Registered user login:

A common language

Helena Drysdale

Published 03 January 2008

Ad Infinitum: a Biography of Latin
Nicholas Ostler HarperPress, 400pp, £25

Those of us who stood before dusty blackboards intoning "amo amas amat" often wondered why we were doing it. What was the point? In my class a favourite declension was bellum - "war" - which we chanted in the nominative, vocative and accusative plural as "bla bla bla". Our teachers assured us that Latin would help us in studying other languages. So why didn't we just study those other languages and have done with it?

If only we'd had Nicholas Ostler's fascinating new book, we would have found innumerable reasons to be interested. Enlarging on a mere detail from his magisterial history of the world's languages, Empires of the Word, Ostler tells the story of Latin's life. With lightly worn but hugely impressive scholarship, he pursues Latin from its birth and subsequent fate at the hands of invaders, plagues, grammarians, poets and priests, through to its present place, not buried in the graveyard of history, but perhaps reclining in its retirement home.

Latin the language, Ostler argues, formed Europe, and therefore also inspired the Americas that sprang from it. Lasting three times longer than Roman domination, it was written unchanged by courtiers, clerics and merchants for two millennia, and is still echoed today in scientific terminology, law codes, grammar, wizarding spells, and - until 40 years ago - the standard liturgy of the Catholic Church. Like the air we breathe, Ostler says, it is almost too central to our culture to have been noticed.

So where did Latin originate? Thought to be an Indo-European language that arrived in Italy some time between the 6th and 2nd millennia BC, it settled on the west coast in Latium, hence its name. Words - particularly those connected with architecture, such as atrium ("forecourt") and fenestra ("window") - were borrowed from neighbouring (but not Indo-European) Etruscan. And from the 2nd century BC, Greek loan words enriched the grammars of medicine, music and food (oliva or "olive" and olem or "oil").

From the Greeks, the Romans also discovered how a language could enable a person to express him- or herself fluently. For example, the notion of a structured sentence, ending with a "period" or full stop, was Greek, the word periodos meaning "circuit", as in "lap". Aristotle defined a sentence as "an utterance with a beginning and an end in itself, and a length that can be easily taken in".

How many of us have ever considered the origin of the humble sentence? Before this periodic system was adopted, an utterance could (and often did) ramble incomprehensibly ad infinitum. Thus, Roman scholars adapted these Greek rules to the rough Latin vernacular, thereby improving its style and comprehensibility, and making it easier to teach.

Oddly, as Ostler points out, it was another millennium and a half before Europeans realised they could apply these rules of grammar to their own vernaculars, thereby hastening the decline of the very language that had spawned them.

The Romans quickly discovered that a language could also be an instrument of power and commerce. Not through any official language policy, but through the army, the courts, and the merchants travelling the empire's long straight roads, Latin proliferated.

By the time Rome had fallen, Latin had replaced Greek in western Europe as the language of the church, the Greek texts having been translated into what was then the language of the street. By the end of the 1st millennium, through missionaries and by means of books, Latin had become the language of clerici - meaning both clerics and clerks.

Following the breakdown of Roman infrastructure and centralisation, Latin mutated into different branches of the language family known as Romance. Only in Britain was it displaced altogether. Why? Plague? War? Isolation? There is no answer, but in a characteristically intriguing footnote, we learn that plagues in general cut a swath through British courts, cities and monasteries, thereby militating against languages spoken by the elite. In 14th-century England, that language was Latin (along with French), and so, after the devastation wreaked by the bubonic plague, a great many vacant jobs had to be filled by English-speakers from the countryside. The use of French and Latin at court, by the law and by the church never recovered.

Yet Latin itself survived, and through 80 generations of grammar lessons its stable rules have been maintained. It is the one constant in the cultural history of the west, beyond Rome, beyond even Christianity. Its 2,500 years of documented history make it unmatched as the language of Europe's memory; thus, within the linguistically fragmented European Union, perhaps it could once again be used as the glue that binds Europe together. Then Latin would be the only language that European schoolchildren need learn, and "amo amas amat" would live again. If anything could inspire EU functionaries to adopt such an idea, it is this wonderfully learned and entertaining book.

Helena Drysdale's "Mother Tongues: Travels Through Tribal Europe" is published by Picador

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

15 comments from readers

gnuneo
04 January 2008 at 19:12

bugger that for a joke.

latin is a dead language, and with all those academies and academicians around it, it can never live again.

now English, there is a living language, an adaptive language, and one without stuffy twats paid stupid money to decide what is and isn't "English".

i may not be able to understand my great-great-great-grandchil;dren due to this evolution, and vice versa, but that for me is one of the aspects of evolution - i would also not want to swap my evolved body for a 3m tall, scale and talon backed body with a brain the size of a wall-nut.

Evolution is King - and so too it is with languages.

if we will have a 'common tongue', then let it be a living language, a 'Lingua Anglica', rather than a Diplodocus.

jeanne
06 January 2008 at 20:38

Fascinating! I always enjoyed Latin and Greek in school. Knowing them has helped me immeasurably to muddle my way through English, French, and Spanish. I think it is a pedagogical tragedy that Latin and Greek have been removed from schools. They teach children what language is about, and they teach children how to use their brains. If gnuneo had studied Latin and Greek, he might have been able to express his opinion in a literate and witty manner instead of resorting to street argot.

gnuneo
07 January 2008 at 02:09

Romani ite domum!

:P

why should we in England, then not learn Old Saxon, to discover the roots of our language?

indeed, i can see far more point in encouraging students to learn arabic, or chinese, or japanese, all of which will have more utility in today's world.

learning ANY other language is a bonus for the individual in pedagogic terms, simple fact.

what i object to, is the (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) notion that this dead language be forced upon our societies again, merely in order to achieve a Lingua Anglica, when it is already clear that English has that role.

certainly, let anyone who wishes learn it, but not everyone is particularly interested in the Romantic languages, or cultures.

Cybertiger
07 January 2008 at 10:11

"Fascinating! I always enjoyed Latin and Greek in school. Knowing them has helped me immeasurably to muddle my way through English, French, and Spanish."

I'm very much with jeanne on this one. Good for you!

bluto blaartfaart
08 January 2008 at 11:34

quis a wank

magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.

bluto blaartfaart
08 January 2008 at 11:36

o! cutis rugosa glabraque!!

bluto blaartfaart
08 January 2008 at 11:37

habent amicae vestrae magnas clunes?

bluto blaartfaart
08 January 2008 at 11:37

hortamini igitur ut eas quatiant

bluto blaartfaart
08 January 2008 at 11:38

ut quatiant illas clunes sanas!

Brooke
09 January 2008 at 15:40

viva latina longa!

Brooke
09 January 2008 at 15:41

vivat latina longa! (?)

Mr Fnortner
09 January 2008 at 15:59

gnuneo has my vote, for what it's worth. A native speaker of English, a student of Latin, a learner of Spanish and Japanese, and a dabbler in Anglo-Saxon and other European languages myself, I have experience enough to know that street argot (you say?) is as serviceable and well-placed for expressing an idea as the language of Ovid and Cicero. In fact, the language of the Romans has some severe limitations in expression due to sentence structure rigor that English will never encounter.

Of course gnuneo could have been a little more highbrow, but so could have Winston Churchill at times (quite often). Today's English is the most powerful, capable language the world has ever witnessed. Latin helped me immensely to probe the inner workings of English, as well as those of a language as alien to it as Japanese. But the reverse is true also.

Bigotry has no place in the understanding and teaching of language.

Andrew Calcutt
09 January 2008 at 21:41

Singular language; plural uses, i.e. in its ostensibly continuous lineage, Latin has played various social roles at different times. For the modern British bourgeoisie (c. 1840-1940), it was not only a shibboleth for keeping about the hoi polloi (sorry for lapsing into Hebrew and Greek), but also a way of dragging the minds of young masters out of their 'comfort zone' (as it would now be called) into the alien structure of Latin. The unspoken assumption was that if you were schooled enough in this Other cognitive territory, if you could even originate it yourself by composing Latin prose, then ruling the rest of the world (the real Others) would be a piece of cake.

Cybertiger
10 January 2008 at 09:23

@Mr Fnortner

"A native speaker of English, a student of Latin, a learner of Spanish and Japanese, and a dabbler in Anglo-Saxon and other European languages myself ..."

You forgot the Aramaic - I'll bet you speak that language - fluently.

"Bigotry has no place in the understanding and teaching of language."

What's this bigotry thing all about?

Elizabeth
10 January 2008 at 16:24

I'd like to put in a word for Esperanto, in many ways the natural heir to Latin. Unlike English, it was designed to used as an international language and is politcally neutral. If you speak any European language at all, Esperanto is really simple to learn, whereas Latin requires many years of study. It's a living language which you can learn (and use) on the Internet. I've been to conferences where people from all over Europe - indeed from all over the world - were able to meet and talk together on an equal footing using Esperanto, whereas in other international conferences the native speakers of English always dominate.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Helena Drysdale

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?