Pedants' Paradise

[doversoul1]

Two more points before I go:

May be you can look at English for academic purposes. It has to be learned for the purpose but whether or not the writer speaks English is not a relevant question to what English for academic purposes is, and it is not possible to discuss what kind of English the author may speak by reading her/his writing.

You can’t have literary register. Registers refer to the level of politeness or formality for social purposes. They are different ways of saying the same thing and has nothing to do with what the speech or text is about.

[jean]

But just to add: you can't compare the way Polish people today speak and write with Polish writers of an earlier period...

I'm not doing that, though. I'm merely pointing out that there exist modern spoken languages every bit as morphologically complex as [classical] Latin. Polish happens to be the one I know most about (but don't expect me to speak it!)

[gurnemanz]

Since my Latin goes back to O Level 50 years ago I won't risk any comment in that area, but I have spent my entire life studying and teaching modern languages and have followed this discussion with great interest. One problem about comparative linguistic analysis is that no one could ever have the time or capacity to study all the human languages which exist or ever have existed, yet alone will exist in future.

I am convinced by the theory that all language starts out at the cognitive level as non-linear deep structure (NP, VP etc) and permeates by transformations through to the surface by different means in different languages as a linear string of phonemes and morphemes which can be either spoken or written. Consequently, I incline to the view that all human language has roughly the same level of complexity whether spoken or written (I know that it is sometimes claimed that creole or pidgin languages are less complex and can remember learning about Basil Bernstein's ideas on the alleged restricted code of the working class, which I think are now discredited).

Languages which are morphologically less complex compensate for this simply by expressing the same nuances of meaning by other means. Spoken language can rely on the complexity of expression communicated through gesture, facial expression, stress, emphasis, tone, volume, social context etc and therefore does not need to be as complex or precise in formal structure as written language which for me is fossilised spoken language. You might see written language as like a canal with fixed form between fixed boundaries rather than a free-flowing river which finds its own course, as happens with spoken, especially colloquial, usage, and by which means languages develop and evolve.

[doversoul1]

...there exist modern spoken languages every bit as morphologically complex as [classical] Latin. Polish happens to be the one I know most about (but don't expect me to speak it!)

If you ask me, English is infinitely unfathomable and ultimately unlearnable.

[french frank]

May I respectfully suggest we're starting out from your definition - you introduced the word classical into a discussion in which I had questioned whether it really was impossible to believe that Cicero spoke as Cicero wrote

To which my answer would still be: almost certainly not. Though not for the reason that you mention i.e. 'morphological complexity' - that is not the reason I would ever have given, although you seem to think that some people would. On the contrary, I mentioned the apparently highly complex African languages which are spoken, not written, because the people are illiterate. But stylistically carefully constructed sentences, rhetorical devices, vocabulary chosen with some reflection to create a particular effect &c are, for me, important differences between the deliberation of the written and the spontaneity of the spoken word, and what I mean by 'literary language'. [This was what I was referring to as regards e.g. contemporary literature where the aim is frequently to reproduce colloquial language - though it's probably just as artificial]. Gurnemanz mentions the paralinguistics of the spoken language, which again are part of spoken delivery.

But perhaps I was wrong in thinking that by 'how Cicero spoke' you meant his spontaneous, everday language, rather than the way he delivered a formal speech (which, such as we know them, are written down anyway)?

[french frank]

And to add: I thought I was clear in using 'classical Latin' I was indicating the period during which the written works fell - between Old Latin and Late Latin. I think that's non controversial? In that sense it cannot be other than 'written' because it's used to indicate the surviving works. The nature of the spoken Latin of those writers is unknowable.

[jean]

To which my answer would still be: almost certainly not. Though not for the reason that you mention i.e. 'morphological complexity' - that is not the reason I would ever have given, although you seem to think that some people would.

I know they would, because I've heard them give it.

But stylistically carefully constructed sentences, rhetorical devices, vocabulary chosen with some reflection to create a particular effect &c are, for me, important differences between the deliberation of the written and the spontaneity of the spoken word, and what I mean by 'literary language'.

So what you are talking about is the difference between literary/formal, and colloquial/informal language. Why didn't you say so?

Such a distinction is found in all the languages I know anything about. There was no need to mention 'classical Latin' at all, and we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble producing rival definitions of the term. True, it does fix the period we are talking about, and that is indeed uncontroversial, but is irrelevant if the sort of distinction you're talking about occurs in any language, in any period.

I don't agree, though, that there is such a huge gulf between these two sorts of language, or that they are clearly just two. Of course only written texts survive from our period, but that's true also of any time before the invention of sound recording. We don't assume from that that the speech of those who lived at the time is unknowable. And modern linguistics has given us many insights into the artfulness of everyday speech - as gurnemanz says, we no longer talk about restricted codes.

Besides, we have Cicero's Letters, which read so much like informal speech (while in general employing the grammar and syntax of more formal language) that a book you quoted yourself actually included them as an example of vulgar Latin. And we have the writings about language of Cicero and others, which make it clear that they were talking also about speech.

[jean]

I am convinced by the theory that all language starts out at the cognitive level as non-linear deep structure (NP, VP etc) and permeates by transformations through to the surface by different means in different languages as a linear string of phonemes and morphemes which can be either spoken or written.

That's interesting for the original question I was asking. So Chomsky is of some use after all...maybe.

How is the book you mentioned going? I read a few pages online but I don't think they'll let me read any more unless I buy it.

[doversoul1]

I know they would, because I've heard them give it.


So what you are talking about is the difference between literary/formal, and colloquial/informal language. Why didn't you say so?

Such a distinction is found in all the languages I know anything about. There was no need to mention 'classical Latin' at all, and we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble producing rival definitions of the term. True, it does fix the period we are talking about, and that is indeed uncontroversial, but is irrelevant if the sort of distinction you're talking about occurs in any language, in any period.

I don't agree, though, that there is such a huge gulf between these two sorts of language, or that they are clearly just two. Of course only written texts survive from our period, but that's true also of any time before the invention of sound recording. We don't assume from that that the speech of those who lived at the time is unknowable. And modern linguistics has given us many insights into the artfulness of everyday speech - as gurnemanz says, we no longer talk about restricted codes.

Besides, we have Cicero's Letters, which read so much like informal speech (while in general employing the grammar and syntax of more formal language) that a book you quoted yourself actually included them as an example of vulgar Latin. And we have the writings about language of Cicero and others, which make it clear that they were talking also about speech.

Why don’t you go back to wherever this subject (or is it a topic?) started and read the posts without being selective? You will find all the answers, including the use of transcriptions, some repeated several times. It will save you all this anguish. You can imagine as much as you like how Cicero might / must have spoken. Nobody will stop that but why you can’t discuss it seriously has been explained probably half a dozen times in the thread.

[french frank]

So what you are talking about is the difference between literary/formal, and colloquial/informal language. Why didn't you say so?

I did mention 'literary language', several times. How could I know that you didn't mean 'that kind of difference' between written and spoken?

There was no need to mention 'classical Latin' at all, and we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble producing rival definitions of the term.

You mentioned Cicero, specifically, and he is, I believe, usually described as a 'classical' writer. We were discussing his language. Not Polish.

True, it does fix the period we are talking about, and that is indeed uncontroversial, but is irrelevant if the sort of distinction you're talking about occurs in any language, in any period.

That seems like wriggling to me. We were talking about Cicero, not about some Greek, Italian or Polish individual. I have been trying to make the point that I considered 'classical' to refer to the (known, approximate) date and that it was not possible to make a comparison with an (unknown) spoken language.

I don't agree, though, that there is such a huge gulf between these two sorts of language, or that they are clearly just two. Of course only written texts survive from our period, but that's true also of any time before the invention of sound recording. We don't assume from that that the speech of those who lived at the time is unknowable. And modern linguistics has given us many insights into the artfulness of everyday speech - as gurnemanz says, we no longer talk about restricted codes.

So you were speaking of everyday language? And when you use phrases like 'pretty much like' or 'not a huge gulf' 'not just like' that suggests differences, albeit ones which you think unimportant? But what are those differences?

Besides, we have Cicero's Letters, which read so much like informal speech (while in general employing the grammar and syntax of more formal language) that a book you quoted yourself actually included them as an example of vulgar Latin.

Yes, closer to spoken Latin. If you had said. I wonder if Cicero spoke in the same language as he used in his Letters, I would probably have said, Yes, probably much more like that, though not how he wrote in his formal works. Even 'spoken language' can retain a degree of formality, but I thought you meant, How Cicero spoke every day to his friends, wife, greengrocer &c. as being the same language that he used in In Verrem (the only text I studied - for 'O' Level)

[jean]

I did mention 'literary language', several times.

Yes, you did. But not until after you'd made the distinction between classical (written) and vulgar (spoken) language. That's where I got stuck, and we wasted a lot of time discussing that distinction.

You mentioned Cicero, specifically, and he is, I believe, usually described as a 'classical' writer. We were discussing his language. Not Polish.

My original point was a general one, about complexity (a loosely used term I realise, which I'll revise if I have time) and complexity of morphology in particular. A general discussion about this had been going on since about #1654, and I don't think it can really be said to be wriggling to call up different examples, of which Cicero was only one, and not even the first to be mentioned (though he then took over the discussion).

I have been trying to make the point that I considered 'classical' to refer to the (known, approximate) date...

I took the date for granted, but when you first used the word, you used it as by definition referring only to written language.

... and that it was not possible to make a comparison with an (unknown) spoken language.

That there was a contemporary spoken language in some degree knowable was implied (I thought) by your reference to vulgar Latin in the same post.

My contention is that we can go quite a long way to knowing this spoken language from the linguistic and metalinguistic evidence we've got. And I don't think its more educated speakers would ever have applied the term sermo vulgaris to their own speech.

So you were speaking of everyday language? And when you use phrases like 'pretty much like' or 'not a huge gulf' 'not just like' that suggests differences, albeit ones which you think unimportant?

I don't see just two sorts of language with a huge gulf between. I like the comment I quoted above (#1755). The differences are important, of course, but not when I'm considering whether what we have or can reconstruct are varieties are of the same language (in the broader sense) or not.

You've stated that we both agree that we Cicero spoke Latin. I believe we can also say he spoke classical Latin.

If you had said. I wonder if Cicero spoke in the same language as he used in his Letters, I would probably have said, Yes, probably much more like that, though not how he wrote in his formal works.

What I meant, and I thought it was evident from what I'd already said in the course of the discussion up to that point (though it evidently wasn't) was whether he observed in his more or less informal speech what I somewhere called the grammatical and syntactic niceties we know from the written texts that survive. That was always what I was thinking of.

Even 'spoken language' can retain a degree of formality, but I thought you meant, How Cicero spoke every day to his friends, wife, greengrocer &c. as being the same language that he used in In Verrem (the only text I studied - for 'O' Level)

There's that problem with the word language again. By one definition, no, he didn't; by a broader definition, I think he did - and (I would say) classical Latin at that.

.

[french frank]

There's problem with the word language again. By one definition, no, he didn't; by a broader definition, I think he did - and (I would say) classical Latin at that.

So that's now you volunteering that it was classical Latin ... ?

Perhaps we can agree to agree, George Russell-like, that he did and he didn't speak as he wrote? I would call that an honourable draw - and well worth thoroughly investigating. Many thanks.

[jean]

Thank you, too.

I've revisited things I haven't looked at for a long time, and discovered at least one new book I have to read.

And now please don't anyone say anything else that needs replying to because tomorrow I am off for the weekend to see the WNO and I have masses to do before I go!

[Richard Tarleton]

Mentioned in today's Times - a Latin crossword magazine

And Robert Harris plans to complete his Cicero trilogy in 2015 - he's allowed himself to get a bit sidetracked since no 2.

[LeMartinPecheur]

The new BBC MM, page 128, Music Quiz, poses the following question: "The Goose of Cairo... is a comic opera that was begun by which composer in 1783 but left incomplete at the time of his death?"

My inner pedant complains that "at the time of his death" should be omitted. This work was indeed left incomplete, but these words surely mean that the composer was actually working on it when he died (OK pedants, immediately before he died), but that isn't the case here: he had given up on it completely and hadn't touched the score for eight years.

Am I supported by my fellow pedants?

And does the final question mark grate on others at all?