Italian is almost mutually comprehensible with Vulgar Latin. In a sense, Vulgar Latin is, in fact, Italian; it’s changed quite a lot, but no more than English has. It really isn’t any more logical to consider English a continuous, constant language since the days of Ethelred the Unready than it would be to consider Vulgar Latin a continuous language from the days of Julius Caesar to today’s Italian. In fact, I suspect a modern Italian speaker might find Vulgar Latin easier to understand than an Anglophone would find pre-Norman English to understand.
do.
I think his point, Wendell, was that international communication on a more-or-less instant basis serves to prevent the fractionalization that occurred to Latin (and Arabic).
There’s no real sources of evidence on any of this, so I guess that it’s hopeless for me to ask for any, but why are you convinced that Latin changed and broke up into separate languages any faster than English is today? All we have are the writings in Classical Latin and the writings in Spanish, Italian, French, etc. when they finally began to be the written languages of their respective countries sometime in the late Middle Ages which we can compare with English over the same amount of time. The time from Classical Latin to Medieval Spanish, Italian, French, etc. is over a thousand years. That means that we would have to compare English today with English as it was spoken somewhere between the time of Beowulf and the time of Chaucer. The amount of change from Beowulf/Chaucerian English to English today seems to me to be about the same as the amount of change from Classical Latin to Medieval Spanish/Italian/French/etc. It’s not even clear to me that English is diversifying any slower than it previously did. Although English speakers continue to be able to read a World English, dialects continue to develop and change, even in countries where English is largely a second language. Indeed, if I were asked to make a prediction about what English of the future would be like (and generally I think that predictions are hopeless), I would guess that the English of a few centuries from now will probably be closer to today’s English of India than to any other current dialect.
As someone without an aptitude for languages: “No soon enough.”
I mean…how many languages do we need to say “Hey soldier, me love you long time, $20.”
It appears the degeneration of English has already begone. 
Or the promotion of alcohol. Just saying (badly)…
Begone degenerate English!
Damn Gaudere and her pesky laws…
Those two statement are contradictory, since “English” from the time period we are talking about isn’t remotely mutually comprehensible with Modern English. English had enormous influences in its grammar and vocabulary in the years since then that do not compare to the changes between Vulgar Latin and Italian.
I think it’s worth recognizing that, for a long time, declaring Latin a “dead language” was a pejorative statement. More than a few Latin students have recited the poem elmwood posted, and some of the rationalizations that attempt to sidestep the death of Latin IMO sound like the response to a perceived insult. I’ve studied Latin for a long time, and whenever I mention that at a cocktail party I’m often greeted with a response along the lines of “Why would anyone study/need to study a dead language?”
Don’t get me wrong: I fully acknowledge Latin is a dead language, but that hint of revulsion at the term “dead language” IMO says something about the circumstances of its demise. With the rediscovery of classical texts by Renaissance scholars, the humanists of the period established a strict, classical standard in reaction to the Medieval/Vulgar strain of Latin that was then in use. IMO that hastened its fall, as the language moved from a serviceable (if antique) international medium for communication to a test of cultural/intellectual status. The teaching of Latin changed to accomodate the classical standard, making it more difficult to learn the language. Fewer people used it, the language became less relevant–which conversely made it seem more elite–and at some point (late 19th century?) an educational backlash developed.
My guess is that without the Renaissance grammarians, Latin (or some even-more-vulgar form of Latin) would still retain some real use in international communication (at least in the West)–it would be about as “dead” as it was in the Middle Ages (though perhaps not as prevalent, given its association with the less-politically-connected Catholic Church). In a sense, Latin underwent two deaths: It lost all native speakers as the Romance langages rose during the Dark Ages, and it died as a common educated language when Renaissance attempts to classically purify it backfired in subsequent centuries.
Latin died with the advent of the Gutenberg press.
When the written word became accessible to everyone, there were two choices - print in latin and have a limited market or print in the vernacular and have a larger market.
Latin very quickly gave way to the most common vernacular of the day. For periods of time, the international language was French, but gave way to English soon after the French lost their holding in North America.
All of these postings make me query if people are aware (particularly Americans) how quickly American English is separating from Standard English. And pronunciation is definitely part of this rift.
Firstly, I have no idea what a freeper is - please enlighten.
And then American English seems to abhor the letter ‘t’. EG ‘Sanna’ Claus, ‘Adlanna’, ‘wanna’, ‘gonna’, etc.
Mutual comprehensibility has been preserved by Hollywood, but the American language perhaps is now developing faster than Europeans can keep up. I find this process fascinating, and think it gives us a window of understanding on the breakdown of Latin and development of the modern Romance languages.
Define “American English”. If you’re going to compare it to “Standard English”, by which I assume you mean Received Pronunciation or BBC English, then you should compare it something like “Newscaster English”. In that case, I don’t think your statement holds up. I’m gonna hafta ask for a cite.
I don’t know when it died, but my 9th grade 60yo first year Latin teacher, taught us a poem ( in English) on day one: “Latin is a language, dead as dead can be. First it killed the Romans, now it’s killing me.” Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Ignatz, did you bother to read the previous posts at all? That’s the same poem as in post #11.
A freeper is a poster at the website Free Republic.
English as spoken in America, as distinct from English as spoken in Britain - by educated people in both cases. My original posting had nothing to to with accent.
The BBC English to which you refer is usually known as RP (Received Pronunciation) and was as much a weapon in the mouth of a certain class to keep to peasants in their place as anything. BBC does not use it much these days. It has gone for more vernacular accents.
English as spoke in America is changing and moving away from the English I know and use. In a previous posting I asked a question about freepers. I honestly have no idea what it means. Such new terms proliferate. American English gave us the verb ‘to escalate’, expressions such as ‘no way’ (which is very Latinic, as it happens: cf ‘Nullo Modo’). I only recently figured out what ‘Birthers’ means. I think I know what a ‘Bubba’ is… an older man with a beard???..but cannot be sure.
There is also the ease with which American English can create new verbs and nouns that is quite impossible in English English.
Accent, although not part of my original argument, is also important. It ups the ante (American expression, surely - English preposition used as a verb; and Latin preposition used as noun) in the language shift stakes. I would venture that accent is the main factor in why Latin’s daughters differ in certain ways: e.g. the Italian sing-song, heavily stressed version; the Spanish machine-gun delivery of words; the French nasalities and unusual stress put to the end (pace those who would insist there is no tonic stress in French).
Already enough - if I may be allowed to shift into Yiddish mode. And that btw is just one example of how the melting pot that was America had its language enriched. But that enrichment is also pointing away from the more rigid form of English spoken on the eastern shore of the Atlantic.
As I said, I find this fascinating
Thanks Inner Stickler.
I don’t know the site, but may have an opportunity to have a look at it anon.
It’s not the usual way of referring to the dialects of English to differentiate between “Standard English” and “American English.” What you should say is “Standard British English” and “Standard American English.” Any assumption that Standard British English (or Received Pronunciation or BBC English or any other way you want to refer to it) is the most influential form of English disappeared long ago. This is not to say that American English will always be the most influential form of English. Indeed, as I predicted above, I suspect that eventually (and this may not happen for decades or even more than a century from now) Indian English will become the most influential.
Incidentally, “Bubba” is a common nickname for working-class white men in the southern U.S.