Indeed. That isn't to say, though, that Classical works outnumber medieval works, but rather that medieval writers in general try to imitate the ancients as much as possible, even though they may make mistakes or use unfamiliar grammar influenced by their own dialect or language.Matthaeus dixit:What do you mean by most used? Classical Latin of the ancient times is by far the standard for all later Latin.
Probably I wouldn’t.Matthaeus dixit:Well, I guess the main difference between that type and the official, classical one is the pronunciation. Would you agree?
Ideas are not a part of a language.Nikolaos dixit:Vocabulary, definitions and ideas differ.
Still I don’t understand. Neologisms and theological terms do not produce a new language.Nikolaos dixit:No, that's not what I'm saying. Ecclesiastical Latin uses words, meanings, and grammar that were not used by educated speakers in the Classical era, which makes them and the dialect containing them unclassical. Jerome says angelus, Cicero said nuntius. And, if ever he did say ἄγγελος, he was speaking Greek, and meant "messenger", not "angel".
Because they would not understand the subject. They knew not of Christianity. Yet it’s not a good reason to regard ‘Ecclesiastical Latin’ as a kind of separate language.Nikolaos dixit:To put it simply, if Cicero or Caesar would not understand any part of some work without having words or phrases explained to them, it is unclassical.
Can you bring any examples? I’m most interested in how numerous such things are.Nikolaos dixit:Many things common in Ecclesiastical Latin are either uncommon or outright incorrect in Classical Latin.
What’s then? Even if I read tons of Latin Discussion, this may prapare me to read Maugham, but it won’t prepare me to write like he. Yet we are communicating in English, don’t we?Studying Ecclesiastical Latin might prepare you to read Caesar (Cicero is debatable), but it won't prepare you to write in his idiom.
This is a valid point, the only one I agree with. We discussed the use of quod-clauses instead of a.c.i. elsewhere. However, I attribute that to the ignorance of the authors who could not learn Latin properly in their Dark Ages.Ecclesiastical Latin uses… grammar that were not used by educated speakers in the Classical era
What do you mean by simplified syntax? Perhaps a question of style?Matthaeus dixit:We could also add that medieval syntax is much more simplified than the Classical type.
Quasus dixit:Still I don’t understand. Neologisms and theological terms do not produce a new language.
As for neologisms, we use quite a lot of words that wouldn’t be understood fifty years ago. Yet the language is the same.
You're trying to make me defend claims that I never made. Unless my fingers slipped, you will see that I have referred to Ecclesiastical Latin as being a different idiom, dialect, or unclassical, but never a different language. "No one on the corner have swagger like us" is undeniably English, but I would immediately discredit anyone who calls it Standard English. I would also venture to wager that someone who speaks like that on a regular basis would probably have a difficult time speaking or writing in the standard dialect. I know plenty of people who never say "were" (instead using "was" exclusively), use "ideal" for "idea" and have no word to replace the former. This is English, but not Standard English. It has a slightly different set of rules, even though they largely coincide with the standard dialect.Quasus dixit:Because they would not understand the subject. They knew not of Christianity. Yet it’s not a good reason to regard ‘Ecclesiastical Latin’ as a kind of separate language.
You mentioned the quod-clause example. Add to this using quia (and, I think, ut) in the same sense (which, unless I am horribly mistaken, is not attested even in Cicero's letters), the superfluous use of prepositions (in aliquem credere is poetic in the Golden Age, but standard in Ecclesiastical), or sometimes the lack thereof (omni autem petenti te), valet for potest (nec valet quisquam dicere), the use of the present subjunctive in a negated imperative (which was either heavily avoided or never used in Classical Latin, as is seen in Bitmap's discussions with Cinefactus), periphrastic tenses with the present participle and sum, eram, ero, &c., to name a few.Quasus dixit:Can you bring any examples? I’m most interested in how numerous such things are.
Jerome, I read, was quite knowledgeable concerning Classical prose. That aside, how does their ignorance change anything?Quasus dixit:This is a valid point, the only one I agree with. We discussed the use of quod-clauses instead of a.c.i. elsewhere. However, I attribute that to the ignorance of the authors who could not learn Latin properly in their Dark Ages.
And intelligibility, I'd say.Quasus dixit:What do you mean by simplified syntax? Perhaps a question of style?