Pedants' Paradise

[amateur51]

Not being anywhere near as academically competent as either jean or french frank, could I nonetheless make the suggestion that a clue might lie in the Greek-rooted development and use of demotic language?

This is discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demotic_Greek

Tin hat time

[jean]

Yes, of course, languages develop, and it is the more demotic speech forms that tend to give rise to later written versions of the language, eventually considered as completely separate languages in the case of Latin, and distinguished by duch terms as Ancient Greek, New Testament Greek, Modern Greek in the case of Greek.

But Demosthenes didn't speak demotic Greek, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested he did! All I am arguing for is that something similar will have been the case with Latin authors.

[amateur51]

Yes, of course, languages develop, and it is the more demotic speech forms that tend to give rise to later written versions of the language, eventually considered as completely separate languages in the case of Latin, and distinguished by duch terms as Ancient Greek, New Testament Greek, Modern Greek in the case of Greek.

But Demosthenes didn't speak demotic Greek, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested he did! All I am arguing for is that something similar will have been the case with Latin authors.

I shall retire, duly admonished, and treasure that little "Yes, of course,"

[jean]

I ask whether you think Cicero (your example) spoke in just the way he wrote and you reply: "Why would we think otherwise?"

You didn't say just, though, you said pretty much. Not the same at all!

Have to go. Back later.

[doversoul1]

I’ve come to this rather late so, I apologise if I am repeating what has already been said.

I can’t present the reference now but I think classical Latin in written form was originally the record of speeches. Roman rulers, politicians, or philosophers were expected to make a speech without depending on a prepared script*. The act of writing was regarded as a lowly task for scribers. In general, reading was, up to until something like the 7th century, a public event of someone reading aloud to an audience. Writing wasn’t an ordinary, everyday act that we take for granted now. Parchment and writing tools were very expensive. It wasn’t for exchanging casual notes.

All this doesn’t prove that people didn’t speak the same form of language as the written one but in most cultures, oral tradition is very different from written one.

As for language that was only written and never spoken, you can say a hieroglyph is one such, and I think some early form of classical Chinese was understood by looking at the scripts without being read out. Come to that, ancient Japanese developed a way of reading classical Chinese texts without understanding a word of Chinese. How’s that as a written language?

History of Reading by Albert Manguel is very readable and informative.

[ed.] *or am I thinking about classical Greek? I’ll check later.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Of course! I would not disagree with any of that. But neither would I want to entertain the hypothesis that the language McEwan writes in is not the language he speaks.

Doesn't your second sentence here contradict yor first, jean? Isn't Brian Sewell the only person who speaks as he writes?

[french frank]

All this doesn’t prove that people didn’t speak the same form of language as the written one but in most cultures, oral tradition is very different from written one.

Yes. And much of medieval literature (at least French) is preserved as the (eventually) written record of work that was originally recited. The oral traditions and professional poets relied on memory, not, as you say, on anything written down as notes: many would not have been able to write. But - we have no difficulty in accepting that the educated clerks/scholars of the time wrote in a quite different language (Latin) from what they habitually spoke. They might have been fluent enough to do so but it doesn't seem likely that they did it on a daily basis, or even that it would have been a polished form of the language.

As for language that was only written and never spoken, you can say a hieroglyph is one such, and I think some early form of classical Chinese was understood by looking at the scripts without being read out. Come to that, the ancient Japanese developed a way of reading classical Chinese texts without understanding a word of Chinese. How’s that as written language?

Interesting - thanks.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Many will be aware of my pedantry in insisting that Europe as a continent does not exist, being merely the western edge of Asia (sometimes called Eurasia). It is one of many misconceptions brought about by the limited knowledge of the world in the "cradle of civilisation" when the first reasonably accurate maps of the world were being drawn.

Another assumption that has gained acceptance, but has no scientific justification, is that the North Pole is at the top of the world, and the South Pole is at the bottom. But who says it is? It could just as easily be the other way round.

[jean]

Doesn't your second sentence here contradict yor first, jean? Isn't Brian Sewell the only person who speaks as he writes?

That depends on how you define language, which I'm increasingly convinced is making nonsense of this discussion. And note that I didn't use the word as - I said he's writing and speaking the same language.

We refer to English as a language. But it has many different registers, and these can also be called languages. I'm using language in the first sense here, so there is no contradiction between my two sentences.

I am claiming that just as no-one would suggest that Ian MacEwen is not both writing and speaking in appropriate registers of the language we call English, there is no reason to think that the 'classical Latin' available to a Roman of the first century BC wasn't what he spoke as well (pretty much).

[gurnemanz]

Many will be aware of my pedantry in insisting that Europe as a continent does not exist, being merely the western edge of Asia (sometimes called Eurasia). It is one of many misconceptions brought about by the limited knowledge of the world in the "cradle of civilisation" when the first reasonably accurate maps of the world were being drawn.

Another assumption that has gained acceptance, but has no scientific justification, is that the North Pole is at the top of the world, and the South Pole is at the bottom. But who says it is? It could just as easily be the other way round.

My pedantry concerns the use of "in Europe", wishing it to mean: as opposed to here in UK, as if the UK were not part of Europe - talking geography here not EU membership. "On the Continent" would be more precise.

I would assume that maps have North at the top because the compass points to 12 o'clock on its dial.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I would assume that maps have North at the top because the compass points to 12 o'clock on its dial.

Ah, well, time moves with the earth's rotation, which is from east to west, so perhaps our maps might be orientated that way.

As for the pointing of the compass, try it in the southern hemisphere.

[jean]

I’ve come to this rather late so, I apologise if I am repeating what has already been said.

It's all here on this thread, starting at #1657. Please read it. Otherwise I have to keep repeating what I've already written.

I can’t present the reference now but I think classical Latin in written form was originally the record of speeches. Roman rulers, politicians, or philosophers were expected to make a speech without depending on a prepared script. The act of writing was regarded as a lowly task for scribers.

A good deal of the prose literature that survives from the classical period consists of speeches. This fact in itself brings spoken and written versions of the language closer together, doesn't it? Many of the people crowded around in a corona in the forum to hear the great man orate were probably illiterate themselves, but are we to assume that they spoke a totally different variety from what they heard and, presumably, understood?

These speeches would have been dictated by the orator to a trusted slave or freedman, often an educated Greek. In Cicero's case, we even know his name, and quite a lot about his life. Of course we do not know how far the versions he wrote up afterwards differed from what was actually delivered, but in one case (the second actio in Verrem) , we know that the speeches presented in the written record as though to be heard by an audience were never delivered at all, because after the first part of his trial the corrupt provincial governor Verres realised the game was up and went into exile, not waiting for the possibility of being found not guilty.

It was Tiro who prepared his master's letters for publication. Please read these. In the original if you can, but there's a translation here too.. Otherwise when I mention how important they are for speculation about how Romans of this period actually spoke, nobody knows what I'm talking about.

...I think some early form of classical Chinese was understood by looking at the scripts without being read out. Come to that, ancient Japanese developed a way of reading classical Chinese texts without understanding a word of Chinese. How’s that as a written language?

I thought of Chinese, but I am not aware of any early form that was only read. Certainly modern Chinese is pronounced in many different ways so that while speakers of Cantonese and Mandarin can understand the same written text, they cannot understand each other's speech. But I don't think that's quite what we're talking about here.

.

[french frank]

That depends on how you define language, which I'm increasingly convinced is making nonsense of this discussion. And note that I didn't use the word as - I said he's writing and speaking the same language.

I agree with that. It's nonsense. Cicero wrote and spoke Latin.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I agree with that. It's nonsense. Cicero wrote and spoke Latin.

He must have been great to listen to. But imagine waiting patiently for the main verb before you knew what he was talking about.

[jean]

He must have been great to listen to. But imagine waiting patiently for the main verb before you knew what he was talking about.

Now this is a very interesting comment.

It's one of the features of classical Latin that speakers of modern European languages can't believe a hearer could cope with. And yet the examples we have come from speeches, which were meant to be heard. Perhaps your average Roman was better at deferred gratification than us?