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: Andrew Usher on 24 Dec 2009 08:58 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
From: chazwin on 24 Dec 2009 11:05 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 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: JimboCat on 24 Dec 2009 11:58 On Dec 24, 8:57 am, 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. [snip explanations] I think a major reason was the great expansion in scientific terminology. Many new words were being coined to express new concepts. Classical Latin just didn't have the vocabulary. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "What is the Latin word for 'quark', anyway?"
From: António Marques on 24 Dec 2009 12:33 JimboCat wrote (24-12-2009 16:58): > I think a major reason was the great expansion in scientific > terminology. Many new words were being coined to express new concepts. > Classical Latin just didn't have the vocabulary. Erm.... neither did any other language, hence '[m]any new words were being coined'.
From: Mahipal7638 on 24 Dec 2009 12:43
On Dec 24, 8:58 am, 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 Science, enlightened or not, is Language independent, Language indifferent, Latin or otherwise. One can arbitrarily translate scientific thought, it's not poetry, from one Language to another. Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/ |