On Dec 25, 7:03 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote: > Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote: > > > On Dec 24, 8:05 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 24, 1:57 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > >>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people > >>> accepted the use of national languages exclusively in this endeavor > >>> where international understanding is more imperative than any other. > >>> It is true, that the use of Latin by 1700 had already passed almost > >>> everywhere else, but its last remaining use should still have been > >>> enough to support it, given that Latin was the one language that every > >>> educated man in the Western world knew, and that Latin, having such a > >>> long tradition of use, was at least suitable for scientific and > >>> technical purposes as any other language at the time. > >>> And so, some explanations suggest themselves. The first is that the > >>> predominant advocates and defenders of Latin, from the Renaissance to > >>> now, are from the humanities; and so once Latin had disappeared from > >>> live literary use, their support was no longer important. The second > >>> is to blame it on the French: they abandoned Latin earlier than anyone > >>> else, and are well-known to have an inflated view of the greatness of > >>> their own language. But that does not seem to explain how it happened > >>> everywhere else: had they wanted to emulate the French, they would > >>> have started writing in French, and if they had wanted to oppose them, > >>> they should have re-emphasised the role of Latin. > >>> Now, of course, I can't propose the revival of Latin for these > >>> purposes: English has virtually replaced it as the international > >>> scientific language. But it look a long time during which dealing with > >>> many different languages was a considerable problem, and it seems as > >>> though this should have been avoided. > >>> Andrew Usher > >> Latin provided an invaluable tool for the transmission of ideas > >> throughout Europe, not bound my the restrictions of parochial > >> languages long before the Enlightenment. This together with the > >> invention of printing was the way that the Reformation exploded right > >> across Europe without the need for learning all the various languages > >> that were still unformed. > >> Latin's use was maintained long into the 18thC. It use continued in > >> Botany and other sciences in the coining of neologisms , and is still > >> in use to this day. > >> The 19thC saw the domination of English > > > In what field? Certainly not in math, science, philosophy, music, art, > > cuisine, etc. > > > French was the overall lingua franca among educated people in the 19th > > century. English dominated relatively minor fields like tea-drinking > > and crumpet-making. > > And it stultified. France elides all words which aren't French to this > day. Thus word creation and new meanings are expunged from the > language. >
What is the relevance between what I said and what you wrote?