Caizu

[WeepingElf]

If Europe had native Latin speakers in the Middle and Early Modern Ages, wouldn't that mean that, by the same logic, I'm a native English speaker?

Were you raised bilingually in German and English?

[Raphael]

If Europe had native Latin speakers in the Middle and Early Modern Ages, wouldn't that mean that, by the same logic, I'm a native English speaker?

Were you raised bilingually in German and English?

No, I started to learn English at 10. Which is probably not that much later than when medieval Europeans with better-than-usual-for-their-time-and-place education started to learn Latin.

[WeepingElf]

If Europe had native Latin speakers in the Middle and Early Modern Ages, wouldn't that mean that, by the same logic, I'm a native English speaker?

Were you raised bilingually in German and English?

No, I started to learn English at 10. Which is probably not that much later than when medieval Europeans with better-than-usual-for-their-time-and-place education started to learn Latin.

I also started learning English at 10 - and like you, I am thus not a native speaker.

[Raphael]

I also started learning English at 10 - and like you, I am thus not a native speaker.

My point was an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that Europe, during the centuries when Latin was a widely used language of liturgy and scholarship, had native Latin speakers. Or that modern Copts are native Coptic speakers.

[WeepingElf]

I also started learning English at 10 - and like you, I am thus not a native speaker.

My point was an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that Europe, during the centuries when Latin was a widely used language of liturgy and scholarship, had native Latin speakers. Or that modern Copts are native Coptic speakers.

I understand.

[keenir]

the important question is, under this definition, will there one day be no native Caizu speakers?

ah, okay; I had been thinking liturgical languages had native speakers, in the sense of their own population(s) of people growing up hearing and learning and speaking it. (as opposed to modern people speaking Akkadian)

also, I'd never been clear on if Coptic was purely liturgical or not - and comparisons to Latin just reinforced that, as I knew it was a liturgical language,

that was my explanation of why I had thought that. also, we hear in the news and in books, about the plight of the Coptic language and its speakers...but we don't hear about the plight of other liturgical languages* - ergo, my brain thought "ah, that must mean its not purely liturgical." (and yes, we also heard that and read that about Hebrew...which further reinforced the impression upon me)


* = (and in that statement, I'm including Mother-In-Law languages as well as liturgical languages - collectively, languages like Coptic for Copts, English for Raphael, and Dyalŋuy for Dirbal speakers)

but I also knew that, in most books that were written in Europe had at the very least their titles in Latin.

the bit in that last line about Latin in medieval Europe, was simply a reply to the "exactly as Latin was" and to nothing else in the post.

But Latin still had to be learned, often together with reading.

okay, but thats true of any language that has a written side to it., even Esperanto.

From this distance, i think i was just trying to point out exactly that: that languages with writing systems, have to be learned with reading them - no more, no less than that.