​Latin is NOT a dead language!

Latin is a dead language

As dead as it can be

It killed all the Romans

And now it’s killing me

All are dead who wrote it

All are dead who spoke it

All die who learn it

Blessed death – they earn it

-Unknown

“Sic hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.”

If you can read this you have too much education.

Often, one will hear tell of Latin being a dead language, as it is no longer being spoken today. This is simply not true.

A true dead language would be like Latin’s northern Italian neighbor, Ancient Etruscan. Which disappeared when the Romans consolidated their power in Italy. Ancient Etruscan died out because the space was culturally replaced by Rome and the spoken language was replaced by Latin, and the next generation was taught Latin and not Etruscan.

Latin in Italy was never replaced. When Latin became the Lingua Franca in Spain, it was never replaced by another language. The same is true in France, Latin was never displaced as the spoken language.

I take the linguist’s view of language over the grammarian’s view of language. What do I mean by this? Well, a grammarian will say “Y’all” is bad improper English. A linguist will say “Y’all” is a regional solution to a real language problem (denoting a plural of “you”), that is understood effectively. As effective communication took place, it cannot be considered an improper use of language, merely an informal one. English is a flexible living language, and part of that “living” aspect is that it will morph and change slightly region to region and generation to generation.    

Latin did not die, over 2000 years of use it became Spanish, Italian, French, Etc.   

But what did happen was written Latin remained only slightly changed, while the spoken word became more regionalized. This occurred to the extent that after 1000 years what was written had much less to do with what was spoken. In addition to this, the written Latin, primarily used by the church, had also evolved into its own “dialect” of Latin.

In the 1300s a man by the name of Petrarch came to believe that the changes that occurred over time to the church Latin corrupted it, and this corruption was an indication of the decline evident in the period of the Middle Ages.

Petrarch believed the Latin of Cicero had been perfect, and worked hard to make this 1st century BC Latin  “The Latin.” Needless to say Petrarch took the grammarians view of language and believed by raising “Proper Latin” back up, he would be raising proper culture back up. (In his view, how could someone communicate deeply nuanced thought, if the language they used was inherently flawed?)

To make a REALLY long story much too short, Petrarch was the father of a movement, called Humanism, that revived interest in the classical world, and this led to directly to the Renaissance (In fact the term “The Dark Ages” was coined by Petrarch. As he believed with the Roman revival, he was living in age of new “light.”) 

But to put this in perspective, this would be the same as me saying that “Perfect English” was displayed in the Beowulf Epic, and I would advocate us only writing and speaking “Proper English,” that of the Beowulf Poet.

In English we get around the “dead language” debate with clever sleight of hand. The Beowulf epic was written in “Old English” and Chaucer was “Middle English” and Shakespeare was really late Middle English, or very early Modern English depending on your perspective.

Old English is not so much a “dead language,” but a signpost in the evolution of one language: English.

From Petrarch on, Classical Latin was taught as something separate and unchanging. This was in contrast to the lingua francas which continued to evolve into their own unique entities.

Those who were educated would learn their own language, and also this version of Latin.

Thus, it came to pass that someone from England could speak with someone from Germany or Spain or France because they had all also been taught this Classical Latin. This is why most intellectual books meant for wide distribution were for centuries published in Latin. A good example is Isaac Newton’s seminal work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The English author’s book was immediately read and understood in France and Germany because it was written in Latin.  

In this way, Latin doubly did not die. Latin evolved into a number of new languages, and then it was brought back and codified to work as a pan-language of the educated.

Again, this is quite different from Ancient Etruscan, which died because it had no more speakers. As indicated by the Latin that was created (or rather restored) out of the Humanist movement, Church Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian, Romansh and Latin’s many other derivatives, Latin never died; it evolved and it is still with us.

And for fun here are listings for some modern classics translated into Latin including Harry Potter and Winnie the Pooh:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/28021/winnie-ille-pu-latin-versions-10-modern-stories