# Why isn't the language currently spoken in Rome called modern Latin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 27, 2020, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591 "2020-02-27T02:02:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2020, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/41 "2020-02-27T20:40:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **DrCube** : > > Imagine a thousand years from now, when the languages spoken in Australia, the US, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, etc., are all mutually unintelligible. Which one should be called “English”? I recently read a science fiction book set in the far future, where there are three different languages: Angley, spoken in England (and as a prestige language in the rest of Europe), Unglish, spoken in America, and Ingliss, spoken in New Zealand. All are mutually unintelligible, though a character raised on Angley is able to pick up Unglish fairly easily. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stafford_cripps/32/7167_2.png) [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2020, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/42 "2020-02-27T20:56:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I recently read a science fiction book set in the far future, where there are three different languages: Angley, spoken in England (and as a prestige language in the rest of Europe), Unglish, spoken in America, and Ingliss, spoken in New Zealand. All are mutually unintelligible, though a character raised on Angley is able to pick up Unglish fairly easily. This has already happened - in Scotland for a time (possibly around the 16th century, I haven’t checked), some people called the language they spoke “Inglis”, possibly pronounced like how you would nowadays read “Ingles”. What they were referring to, we would now call “Scots”, and would be unintelligible to most English (and probably Scottish) people now, and probably most English people at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2020, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/43 "2020-02-27T21:21:49Z")
The original Latins weren’t in Rome. In fact, they were relative latecomers there. The site of Rome was first settled by a few Greeks and Etruscans. The Latins lived farther southeast at Laurentum on the coast. They occupied a tiny area hemmed in by the Rutulians at Ardea just to the southeast. First they absorbed the Rutulians, then Ascanius founded Alba Longa as their new seat inland to the east. That was several generations before Romulus and Remus, expelled from Alba Longa, moved northwest to the Tiber and founded Rome as such. Of course, this is all legendary. But it does explain how Latin and Roman are different names, and why this alphabet we’re using is sometimes called Latin and sometimes Roman. The two weren’t originally synonymous though they eventually merged. Ursula K. LeGuin’s novel \*Lavinia \*brought that world to life. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2020, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/44 "2020-02-27T21:45:58Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > No, the situation in Charlemagne’s own kingdom may have been pretty dire, but that was certainly not the case elsewhere. Sure, for that matter Ireland had more literacy than anywhere else in Western Europe, and England probably benefited intellectually from its proximity to Ireland. But none of that bears on the origin of Romance languages. > [@](#): > > The council of Tours in 813 was a _national_ council, dealing only with Church matters in the Kingdom of the Franks, not elsewhere. > > It set out the first formal distinction between Latin and early French, but that had nothing to do with the situation elsewhere in Europe. Sure, at first it was just _langue d’oïl_ French that crystallized out of _lingua rustica romana_. But that was all it took. Once French got the ball rolling, the idea spread to other Romance-speaking lands. Like a seed crystal in a supersaturated solution. > [@Dr.Drake](#): > > If none of them had ever seen a copy of a classical text, where did Charlemagne find them? That isn’t the point. Of course there were churchmen around who knew Classical Latin. It was the administrative language reform of Charlemagne that was the first official governmental establishment of Classical Latin in the Dark Ages. Is the point. > [@](#): > > No one (to my knowledge) had attempted to produce a grammar or lexicon of the spoken Romance languages, but that doesn’t mean they were ignorant of the fact that they existed in a state of high diglossia. Quite so. I think high diglossia is inherently unstable, but (as still found in Arabic and Tamil) may be stabilized by cultural factors. The administrative language reform of Charlemagne had the effect of destabilizing that diglossic situation, resulting in French being acknowledged as a language in its own right. This _is_ the consensus understanding among Romance language historians. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2020, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/45 "2020-02-27T21:52:36Z")
> [@Jet\_Jaguar](#): > > So if I had taken Latin in high school, what version of Latin is that? Ciceronian, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/46 "2020-02-28T05:12:37Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > If none of them had ever seen a copy of a classical text, where did Charlemagne find them? Do you really not understand the difference between only a small group of people having something and nobody having something? > [@](#): > > Yes, the scholars existed. I said that in my post so obviously I knew that. > > The point you’re missing is that the overwhelming majority of people are not classical language scholars. They weren’t then and they aren’t now. None of them had every actually seen a copy of a classical text. So there was one small group of people, maybe a few hundred in all of Europe, who studied Latin. These are the people I described as “the scholars”. Then there was another much larger group of people, hundreds of thousands of them, who was everybody who did not study Latin. These are the people I described as “the overwhelming majority of people”. So two distinct groups. And I specifically said that one of these groups - the overwhelming majority of people - had never actually seen a copy of a classical text. It was the other group - the scholars - who had the classical texts. And as I pointed out, those are the people that Charlemagne went to when he wanted to obtain copies of classical texts. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/47 "2020-02-28T06:26:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The point you’re missing is that the overwhelming majority of people are not classical language scholars. They weren’t then and they aren’t now. None of them had every actually seen a copy of a classical text. So they had no way that the language they were speaking had become distinct from the language that was in those classical texts. They thought they were talking the same Latin that people had been speaking seven hundred years ago. > > When Charlemagne’s scholars began collecting classical texts and making copies, a lot more people encountered actual classical Latin. And they discovered it was not the same language they were speaking. Well, it’s a nice story you’ve made up, but this General Questions. Cite? Also… do you think they didn’t encounter Latin in Church every Sunday? ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/48 "2020-02-28T06:28:00Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > Sure, for that matter Ireland had more literacy than anywhere else in Western Europe, and England probably benefited intellectually from its proximity to Ireland. Ireland had more literacy than anywhere else in Western Europe? Cite? :rolleyes: (And please, _please_ don’t cite that book by Thomas Cahill - find a reputable source by a reputable historian.) The fact that you use the term ‘dark ages’ shows clearly that you have never read any modern scholarly history of the period. That term has been rejected for the last 50 years by all professional historians, as the period has come to be better understood. The periods are ‘late antiquity’ and the ‘early middle ages’, and the understanding of those periods today is NOT the same as it was in popular histories of the mid 20th century. For a modern overview, can I suggest: [Late Antiquity: A Very Short Introduction](https://www.amazon.com/Late-Antiquity-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B0058C6Q3K) [The Middle Ages: A Very Short Introduction](https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Ages-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook-dp-B00N4V6T02/) Both written by reputable academics and published by Oxford University Press. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/49 "2020-02-28T06:46:42Z")
Sorry, bad link. Correct: [The Middle Ages: A Very Short Introduction](https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Ages-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook-dp-B00N4V6T02/dp/B00N4V6T02/) ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/50 "2020-02-28T07:02:45Z")
> [@bump](#): > > So in say… 200 AD, it’s entirely possible that Spaniards, Romano-British, Italians and French sounded as far or further apart from each other than Australians, Scots, Texans and South Africans do today, but were all linked by “Classical Latin” in an administrative and literary sense. I recall a linguist predicting awhile back that by 2050 CE, 80% of all humans will think they speak English, and 80% of those will be unable to understand each other. Computers won’t help unless we replace speech with texting. Spell checks are easier than dialect checks. > [@GreenWyvern](#): > > But the Latin spoken in Rome itself had great prestige, and was regarded as the gold standard of Latin, like ‘the King’s English’ in England up to 20th century. It was educated, upper-class, ‘proper’ Latin. I think it was an old Rand Holmes underground comic that showed an English sailor shipwrecked in 18th century Japan and forced to take up native ways and garb. A British ship arrives in port. Our sailor, decked in kimono or whatever, starts shouting at them, bellowing the most caustic obscenities. A crewman aboard is surprised: “Wot now? This yere Jappo speaks the King’s English!” 🆒 Modern Italian is the Tuscan dialect because Dante was just so damn classy. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/51 "2020-02-28T07:54:04Z")
Sicilian flourished as a literary language before Italian did (unless you count the 12th-century lyrics in Umbrian by St. Francis of Assisi). The Sicilian School of poetry, based on Arabic models, was the first vernacular literary movement in Italy, in the early 13th century. Its influence was picked up by Petrarca in the mid-13th century and then Dante and flowed into Tuscan poetry. Italian as we know it was conceived by Pietro Bembo in the early 16th century, based on the Tuscan of Petrarca, Boccaccio, and Dante. Sicilian and the other vernaculars of Italy became eclipsed by the new standard Italian, though Venetian held its own the longest. Ironically, Bembo was a Venetian. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/52 "2020-02-28T07:59:55Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > The fact that you use the term ‘dark ages’ shows clearly that you have never read any modern scholarly history of the period. That term has been rejected for the last 50 years by all professional historians, as the period has come to be better understood. Fine. I concede this to your nitpick over terminology, for what that’s worth. You’re the consummate medievalist. However, not a single word you’ve posted yet in this thread has addressed the OP question of how the Romance languages were born. **Little Nemo** and I have answered that question while none of your nitpicks have any bearing on it. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/53 "2020-02-28T13:01:41Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Ireland had more literacy than anywhere else in Western Europe? Cite? :rolleyes: > > (And please, _please_ don’t cite that book by Thomas Cahill - find a reputable source by a reputable historian.) > The fact that you use the term ‘dark ages’ shows clearly that you have never read any modern scholarly history of the period. That term has been rejected for the last 50 years by all professional historians, as the period has come to be better understood. > > The periods are ‘late antiquity’ and the ‘early middle ages’, and the understanding of those periods today is NOT the same as it was in popular histories of the mid 20th century. > > For a modern overview, can I suggest: > > [Late Antiquity: A Very Short Introduction](https://www.amazon.com/Late-Antiquity-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B0058C6Q3K) > > [The Middle Ages: A Very Short Introduction](https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Ages-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook-dp-B00N4V6T02/) > > Both written by reputable academics and published by Oxford University Press. Several of Ireland’s monasteries (including offshore ones) kept writing and reading (and northwest European Christianity) “alive” while most of Europe (outside Islamic controlled areas) was illiterate. I exaggerate a bit, but not by much. I’m not sure how literate the Irish populace was, though — I’m guessing not very. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/54 "2020-02-28T13:48:47Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > I recall a linguist predicting awhile back that by 2050 CE, 80% of all humans will think they speak English, and 80% of those will be unable to understand each other. Computers won’t help unless we replace speech with texting. Spell checks are easier than dialect checks. In the fifteenth century you could speak London English in Kent and be accused of speaking French… [http://www.snsbi.org.uk/Nomina\_articles/Nomina\_23\_Breeze.pdf](http://www.snsbi.org.uk/Nomina_articles/Nomina_23_Breeze.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/55 "2020-02-28T15:20:06Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > I recall a linguist predicting awhile back that by 2050 CE, 80% of all humans will think they speak English, and 80% of those will be unable to understand each other. Computers won’t help unless we replace speech with texting. Spell checks are easier than dialect checks. I can believe it- have you ever talked with someone from India who learned English in India and who has mostly only practiced it on other Indians in the same situation? It’s not another language, but it does take some getting used to. Or talked with honest-to-God Cajuns from down in the bayou? That assistant coach in “The Waterboy” wasn’t as far off reality as you might think. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/56 "2020-02-28T15:33:21Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > The fact that you use the term ‘dark ages’ shows clearly that you have never read any modern scholarly history of the period. That term has been rejected for the last 50 years by all professional historians, as the period has come to be better understood. I read modern historians who use “Dark Ages” to signify times when there is no historical record due to a loss of literacy among that society. The era is literally dark to us, since writing is how we “see” history. The prime example being the Greek dark ages. Of course, that means the term doesn’t apply to most of what we call the Middle Ages. But it’s still a meaningful term that historians actually use. And it might apply to some early Germanic societies after the fall of Rome. Early Anglo-Saxon England, for example. I’m not disputing you, just clarifying. “Dark Ages” hasn’t been used by historians to refer to the European Middle Ages for a long time, but the term still does have its uses. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/57 "2020-02-28T15:48:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Do you really not understand the difference between only a small group of people having something and nobody having something? Ouch. I think that tone was unnecessary. You said “so scholars began studying old Roman texts.” The word “began” implies that it was something new; the subject “scholars” implies that it was the scholars who were doing the beginning. So forgive me if I misunderstood that “scholars began studying old Roman texts” meant “scholars had always been studying old Roman texts, but other people began studying old Roman texts.” In any case, it’s worth mentioning that monumental inscriptions in old Roman were relatively abundant, though the texts themselves were all copies of copies of copies by the Carolingian period. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/58 "2020-02-28T17:16:04Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > I exaggerate a bit, but not by much. Unfortunately, it is a massive exaggeration. Yes, there was an active and thriving monastic movement in Ireland, but there was an active and thriving monastic movement in many other places as well. Do you think the Vatican ceased to function at any point? Do you think there were no equally thriving monasteries in Italy, in Southern France, in Spain, in North Africa throughout that period? ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2020, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/59 "2020-02-28T22:34:31Z")
Ireland had so much literacy they were literally [exporting it to the European continent](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13589b.htm). > [@](#): > > Ireland’s sobriquet “Island of Saints and Scholars” derives from this period, when scholars and missionaries from Ireland exerted great influence on Continental Europe. > **[Hiberno-Scottish mission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Scottish_mission)** > > The Hiberno-Scottish mission was a series of expeditions in the 6th and 7th centuries by Gaelic missionaries originating from Ireland that spread Celtic Christianity in Scotland, Wales, England and Merovingian France. Celtic Christianity spread first within Ireland. Since the 8th and 9th centuries, these early missions were called 'Celtic Christianity'. > There is dispute over the relationship of the Hiberno-Scottish mission to Catholic Christianity. Catholic sources claim it functioned under th... I mean, this is well known and not controversial. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2020, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591/60 "2020-02-29T05:01:33Z")
Two Wikipedia articles that give a clearer and more detailed overview: [Celtic Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity) [Gregorian mission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_mission) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-language-currently-spoken-in-rome-called-modern-latin/848591.md?page=4)