Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Except, of course, that it didn't  . Spoken Latin is alive and well today [...] |
A nit: Totally get the point--spoken Latin is still used--but not sure I'd describe
spoken Latin as alive and well. Among the several hundred residents of Vatican City, apart from official Vatican business where the spoken language is required to be Latin, I wouldn't expect they'd speak Latin as their primary, spoken language of choice during daily life. They probably speak mostly Italian, English, or other preferred languages from their homelands, and use Latin when required to do so in an official context. For example, a ceremony affiliated with the Holy See. I'd describe spoken Latin as dead or at least on life support: it's not growing in usage that I can see beyond the tiny group of people who use it in official church settings, and no group of people I'm aware of uses it as their spoken language of choice.
None of that is a putdown to Latin. The language is amazing, and we are all beneficiaries of the linguistic legacy it has left us. And that brings me back to the subject of grammar. I agree that the huge influence of Latin on English, led scholars from earlier times to develop Latinized grammar rules for English, some of which were a terrible fit. This is another thing that Pinker touches on in
Sense of Style.