I think you’re on the right track. New Latin words in the anatomical field, for example, would not need Vatican approval, whereas any term that pertains to Catholic theology (transubstantialem et al) would require it. Of course, everyone will be jumping up and down and wanting it in their vernacular but the bishops would need to deal with that.
Maybe not so much the vocabulary but the meanings.
There are some schools that teach only in Latin!
That is beyond academic use, though – academic use would be publishing papers in Latin. These students speak Latin to each other instead of their native tongues.
We were talking about the Church councils in the First Millennium. Probably most who are present would understand Greek. Its not far off that there would be some who would need translators. But Greek was the common language back then so most people would be communicating in Greek.
And let’s not forget Koine Greek.
One example that comes to mind is the nearly extinct Cypriot Maronite dialect.
No, the Bishops don’t communicate with each other using Latin, but when interpreting texts, Latin is the go-to language for accuracy, that way a German Bishop, or a Vietnamese Bishop can both understand the exact same concept. Greek wouldn’t be used because it has and will continue to evolve as time goes on. I don’t even know if it could be considered the same language that was 2000 years ago.
that last part didn’t make any sense…
Oh, I get it now. That’s a little problematic I think, because it confuses the definition entirely. What if the word “Ora” was used a long time ago in our doctrines, but was meant to mean “speak”…? In this case, we have just confused the meaning of a word. Here we run the risk of altering history, or “Truth” rather.
Yes.And let’s not forget Koine Greek.
Yes, Slavonic was probably not the best example for this point, as it is a bit more complicated than the others. There are many complicated and boring reasons for giving Slavonic as an example here (similar to the reasons why historical linguists often throw everything old that isn’t Qur’anic Arabic into a “Classical” wastebasket category, even though they probably know that’s not right), but you are right that it is the one from that list of examples which would have never had native speakers to begin with. Так простите мне люди; я дурака.
Woah, hold on there, ܐܰܚܳܐ…we’re talking about different things here. The modern languages, yes, of course they’re alive (though quite endangered at this point; the reality of life in the diaspora does not bode well for their long-term survival). Syriac is not alive, however.
Yes, and perhaps paradoxically, it seems to have improved a little bit as of late. When Tsiapera did her 1969 study, she listed the speakers as 1200 in Kormakiti (the other Maronites of Cyprus speak only Greek) and declining. Yet Borg, in his 1985 book on the dialect, bases his analysis on interviews and elicitations from CMA speakers in Nicosia (who hail from Kormakiti). He puts their numbers at 1300. That a population would grow by 100 in 16 years is not at all surprising or interesting. The implication that those 100 would grow up speaking the language or having it otherwise passed on to them is, though. If I remember correctly (I don’t have access to either book right now), the average age of the community is somewhere in the late 50s…One example that comes to mind is the nearly extinct Cypriot Maronite dialect.
Have you heard of the Liturgical language “Avestan”…? I heard the language could have possibly stemmed from the Yaz culture which originated in present day Afghanistan, but the Avestan language, none the less, found its way into the Achaemenid Empire As the official Liturgical language of the Zoroastrian religion -the State religion of the Persian Empire.Yes.
Yes, Slavonic was probably not the best example for this point, as it is a bit more complicated than the others. There are many complicated and boring reasons for giving Slavonic as an example here (similar to the reasons why historical linguists often throw everything old that isn’t Qur’anic Arabic into a “Classical” wastebasket category, even though they probably know that’s not right), but you are right that it is the one from that list of examples which would have never had native speakers to begin with. Так простите мне люди; я дурака.
Woah, hold on there, ܐܰܚܳܐ…we’re talking about different things here. The modern languages, yes, of course they’re alive (though quite endangered at this point; the reality of life in the diaspora does not bode well for their long-term survival). Syriac is not alive, however.
Yes, and perhaps paradoxically, it seems to have improved a little bit as of late. When Tsiapera did her 1969 study, she listed the speakers as 1200 in Kormakiti (the other Maronites of Cyprus speak only Greek) and declining. Yet Borg, in his 1985 book on the dialect, bases his analysis on interviews and elicitations from CMA speakers in Nicosia (who hail from Kormakiti). He puts their numbers at 1300. That a population would grow by 100 in 16 years is not at all surprising or interesting. The implication that those 100 would grow up speaking the language or having it otherwise passed on to them is, though. If I remember correctly (I don’t have access to either book right now), the average age of the community is somewhere in the late 50s…
Who used it determined its meaning for the most part. True of English as well. An American defines a billion, for example, diffferently than a Brit. A Canadian gallon is different than an American gallon. Holiday means different things. And so on. The markets take this into account.
Definitely. Here it is called 3.78 Liters.
Yes, I have heard of it, but I don’t know much about it beyond it being the liturgical language of the Zoroastrian religion. One thing that might be interesting to people here is that the script it is descendant from, the Pahlavi, is found on ancient crosses of the St. Thomas Christians (Nasrani) in India: