Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
Next: question on Artwork and what is legal in altering a signed painting #24 South Dakota cat laws
From: Marvin the Martian on 24 Dec 2009 19:38 On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:58:27 -0500, Javi wrote: > Marvin the Martian wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:05:35 -0800, chazwin wrote: >> >> >>> The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the >>> decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. >>> The French and the Germans had to take a back seat. The Germans seemed >>> to have concentrated on philosophy whilst the French spent the whole >>> century licking their wounds after the Napoleonic defeats. >> >> So, Georg Ohm, Heinrich Hertz, Hermann von Helmholtz, Rudolf Clausius, >> and Heinrich Lenz took a "back seat"? (All big name 19th century German >> physicist) > > Don't forget Albert Einstein, Einstein was 20th Century. The issue was 19th century physicist. The list gets longer if you include 20th century. >> As did Augustin Fresnel, Pierre Dulong, Alexis Petit, Pierre Curie, and >> Andre Ampere? (Big name 19th century French Physicist) >> >> How... droll. English Chauvinism is not dead. >> >> Yes, there is a reason why back in the 1960s you had to be able to read >> a foreign language, usually German or French, to get a degree in >> physics at an accredited college in the English speaking United States. >> >> And after WW II, the only reason why we had a scientific jump on the >> Russians is because our captured German scientist were better than the >> Russian captured German scientists. :-D > > For a time, German and French were the language of science. The only > reason why it is English now is that most research is made in the USA. > As soon as another country spends more money in research, its language > will become the universal language. Think CERN.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Dec 2009 22:54 On Dec 24, 5:48 pm, bert <bert.hutchi...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Gauss's doctoral thesis "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" > of 1797 was the last major scholarly work to be > published in Latin. Who are you to decide what a "major scholarly work" is? Most of us happen to think that Wilhelm Gesenius's *Thesaurus Linguae Phoeniciae* (1837) is a major scholarly work (and it treats not just the Phoenician language, but all that was known of Semitic epigraphy at the time.) (And don't bother looking at it in google books; they don't bother to unfold the plates before they photograph them, so the file is useless.)
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 25 Dec 2009 00:51 On Dec 24, 8:05 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 1:57 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)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. > > mainly because nearly all the > decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. > The French and the Germans had to take a back seat. The Germans seemed > to have concentrated on philosophy whilst the French spent the whole > century licking their wounds after the Napoleonic defeats.
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Dec 2009 10:00 Andrew Usher 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. > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of my job. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Dec 2009 10:03
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote: > On Dec 24, 8:05 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Dec 24, 1:57 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)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. /BAH |