Talk:Neo-Latin/Archive 1

message: I am afraid we must consider the removal of the link to those web comics. They are not entirely in correct Latin. Caesarion 10:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, because we count on web comics to provide us our grammatical models? ;)  —Muke Tever 15:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the English used in British and American graphic novels is often far from grammatically correct in the strict sense of the word. Are they then to be considered invalid as works of art and literature? The same variance from scholarly norms is likewise to be found in comics in other languages, such as French bande dessinee, Italian fumetti, and Japanese manga, yet these are often elevated to the level of high art. Nuttyskin 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, comics have been quite a vulgar medium even since their origins in the 18th-19th-20th century... 惑乱 分からん 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web comics 

message: You may find interesting this quotation from Latin or the Empire of a Sign about the proposal of a "Latin village" ad usum Delphini in 1620. --84.20.17.84 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French immersion 

message: This article discusses two very different types of Latin; the post-Humanist Latin of educated writers, which was still flourishing in the 17th and 18th centuries, but was dying out (or reduced to a system of stereotyped tags) by the mid-19th century; and modern exercises in Latin translation of the Winnie-ille-Pu variety.  The gap between Alexander Lenard and, say, Linnaeus is far greater than that between Linnaeus and Erasmus.  I suggest splitting this article into two to reflect this gap.  The question then is, what name is to be given to the "newer" New Latin? RandomCritic 13:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: It would be interesting to include the romanian pronunciation of latin, and also references to the language's usage. Latin is still being taught in secondary school there as a compulsory subject as far as i know. The ministry of education in Romania view the learning of latin as essential in the comprehension and study of all neo-latin languages, as a means to understand each other's common substratum.
http://www.anidescoala.ro/view/Programe-scolare/Ciclul-secundar-inferior/Limba-si-comunicare/Limba-latina/Progr.Lat.VIII_rev+cu+explicatii.doc.pdf
83.103.179.12 (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian 

message: I don't understand the intended meaning of the word "naturalized" in the following sentence from the article: "New Latin has also contributed a vocabulary, to some extent naturalized in European languages, for specialized fields such as anatomy and law."
The phrase may be intended to mean something like "... to some extent converted into local language," but that is only a guess on my part. I would like to improve the wording, but cannot accomplish that since I don't understand what the sentence is supposed to mean. Can anyone explain? Dratman (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "naturalized in European languages"

message: As everyone can see the unreferenced generalities of the article are below standard. It's on Wikipedia, it belongs on Wikipedia, so thanks for putting it in. That raises the question whether it is better to throw in a thousand place holders of pure baloney or only to put in articles you can do a decent job on. It's immaterial now; the article is there. I'm generally going to stay with these Latin place holders until they start to say something truthful. Meanwhile, until I can get to it (or you can get to it) don't take anything at all seriously unless you see a little superscript number at the end of it (and then with reticence). All the arguments above are sort of pointless as this is mainly a wrong article and if the wrongness goes away there won't be any point in arguing. Sometimes it is hard to understand, this is not an "I think" game. I think the moon is made of green cheese. So what. If I tell that to 4.3 million people 535000 or so will think the moon is made of green cheese. Don't start chanting "four legs good, two legs bad" until you see the little numbers. This article by the way is mildly anti-Catholic.Dave (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about? RandomCritic (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained that below. For instance, "Medieval Latin had been the practical working language of the Roman Catholic Church, taught throughout Europe to aspiring clerics and refined in the medieval universities." Not true. By the time New Latin arrived medieval Latin was long gone and moreover a lot of the humanists were Catholic. You're writing in chiaroscura, drawing sharp lines, casting the church as medievalist and therefore backward. It's true, some decisions of the church were not too propitious but they were not characteristic of the church diachronically or over all geography, any more than the current troubles in my part of the country are "catholic" per se. That is what I am talking about, categorization of the church. I think you will find elements of the church were present in just about every major cultural development including humanism, if that is what you call it. I would have thought the humanism went with the Renaissance rather than with New Latin. I don't know what YOU mean there, which is why I would like you to reference and expand it. Adequate explanation is not wordiness and two unclear and inaccurate sentences are not a satisfactory introduction. The introduction is unsat, the article is unsat. Either get busy or back out.Dave (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Botteville is imputing meanings that have absolutely no foundation in the text.  Nobody said that the humanists were not Catholic; nobody disputes that they were.  To the best of my knowledge, nobody who has contributed to this article has problems with either Catholics or the Latin used by Catholics.  The sentence that he refers to was far from bashing medieval Latin (apparently Botteville is of the opinion that 'medieval' is equivalent to 'backward', which is entirely wrong).  Medieval Latin was, of course, not "long gone" by the end of the 15th century; the humanistic movement had been largely confined to Italy, and you can find medieval traits in the Latin used throughout northern Europe (which Botteville may note was largely Protestant).  But the point of the sentence Botteville has problems with is that the medieval language was a very rich and flexible one; and that Neo-Latin retained a great deal of that flexibility.  The anti-Catholicism Botteville sees is a pure figment of his imagination. RandomCritic (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Latin reform needed

message: I'm moving this from my Talk page, where it seems to have been misplaced, as it is a response to my remarks on this Talk page.RandomCritic (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,after all this serious talk I have not yet gotten to restoration with modifications and references. That is because other things in this series of Latin articles seem more important right now. I was gratified to see that Latin failed its evaluation. It should fail. What is the good of labeling trash a good article? So, these other articles are keeping me from this one. Be patient, however. Meanwhile when are you going to make a move to provide some references? You are just going to get even more upset when I start taking out unreferenced material. What I suspect, of course, is that you can't because there are none. Losing your temper with me isn't going to help that I fear. So, I will be back. Why don't you pleasantly suprise me/us?Dave (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dave. What exactly is the purpose of your troll? Who has lost his temper here? Why don't you pleasantly suprise us all by making some referenced improvements of your own? I'm sorry to hear that you have time to troll, but not to work. Rwflammang (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Talk

message: Hi random critic. I see the winds of your randomness have wafted in my direction, only I do not think they are random. You didn't like something I said about something YOU wrote. This is something of a surprise attack. You could have questioned me about this or waited until I put the references in but you chose to sweep in and delete before I could reference anything, even though I said, references to follow. But in another sense you are making life interesting for me. This is a little different. You throw down a challenge. I take up the challenge. I wouldn't give you any barn star for your behavior in this article so far or for the article either. The article is not a good article and needs improvement, including all the missing references. I intend to improve it. You caught me with my references down in some sort of Wiki Pearl Harbor. You won't find it so easy from this point on. The stuff is going back in with the missing references, but I invite you to collablorate with me on this. Find references for your own generalizations! Rewrite my stuff! Add things I never thought of!  The one thing you aren't going to do from now on is just revert everything I do. That will be vandalism and right now it is only not because you caught me unreferenced by surprise. I invite you, play the game with me, or else yield the ground in this tournament of the New Latin article. See my initial comments in the discussion on the article. Changes will be coming but slow. Forgive me, I move slowly but I hope surely. I got something else to do right now but I will be back. The first step is to do your dictionary work for you, which you evidently didn't do. Why do I have to do everything myself around here?Dave (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,after all this serious talk I have not yet gotten to restoration with modifications and references. That is because other things in this series of Latin articles seem more important right now. I was gratified to see that Latin failed its evaluation. It should fail. What is the good of labeling trash a good article? So, these other articles are keeping me from this one. Be patient, however. Meanwhile when are you going to make a move to provide some references? You are just going to get even more upset when I start taking out unreferenced material. What I suspect, of course, is that you can't because there are none. Losing your temper with me isn't going to help that I fear. So, I will be back. Why don't you pleasantly suprise me/us?Dave (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dave. What exactly is the purpose of your troll? Who has lost his temper here? Why don't you pleasantly suprise us all by making some referenced improvements of your own? I'm sorry to hear that you have time to troll, but not to work. Rwflammang (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Latin

message: I wanted to include a mention of the Spanish Humanist Antonio de Nebrija either in the article about Renaissance Latin or in this one about New Latin. Nebrija lived 1441-1522 and wrote his famous Introductiones Latinæ in 1481. Now, the Renaissance Latin article lists authors of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries only, and classifies them clearly according to their date of death. This way understood, Nebrija is a sixteenth century author (died 1522) and doesn't fit there. The New Latin article nevertheless lists not autors but works, and does so by their date of issue, starting from 1500. This way understood, Nebrija wrote in the fifteenth century (1481) and his contribution cannot be included there either. Please advise on how to sort out this problem, because Nebrija is one of the best known Latin humanists both in Spain and abroad (cf.  Jozef IJsewijn, Companion to Neo-Latin Studies, Part I, 3.2.5. Spain, pp. 104-117) and his contribution cannot be silenced just because of inadequate classification criteria. Aggfvavitus (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Renaissance Latin sorts the authors by date of birth, but they are admitted to the list according to whether they were actually producing Latin works during the relevant period.  Since Nebrija wrote during the 15th century, he fits in the Renaissance Latin article (and is actually older than some of the other authors listed there). RandomCritic (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply, RandomCritic. I now see what you mean (Filelfo has been put before Alberti because he was born before him although he died after him). What I meant is that, by looking at the list in the Renaissance Latin page, it also appears that authors have been arranged within each century according to the year in which they died, as that would seem to be the only reason why Dante (born 1265) and Ockham (born ca. 1288) can be listed in the 14th century, and Bruni (born cz. 1370), Beccadelli (born 1394) and Filelfo (born 1398) in the 15th. If the sorting is according to date of birth, the first two should be under a new 13th century category, and the second three in the 14th. Now, if they have been distributed per century according to the dates of their publications, then it is those dates (rather than, or at least as well as, those of their births and deaths) that should be given and made explicit in the article, so that the listing criteria are clear. So far that appears nowhere in the Renaissance Latin page. The year of their production is the criterion explicitly used to classify both New Latin authors and Contemporary Latin autors, but the format and thus apparent sorting criterion of the list of Renaissance Latin authors is clearly different to the naked eye. I of course am all in favour of using the same criterion and format for all, and so of listing Renaissance Latin authors also by the dates of their work, but so far this has not explicitly been done that way. If you tell me that Nebrija belongs in the 15th century list, good (I see that you have now added him there); but he will thus be the first one whose date of death is outside of the century under which he is classified. Until dates of production are given, as for New and Contemporary Latin, I'd say the Renaissance listing and its dating criteria remain very puzzling and in no way explicit. Also I think this conversation should be moved to the Renaissance Latin page too. Thanks in any case for your contribution. Aggfvavitus (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Antonio de Nebrija, lost between two disparate classification criteria?

message: George I of Great Britain (a Hanoverian) likely communicated with his government in French, not Latin. Is there any cite to accompany the article's claim?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.16.141 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: During the earlier part of this period, Latin was still to some degree a language of government in Hungary... AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungary

message: Is in the editing of Classical texts: in the more serious academic editions of, say, Vergil or Homer, the preface, introduction, notes & commentary are still written in Latin, in part out of tradition, in part because Latin is still the language all Classicists can be expected to read. (Case in point: for an article I've been working on, I've relied on Ladislav Vidman (ed.), Fasti ostienses, second edition, published in Prague in 1982. Had the editor written the critical apparatus in Czech -- which I assume is his native language -- I could not have used it as fully as I had. It was something of a delight to encounter a book written & printed in the last 35-40 years in Latin.) Much of Theodor Mommsen's work in editing inscriptions & historical texts is accompanied with his comments written in Latin, & one reason why the publications of the Loeb Classical Library is looked down upon. However, even in this narrow field New Latin is under pressure for the simple fact even Classicists are in decreasing numbers fluent enough in the language to express themselves, depressing to report. This was pointed out in an article I stumbled across in a German academic publication -- I could find the citation if anyone is interested. Perhaps the next generation of editions of Ovid, Hesiod, & Livy will be published with notes in French & German, which will help defend those languages against growing encroachment of the English language, while abandoning Latin to the Catholic Church & fringe groups. -- llywrch (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  An omitted case of New Latin use 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Latin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329044934/http://www.grexlat.com/biblio/comenius/index.html to http://www.grexlat.com/biblio/comenius/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hup.harvard.edu/itatti/neolatin_lit.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Toward the beginning of the article:
    As a language for full expression in prose or poetry, however, it is often distinguished from Contemporary Latin as a predecessor.
I find this wording very unclear. Which is the predecessor of which? New Latin of Contemporary Latin, or the reverse?
Toddcs (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Predecessor (unclear)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Latin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100512190811/http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/b11939795 to http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/b11939795
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: About:
    The last survivals of New Latin to convey non-technical information appear
    in the use of Latin to cloak passages and expressions deemed too indecent
    (in the 19th century) to be read by children, the lower classes, or (most) women.
OK, so I get the part about children and (most) women. But the lower classes? So, in other words, 
indecent material was not for just any man on the street; rather, you had to be of a sufficiently noble
stature to be worthy of reading indecent material.
That is bizarre. But I have no reason to doubt that such could have been the thinking of many members of those "upper" classes.
Toddcs (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too indecent for the lower classes? 

message: There's a lot that needs to be done to this page I feel:
* some of it is a bit opinionated (although not wrong, just strongly stated)
* references are generally missing from the main section
* there's a lot missing regarding the kinds of Latin produced, when, where and why; nor on the style or its relation to Classical Latin, eg the influence of vernaculars, disputes on originality and the prevalence of Classical stylistic models
* there is little explaining the different periods and changes, as it moved from a productive, used and spoken language to a taught, largely written and read language in the eighteenth century, finally forming the basis for the ninetennth century "classics", being mostly learnt for reading, with gradually less emphasis on writing; and by the twentieth century being mostly a grammatical learning exercise.
* there is not much on teaching of Latin, yet this is extremely important for an entirely learnt language
* there is some but not much on the differences by region, eg the strength of Latin in Scandinavia or Poland, or Hungary and Croatia, versus the early decline of Latin in the UK and France, for instance
* attitudes to Latin and its relationship to elitisms could do with expansion, albeit this spills into Contemporary Latin as the periods are currently split
* it should explain that not everyone sees contemporary Latin as a distinct phase (it may be better to align the articles as history to date and things happening in the last decade or two, IMO, but this won't be a priority and I will bring this back for discussion later if I get that far).
I'm going to have a go at some of this, so this is a heads up that I will try to address the above points. If anyone has other suggestions please do say so. Jim Killock (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications and additions