Latin to vernacular languages

[Brennan_Doherty]

So we should have Latin Mass because we can’t trust the Church to translate it properly, or it is unable to translate it properly? But we are confident we can teach 1 Billion catholics Latin to a high level of fluency? Why don’t we just get better translations. Teaching a billion people a foreign language seems a long way around this problem.

Well, what have the translations been like the past forty years?

Having the Mass in Latin helps ensure better translations because it makes it much more difficult to get away with shoddy ones.

The Catholic Church is a Church for adults (at least those who are of age). Adults can learn enough Latin to understand at least the parts of the Mass that remain unchanging, especially since the Mass is the most important event they will participate in in their lifetime.

And Latin can easily be taught through Catholic schools (if there was a will to do so). I would liken it to reading Shakespeare. At first it’s not easy. You probably won’t understand every word. But if you, as an adult, make an effort, you will begin to understand it better and the benefits will be enormous.

 

[reggieM]

After all, if everyone understood the Latin of the Mass as a vernacular, why does Trent, whilst saying the vernacular is not to be employed, mandate the explanation of what is going on (XXII sess., cap. viii)?

That strikes me as another contradiction that really doesn’t work very well – and it actually caused the introduction of the vernacular.

As I said before, if it is a good thing that Latin is non-vernacular and therefore it doesn’t change – then people shouldn’t learn conversational Latin.

But more confusingly, one of the arguments used in favor of Latin (which I think really doesn’t work at all) is: “You can get a Latin/English missal”.

What this means in practice is that a person can read the text of the Mass in a vernacular language (English in this case).

So the faithful are understanding the Mass in a translation in the vernacular, which can either be a good or bad translation. But English does change the meaning of the text so it would seem to nullify this supposed advantage of Latin.

There was a time when vernacular translations of the Mass were forbidden by the Holy See. That was more consistent and made more sense given the “unchanging” argument.

But the Popes realized that there was a conflict since people really didn’t understand Latin and they had a chance of understanding the vernacular.

It’s also important to remember that during a long period history most people would not have been able to understand the Mass if it was in the vernacular anyway. They certainly could not have read the vernacular any better than they could read Latin.

When people became more educated, the Holy See realized that vernacular/Latin missals would help people at Mass.

Before that, you could bring a prayerbook to Mass that was entirely in the vernacular (but had nothing to do with the Mass texts). The Popes realized that didn’t make very much sense since people could read other prayers in the vernacular but not the prayers at Mass.

It was because of this confusing development with the Latin langauge (which wasn’t “planned” to be a “dead language” but it just happened that way) that vernacular came in at the 2nd Vatican Council.

But it did say that Latin was to be retained (at least in part) and that loss has hurt the liturgy and spiritual formation (in my opinion).

As mentioned before, the Latin language is a link with the apostolic age and it teaches the faithful that the Mass isn’t just something that Father invented an hour before he started, or even invented back in 1969.

Latin provides important roots with the past.

 

[otjm]

Yet a multitude of vernacular languages were not adopted (as is the case today). If the Church went to a country where Latin was not the vernacular, they didn’t start celebrating Mass in a language other than Latin. Every liturgical language starts somewhere, even the Hebrew of the Jewish people.

Aw, c’mon for crying out loud. It is not the Roman Catholic Church; it is the Catholic Church, and it includes all of the Eastern rites which are in communion with Rome.

The Church most certainly did start celebrating Mass in the vernacular; go to a Maronite Mass some time and hear the use of Arabic and Aramaic. Or got to a Byzantine rite Mass and hear Russian…

The Roman rite may not have gone to other countries and started using another language; it helps to be a bit specific instead of loosely tossing out bon mots. The Church went to other countries and started using the language there, and that is in part how some of the other rites were started. and after the church found itself with various rites, then perhaps we can say that the Roman rite used latin when it went to other countries.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Aw, c’mon for crying out loud. It is not the Roman Catholic Church; it is the Catholic Church, and it includes all of the Eastern rites which are in communion with Rome.

The Church most certainly did start celebrating Mass in the vernacular; go to a Maronite Mass some time and hear the use of Arabic and Aramaic. Or got to a Byzantine rite Mass and hear Russian…

The Roman rite may not have gone to other countries and started using another language; it helps to be a bit specific instead of loosely tossing out bon mots. The Church went to other countries and started using the language there, and that is in part how some of the other rites were started. and after the church found itself with various rites, then perhaps we can say that the Roman rite used latin when it went to other countries.

So the Eastern rite churches use the vernacular? They don’t use a liturgical language?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

That strikes me as another contradiction that really doesn’t work very well – and it actually caused the introduction of the vernacular.

As I said before, if it is a good thing that Latin is non-vernacular and therefore it doesn’t change – then people shouldn’t learn conversational Latin.

But more confusingly, one of the arguments used in favor of Latin (which I think really doesn’t work at all) is: “You can get a Latin/English missal”.

What this means in practice is that a person can read the text of the Mass in a vernacular language (English in this case).

So the faithful are understanding the Mass in a translation in the vernacular, which can either be a good or bad translation. But English does change the meaning of the text so it would seem to nullify this supposed advantage of Latin.

There was a time when vernacular translations of the Mass were forbidden by the Holy See. That was more consistent and made more sense given the “unchanging” argument.

But the Popes realized that there was a conflict since people really didn’t understand Latin and they had a chance of understanding the vernacular.

It’s also important to remember that during a long period history most people would not have been able to understand the Mass if it was in the vernacular anyway. They certainly could not have read the vernacular any better than they could read Latin.

When people became more educated, the Holy See realized that vernacular/Latin missals would help people at Mass.

Before that, you could bring a prayerbook to Mass that was entirely in the vernacular (but had nothing to do with the Mass texts). The Popes realized that didn’t make very much sense since people could read other prayers in the vernacular but not the prayers at Mass.

It was because of this confusing development with the Latin langauge (which wasn’t “planned” to be a “dead language” but it just happened that way) that vernacular came in at the 2nd Vatican Council.

But it did say that Latin was to be retained (at least in part) and that loss has hurt the liturgy and spiritual formation (in my opinion).

As mentioned before, the Latin language is a link with the apostolic age and it teaches the faithful that the Mass isn’t just something that Father invented an hour before he started, or even invented back in 1969.

Latin provides important roots with the past.

Again, the Fathers of Vatican II did not envision the wholesale introduction of the vernacular.

Another issue with the use of the vernacular is that for many years now we have priests and even bishops who know hardly any Latin at all, and thus don’t know the official language of the Church and are dependent on translations. This further hurts the unity of the Church as these same priests and bishops are less able to converse with their brethren in other countries.

And while people can use Latin/English missals, there is nothing preventing (and much encouraging) them to learn the Latin itself. Again, when you have the Latin/English side by side it is much harder to pass on shoddy translations as almost any churchgoer who knows Latin decently would be able to spot it.

 

[reggieM]

Those are good points.

But I’ll still mention the conflict that may be present in the difference between a sacred language and a vernacular langugage.

In some ways, Latin is said to fulfill both of those functions.

A sacred language, would be something reserved for liturgical use. Like a chalice or a vestment. We could say that they have a function (a cup or clothing) but they’re not meant to be functional in that way. They’re just for the Mass. A chalice is used only for one thing. So is a vestment.

So, Latin could be like that. Used just for liturgy – a sacred language. Then it wouldn’t have a vernacular function or be expected to be spoken or written as a vernacular.

But this conflicts with the argument that Latin is a “universal language”. That would mean it would be universally understood in conversations, or in preaching or teaching. In other words, if it was a universal language then it would be a vernacular.

Those two concepts really don’t work together.

I’ve heard some argue that English is a far more universal language than Latin is because it is understood in more places.

Again, just think some of the arguments used to defend Latin should be refined or adjusted somewhat. I think it’s difficult to want Latin to be a functional language that people learn to read, write and speak, but then also say that it’s non-vernacular.

I have studied Latin so I can at least read it. I find that to be a great value.

I think some of the arguments were strained because the Mass and all the liturgy was in Latin only.

Plus, all seminary teaching was done in the Latin language and that really was hard to defend after a while (again, Latin was vernacular enough to be used as the language in the classroom).

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Those are good points.

But I’ll still mention the conflict that may be present in the difference between a sacred language and a vernacular langugage.

In some ways, Latin is said to fulfill both of those functions.

A sacred language, would be something reserved for liturgical use. Like a chalice or a vestment. We could say that they have a function (a cup or clothing) but they’re not meant to be functional in that way. They’re just for the Mass. A chalice is used only for one thing. So is a vestment.

So, Latin could be like that. Used just for liturgy – a sacred language. Then it wouldn’t have a vernacular function or be expected to be spoken or written as a vernacular.

But this conflicts with the argument that Latin is a “universal language”. That would mean it would be universally understood in conversations, or in preaching or teaching. In other words, if it was a universal language then it would be a vernacular.

Those two concepts really don’t work together.

I’ve heard some argue that English is a far more universal language than Latin is because it is understood in more places.

Again, just think some of the arguments used to defend Latin should be refined or adjusted somewhat. I think it’s difficult to want Latin to be a functional language that people learn to read, write and speak, but then also say that it’s non-vernacular.

I have studied Latin so I can at least read it. I find that to be a great value.

I think some of the arguments were strained because the Mass and all the liturgy was in Latin only.

Plus, all seminary teaching was done in the Latin language and that really was hard to defend after a while (again, Latin was vernacular enough to be used as the language in the classroom).

Yes, Latin was the vernacular in some countries. Vernacular, at least to me, means the primary language of a country or people, such as Spanish in Mexico or French in France. In that sense, Latin is no longer a vernacular language anywhere. Even if some learn it well enough to speak it.

I also would say that the only people I think it would be important enough to learn to speak it conversationally would be higher ranking prelates. Learning to read it would be good for anyone, of course.

Here is the section on Veterum Sapientia on its universality:

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

http://www.adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

In other words, as Veterum Sapientia notes, Latin does not favor any nation the way a vernacular language would such as English. Further, another reason for the use of Latin is that the Church has “grown up” with it. As Fr. Hardon once noted, “God help the man who has to teach the Catholic Faith using English.” He said this because he noted that English has been influenced by Protestantism as some of the main countries that speak it are Protestant (the U.S., England). Latin has no such issues.

I don’t know why seminary training in Latin is “hard to defend.” Sounds like an excellent idea so Priests from different countries could more easily communicate. And read historical documents along with current Church documents in the original language. Of course, once the liturgy went primarily to the vernacular, that took a huge incentive away to learn Latin, no matter how much Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II advocated it for seminaries.

Good talking with you. God bless.

 

[markadm]

So the Eastern rite churches use the vernacular? They don’t use a liturgical language?

I thought they used Old Church Slavonic.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I thought they used Old Church Slavonic.

Yea, that’s what I would think.

 

[Fuerza]

Yes, Latin was the vernacular in some countries. Vernacular, at least to me, means the primary language of a country or people, such as Spanish in Mexico or French in France. In that sense, Latin is no longer a vernacular language anywhere. Even if some learn it well enough to speak it.
I also would say that the only people I think it would be important enough to learn to speak it conversationally would be higher ranking prelates. Learning to read it would be good for anyone, of course.

Here is the section on Veterum Sapientia on its universality:

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

http://www.adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

In other words, as Veterum Sapientia notes, Latin does not favor any nation the way a vernacular language would such as English. Further, another reason for the use of Latin is that the Church has “grown up” with it. As Fr. Hardon once noted, “God help the man who has to teach the Catholic Faith using English.” He said this because he noted that English has been influenced by Protestantism as some of the main countries that speak it are Protestant (the U.S., England). Latin has no such issues.

I don’t know why seminary training in Latin is “hard to defend.” Sounds like an excellent idea so Priests from different countries could more easily communicate. And read historical documents along with current Church documents in the original language. Of course, once the liturgy went primarily to the vernacular, that took a huge incentive away to learn Latin, no matter how much Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II advocated it for seminaries.

Good talking with you. God bless.

We have to be careful here. As already noted, the Classical/Ecclesiastical Latin adopted by the Church was never a vernacular anywhere (until this past century anyway…a completely different subject). It was a literary language learned and used by intellectuals, but was not spoken spontaneously by anyone. The actual vernacular was something called Vulgar Latin, which was completely mutually unintelligible with the Classical form. This is the Latin from which the Romance languages are derived. While Classical Latin was learned by the educated and used in formal situations, it is safe to say that it was never understood by the majority of the population.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

We have to be careful here. As already noted, the Classical/Ecclesiastical Latin adopted by the Church was never a vernacular anywhere (until this past century anyway…a completely different subject). It was a literary language learned and used by intellectuals, but was not spoken spontaneously by anyone. The actual vernacular was something called Vulgar Latin, which was completely mutually unintelligible with the Classical form. This is the Latin from which the Romance languages are derived. While Classical Latin was learned by the educated and used in formal situations, it is safe to say that it was never understood by the majority of the population.

That is good information. Thank you.

 

[stmaria]

This is not a question about the Traditional Latin Mass, but rather about the history of it. However, I posted it here, because I was concerned my intent might be misinterpreted if I posted it in the “Liturgy and Sacraments” forum.

Really, it’s a history question.

I happened to find that the XXIInd Session of the Council of Trent says that vernacular languages are prohibited for the Mass (cap. VIII), even mandating that explanations must instead be given.

My question is, then, how did the Church “change her mind”, i.e. how did we get from there all the way to the greater use of the vernacular leading up to the Second Vatican Council. I know after that the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium kind of got misapplied - I am thinking of n. 36§2, but also in respect of the Divine Office, n. 101§1. But how did we get to that thinking…?

Can anyone explain the history? I’ve read about dialogue Masses, and experimental Masses in vernacular in the early 20th Century, and like to know more about how it all came about.

The Council of Trent was called because of the Protestant Reformation. The Protestants introduced the vernacular into their Mass. This is why Trent said:
CHAPTER VIII
THE MASS MAY NOT BE CELEBRATED IN THE VERNACULAR. ITS MYSTERIES TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE PEOPLE
“Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue. Wherefore, the ancient rite of each Church, approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being everywhere retained, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, or <the little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it unto them,> the holy council commands pastors and all who have the that they, either themselves or through others, explain frequently during the celebration of the mass some of the things read during the mass, and that among other things they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on Sundays and festival days.”

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

Vernacular was introduced into the New Mass because of ecumenical reasons. Latin is considered “offensive” to Protestants and to many Catholics on this forum.
Please read The Rhine flows into the Tiber. It has much of the text of the debate that went on at the Vatican II Council. Here is an interview given by one of the Catholic reformers about the changes that he wanted in the New Mass.
Three weeks after the Council began and more than one year before the* Constitution on the Liturgy was even voted on, Bishop William Dushak gave the following statement:
Pg 37-38 “ “My idea is to introduce an* ecumenical Mass**, stripped wherever possible of historical accretions, one that is based on the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, **using language and gestures that are understandable…**It would be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community…**can readily understand without involved explanations…**the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people….this ecumenical Mass… is to be **written by liturgical scholars of all faiths **in order to provide a **basis of common worship **by all Christians” When asked if his proposal originated with the people whom he served he stated, “ No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it” Dushaks remarks were carried on page one of the New York Times on November 6 1962

 

[otjm]

So the Eastern rite churches use the vernacular? They don’t use a liturgical language?

Both Latin and the languages of the Eastern rite Churches were the vernacular at the time the Church was introduced into the various regions eminating from Jerusalem. Through time, as you obviously know, the language of the Eastern rite churches in large part became “liturgical language”.

I have been told that the Arabic in the Maronite rite is not ancient liturgical language Arabic but I couldn’t prove it one way of the other. There are not a whole lot of Aramiac speakers in the world as faras I can ascertain.

 

[otjm]

We have to be careful here. As already noted, the Classical/Ecclesiastical Latin adopted by the Church was never a vernacular anywhere (until this past century anyway…a completely different subject). It was a literary language learned and used by intellectuals, but was not spoken spontaneously by anyone. The actual vernacular was something called Vulgar Latin, which was completely mutually unintelligible with the Classical form. This is the Latin from which the Romance languages are derived. While Classical Latin was learned by the educated and used in formal situations, it is safe to say that it was never understood by the majority of the population.

Some slave in the back kitchen might not have spoken it; and a goodly number of people who spoke the common Latin may not have understood some of it, just as anyone fairly well educated nowadays can use what is glibly termed a fifty cent word in a ten cent conversation. To say that it was never understood by the majority is an overstatement; some of it may not have been understood. Speaking in an erudite fashion may leave the listener with a grasp of what one said, without necessarily leaving them with an absolutely clear understanding of it.

 

[Aramis]

So the Eastern rite churches use the vernacular? They don’t use a liturgical language?

The Ruthenian Church (Byzantine Metropolitan Church of Pittsburg Sui Iuris) specifies English as the primary liturgical language at present, but allows Spanish and Church Slavonic. The Carpetho Rusyn Church (Eparchy of Muchachevo) uses Church Slavonic.

The Ukrainian uses Church Slavonic as the official liturgical language, but offers the Divine Liturgy in English, Ukrainian, Church Slavonic, and Slovak (in a few odd places).

The Russian Catholics use Russian Church Slavonic (which is slightly different than the Church Slavonic of the Ukrainians and Carpetho-Rusyns/Ruthenians.

Byzantine Tradition is to use the vernacular. Translate from the parent church’s liturgy, but with reference to the greek divine liturgy as well.

Only the Western Rites within the Roman Church Sui Iuris avoided the use of the Vernacular. Even then, a Church Slavonic indult was in place for centuries for the balkans.

 

[reggieM]

Vernacular, at least to me, means the primary language of a country or people, such as Spanish in Mexico or French in France. In that sense, Latin is no longer a vernacular language anywhere. Even if some learn it well enough to speak it.

Well, I think vernacular normally means the “vulgar tongue” which is a conversational language. It doesn’t have to be restricted to any one nation – just as English is not restricted to England or Spanish to Spain. A place like Brazil has several vernacular languages.

But if people are conversing in Latin, then this kills the idea that the meaning of Latin words will be protected from change. New words will enter into the Latin language and while people use Latin to describe modern things, the meaning of Latin words will definitely change.

I also would say that the only people I think it would be important enough to learn to speak it conversationally would be higher ranking prelates. Learning to read it would be good for anyone, of course.

If the reason higher ranking prelates would need to learn conversational Latin is so they could all understand each other, some would say (and I’ve seen this in action) that modern technology provides spontaneous translation devices for groups of people who speak different languages.

I don’t know why seminary training in Latin is “hard to defend.”

Well, I would offer some reasons that I see:

1. Even when all seminarians were taught in Latin, most couldn’t understand it and remedial sessions were given on Saturdays to teach the course again in the vernacular.
2. Again, to use Latin to communicate modern concepts (necessary in several courses), new words would have to be invented, and the meaning of Latin would change (thus Latin would act as a vernacular).
3. The perceived benefits of having seminarians conversant enough in Latin to understand professors teaching courses are offset by the cost of the Latin study that is required to get to that skill level. I have had 3 high school years of latin and 3 college semesters and at my best I was never able to follow a simple conversation. It takes a lot of study to be fluent. Are those hours of study by seminarians to learn Latin that well, really worth it at the cost of the many other essential things that they need to learn?
4. I believe that the traditionalist orders of priests – SSPX and FSSP have answered my last question above. Neither of them use Latin in teaching their seminary classes. They use the vernacular in classes.

 

[reggieM]

The reason the Mass was translated into Latin in the 4th century was so that it would be more intelligible. One might say that the Latin of that time was not a “vernacular” but Latin was written and used in discourses by a wide number of people – even though they were of the aristocratic class.

The Mass was not translated into Latin in order to put it in a “sacred language” – since Latin was not considered a sacred language at the time. The Mass was already celebrated using Greek, which also was not a sacred language but was a language spoken and understood in conversation.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Well, I think vernacular normally means the “vulgar tongue” which is a conversational language. It doesn’t have to be restricted to any one nation – just as English is not restricted to England or Spanish to Spain. A place like Brazil has several vernacular languages.

But if people are conversing in Latin, then this kills the idea that the meaning of Latin words will be protected from change. New words will enter into the Latin language and while people use Latin to describe modern things, the meaning of Latin words will definitely change.

If the reason higher ranking prelates would need to learn conversational Latin is so they could all understand each other, some would say (and I’ve seen this in action) that modern technology provides spontaneous translation devices for groups of people who speak different languages.

Well, I would offer some reasons that I see:

1. Even when all seminarians were taught in Latin, most couldn’t understand it and remedial sessions were given on Saturdays to teach the course again in the vernacular.
2. Again, to use Latin to communicate modern concepts (necessary in several courses), new words would have to be invented, and the meaning of Latin would change (thus Latin would act as a vernacular).
3. The perceived benefits of having seminarians conversant enough in Latin to understand professors teaching courses are offset by the cost of the Latin study that is required to get to that skill level. I have had 3 high school years of latin and 3 college semesters and at my best I was never able to follow a simple conversation. It takes a lot of study to be fluent. Are those hours of study by seminarians to learn Latin that well, really worth it at the cost of the many other essential things that they need to learn?
4. I believe that the traditionalist orders of priests – SSPX and FSSP have answered my last question above. Neither of them use Latin in teaching their seminary classes. They use the vernacular in classes.

I would say that even if some prelates spoke Latin, and some new words were coined (for instance regarding modern technology), that would not affect the core theological words which are the most crucial.

I suppose in regards to seminaries it would be to teach Latin at least well enough to celebrate Mass and read it, regardless of whether the seminary classes were taught in Latin.

 

[Fuerza]

Some slave in the back kitchen might not have spoken it; and a goodly number of people who spoke the common Latin may not have understood some of it, just as anyone fairly well educated nowadays can use what is glibly termed a fifty cent word in a ten cent conversation. To say that it was never understood by the majority is an overstatement; some of it may not have been understood. Speaking in an erudite fashion may leave the listener with a grasp of what one said, without necessarily leaving them with an absolutely clear understanding of it.

Classical Latin was not simply an erudite form of Vulgar Latin. The differences were extraordinary, even so to the point that many linguists consider them to be separate languages. The closest (though probably not the best) modern example of which I can think would be Modern Standard Arabic and the various regional forms of Arabic.

 

[markadm]

Classical Latin was not simply an erudite form of Vulgar Latin. The differences were extraordinary, even so to the point that many linguists consider them to be separate languages. The closest (though probably not the best) modern example of which I can think would be Modern Standard Arabic and the various regional forms of Arabic.

Exactly. And the slave in the back spoke vulgar Latin.

What Latin would folks have understood in, say England, of the 5th Century?