappy. xD
Should you find any outside your window, invite me to bash their head in!I was expoſed to far too many zombie films when my tasteleſs daughter lived with me, and I totally deteſt the entire genre, only partly because zombies never ſay anything.
Were fluency defined as dependent on interaction with native ſpeakers, then it would in no caſe be poſſible in either ſort of Latin, so there could be no diſtinction.distinction between fluency in Latin and fluency in Neo-/meta-Latin
If you can demonstrate a way in which we might go about finding a "native speaker" of Neo-Latin, I'll take your attempt at refutation seriously. The former existence of native speakers of Latin is not in dispute; finding a native speaker of Neo-Latin is a logical impossibility, until, that is, such time as Neo-Latin begins to be spoken so widely and exclusively that it evolves into a language with native speakers, as Modern Hebrew has done.Were fluency defined as dependent on interaction with native ſpeakers, then it would in no caſe be poſſible in either ſort of Latin, so there could be no diſtinction.
Fluency in an artificial language.I wonder how you would describe fluent speakers of Esperanto in your terms of fluency (and there are several thousands if not tens of thousands of them today and their main objective is not to read or write, or at least of most of them, but to speak, speak and speak).
The inherent petitio principii makes your question a non-starter, though I see it was framed as a rhetorical one anyway, like most of your others.I wonder how you would describe in your terms of fluency the children of two Esperanto parents which have Esperanto as one of their mother tongues and are therefore true native speakers
I'd call it a disingenuous misapplication of the terms native language and mother tongue, or rather ingenuous in Montaigne's case and disingenuous in yours.I wonder how you would describe in your terms of fluency children of educated parent(s) (usually of educated father) in the middle ages and renaissance who managed to make Latin one of the native languages of their children and such Latin was then 'truly' one of their mother tongues (find: Michel de Montaigne as an example).
I'd call it the triumph of idealism over the facts, and an even less excusable misuse of the term mother tongue.I wonder how you would describe in your terms of fluency a potential children of two modern Latin enthusiasts, a children, who would have Latin as one of its mother tongues.
I agree entirely.I think that a fluency in a 'functional' dead language truly is another thing than a fluency in a language that has a living community of native speakers.
My words were: "I would never presume to deny someone the right to claim fluency in Neo-Latin if he felt it an accolade worth aspiring to." This does not constitute an assertion that Neo-Latin has native speakers, nor that fluency in Neo-Latin is of the same status as fluency in a language that does have, or did have, native speakers.That Neo-Latin native speakers don't exist was in fact what AS said. His point is that, following your opinion that you can only be fluent in a langage that has native speakers, it is as impossible to be fluent in Neo-Latin as it is impossible to be fluent in "Roman Latin", since neither has native speakers now.
before you said:It's impossible to achieve fluency in a language that has no native speakers.
So this is the apparent contradiction in your words AS was pointing out.I would never presume to deny someone the right to claim fluency in Neo-Latin
My point is that all that time machine stuff is absurd. It's the same as to judge one's proficiency in Quenia from elves' point of view. As for Neo-/meta-, you are multiplying entities beyond necessity. It's clear that Latin as the mother tongue of the Romans is one thing and Latin as a learned literature standard is another one.I'm not certain what point you're making, Quasus. You seem to be saying that we should judge fluency in a dead language on different terms from the way we judge fluency in a living one. If that is what you're saying, did I not adequately address this question in my earlier post when I drew a distinction between fluency in Latin and fluency in Neo-/meta-Latin?
Hi LCF - Thanks for your kind offer. I am unable to send a PM since I haven't yet posted the minimum number of posts needed to activate the PM system. Could you send me an email at johannes_sousius[at] outlook[dot]com so I can reply back? Sorry for any inconvenience this might cause.Roberto is a good friend of mine. And used to be my teacher for while as well. He used to teach in Vivarium Novum and now is independent, I can get you in touch with him. Send me a private message.