4 ms·

> This is certainly not the case in the US. That sounds more like studying church Latin, which will be mocked if you're studying Latin outside an explicit relig

> This is certainly not the case in the US. That sounds more like studying church Latin, which will be mocked if you're studying Latin outside an explicit religious context. Where are you? I studied Latin in Canada. Foundation Latin classes are based on the "Latin of Cicero," the writer who is considered to have mastered the language during its Golden Age by most scholars. We are not taught Classical Latin til more advanced courses, as the declensions and conjugations change and so do many word meanings, and instead of learning Classical Latin the language, we learn to close-read Classical Latin literature.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
How is Cicero not "Classical Latin"?
- kafkaesque 10y ago
  I'm assuming a few people here have not studied Latin, which is fine of course, but their understanding is based on a simplification of a summary of nice and orderly definitions on what periods adhere to what types of Latin dialects. This is not how the real world worked and neither how Latin is taught at my particular institution. Unfortunately, I do not have time to explain everything, and I am also not a Latin scholar. I studied Latin over 6 years ago so my Latin history knowledge is also a little fuzzy. But you are right, Cicero is Classical Latin. However, we were taught a mix of Latin that is kind of like what this Wiki says: "The Latin of the panegyrics is that of a Golden Age Latin base, derived from an education heavy on Cicero, mixed with a large number of Silver Age usages and a small number of Late and Vulgar terms." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and_style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and... "Silver Age" is what I probably should have said instead of strictly Late and Vulgar, which are both technically different terms, but which were also taught in my Latin courses.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    A close family member was a Classics professor so while I have never personally studied Latin, I've been around it all my life, and my understanding is that your experiences are not close to typical.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
But... Cicero was writing in high-register Latin in 50 BC (give or take). He would have had nothing to do with the vulgar Latin of 270 AD, and less to do with the Latin of the European middle ages. Wikipedia's page on "Classical Latin" defines it as the formal Latin of ~75 BC up to "3rd century AD" (reminds me of 270 AD!), when it was replaced by Late Latin. This essentially means that Classical Latin is defined as "the Latin of Cicero". Pre-Cicero, you have Old Latin, which I agree is generally not taught.
- kafkaesque 10y ago
  Just out of curiosity, you studied Latin in the US? And have you read Cicero? Since we are quoting Wikipedia: "The concepts and vocabulary from which vulgare latinum descend were known in the classical period and are to be found amply represented in the unabridged Latin dictionary, starting in the late Roman republic. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a prolific writer, whose works have survived in large quantity, and who serves as a standard of Latin, and his contemporaries in addition to recognizing the lingua Latina also knew varieties of "speech" under the name sermo. Latin could be sermo Latinus, but in addition was a variety known as sermo vulgaris, sermo vulgi, sermo plebeius and sermo quotidianus. These modifiers inform post-classical readers that a conversational Latin existed, which was used by the masses (vulgus) in daily speaking (quotidianus) and was perceived as lower-class (plebeius)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin Wiki: "Philological analysis of Archaic Latin works, such as those of Plautus, which contain snippets of everyday speech, indicates that a spoken language, Vulgar Latin (sermo vulgi ("the speech of the masses") by Cicero), existed at the same time as the literate Classical Latin. The informal language was rarely written, so philologists have been left with only individual words and phrases cited by classical authors and those found as graffiti." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin Wiki: "The written Latin of today, as used for Church purposes, does not differ radically from classical Latin. Study of the language of Cicero and Virgil suffices adequately for understanding Church Latin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Comparison_with_classical_Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Compariso... And finally, to quote what I quoted another user in this thread: "But you are right, Cicero is Classical Latin. However, we were taught a mix of Latin that is kind of like what this Wiki says: 'The Latin of the panegyrics is that of a Golden Age Latin base, derived from an education heavy on Cicero, mixed with a large number of Silver Age usages and a small number of Late and Vulgar terms.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and_style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and... 'Silver Age' is what I probably should have said instead of strictly Late and Vulgar, which are both technically different terms, but which were also taught in my Latin courses."

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

How is Cicero not "Classical Latin"?

kafkaesque 10y ago
I'm assuming a few people here have not studied Latin, which is fine of course, but their understanding is based on a simplification of a summary of nice and orderly definitions on what periods adhere to what types of Latin dialects. This is not how the real world worked and neither how Latin is taught at my particular institution. Unfortunately, I do not have time to explain everything, and I am also not a Latin scholar. I studied Latin over 6 years ago so my Latin history knowledge is also a little fuzzy. But you are right, Cicero is Classical Latin. However, we were taught a mix of Latin that is kind of like what this Wiki says: "The Latin of the panegyrics is that of a Golden Age Latin base, derived from an education heavy on Cicero, mixed with a large number of Silver Age usages and a small number of Late and Vulgar terms." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and_style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and... "Silver Age" is what I probably should have said instead of strictly Late and Vulgar, which are both technically different terms, but which were also taught in my Latin courses.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  A close family member was a Classics professor so while I have never personally studied Latin, I've been around it all my life, and my understanding is that your experiences are not close to typical.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

But... Cicero was writing in high-register Latin in 50 BC (give or take). He would have had nothing to do with the vulgar Latin of 270 AD, and less to do with the Latin of the European middle ages. Wikipedia's page on "Classical Latin" defines it as the formal Latin of ~75 BC up to "3rd century AD" (reminds me of 270 AD!), when it was replaced by Late Latin. This essentially means that Classical Latin is defined as "the Latin of Cicero". Pre-Cicero, you have Old Latin, which I agree is generally not taught.

kafkaesque 10y ago
Just out of curiosity, you studied Latin in the US? And have you read Cicero? Since we are quoting Wikipedia: "The concepts and vocabulary from which vulgare latinum descend were known in the classical period and are to be found amply represented in the unabridged Latin dictionary, starting in the late Roman republic. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a prolific writer, whose works have survived in large quantity, and who serves as a standard of Latin, and his contemporaries in addition to recognizing the lingua Latina also knew varieties of "speech" under the name sermo. Latin could be sermo Latinus, but in addition was a variety known as sermo vulgaris, sermo vulgi, sermo plebeius and sermo quotidianus. These modifiers inform post-classical readers that a conversational Latin existed, which was used by the masses (vulgus) in daily speaking (quotidianus) and was perceived as lower-class (plebeius)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin Wiki: "Philological analysis of Archaic Latin works, such as those of Plautus, which contain snippets of everyday speech, indicates that a spoken language, Vulgar Latin (sermo vulgi ("the speech of the masses") by Cicero), existed at the same time as the literate Classical Latin. The informal language was rarely written, so philologists have been left with only individual words and phrases cited by classical authors and those found as graffiti." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin Wiki: "The written Latin of today, as used for Church purposes, does not differ radically from classical Latin. Study of the language of Cicero and Virgil suffices adequately for understanding Church Latin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Comparison_with_classical_Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Compariso... And finally, to quote what I quoted another user in this thread: "But you are right, Cicero is Classical Latin. However, we were taught a mix of Latin that is kind of like what this Wiki says: 'The Latin of the panegyrics is that of a Golden Age Latin base, derived from an education heavy on Cicero, mixed with a large number of Silver Age usages and a small number of Late and Vulgar terms.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and_style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and... 'Silver Age' is what I probably should have said instead of strictly Late and Vulgar, which are both technically different terms, but which were also taught in my Latin courses."