# Latin from Italian?



## rushalaim

Is that really true, as if _Latin _language derived from _Italian _(and not vise-versa) when is read backwards: *Ital*y - *Lati*n? As if _Latin _language was never used no any nation, and it was invented just for Catholic liturgy?


----------



## Mori.cze

nonsense


----------



## rushalaim

There were only three official languages in the common Christian church: _Aramaic_, _Greek _and _Latin_.
But Greeks (Byzantine) permitted  to invent the language Russians could use in liturgy. Greeks invented the liturgy language for Russians, mixing _Bulgarian _dialect of _Slavic _and _Greek _languages together. Thus, the _Church-Slavic_ artificial liturgy language appeared, but Russians didn't speak that language ever. 
Probably, the same story happened with the artificial liturgy language - _Latin_.


----------



## Mori.cze

The Slavic liturgical language was based on an existing language, possibly partially adapted to serve the purpose (if I am not mistaken, a new orthography was invented, which might have caused some changes in the language). The main idea was that the believers understand what is going on (back then all the Slavic languages apparently were mutually comprehensible). 
All in all, Greek version of Church emphasized (language) tradition much less than the Roman did, and thus allowed later changes to the official language, but I would still tend not to call it an "artificial" language.

Latin, however, was chosen as a traditional language by the Roman branch with no changes whatsoever allowed, no matter if the believers understand the liturgy or not.
In reality of course the liturgical Latin evolved too -- spoken by monks and priests of different mother tongues it got shifted and simplified over the years and centuries, but (to my knowledge) there was never any intention to change the language in any way. It definitely cannot be considered an artificial language.


----------



## Karton Realista

rushalaim said:


> Is that really true, as if _Latin _language derived from _Italian _(and not vise-versa) when is read backwards: *Ital*y - *Lati*n? As if _Latin _language was never used no any nation, and it was invented just for Catholic liturgy?


Complete and utter nonsense. Latin was used well before Jesus Christ was even born.


----------



## rushalaim

Karton Realista said:


> Complete and utter nonsense. Latin was used well before Jesus Christ was even born.


When Jesus was born?


----------



## Mori.cze

rushalaim said:


> When Jesus was born?



(0 ± 15) CE


----------



## Karton Realista

rushalaim said:


> When Jesus was born?


Circa 4 BC, although it doesn’t even matter. Even if I say: in I century BC or in I century AD my previous statement will still be accurate.


----------



## rushalaim

Mori.cze said:


> The Slavic liturgical language was based on an existing language, possibly partially adapted to serve the purpose


Right, was based on _Bulgarian_-dialect of _Slavic _with _Greek _in mixture. It is artificial language. I'm Russian and cannot understand the _Church-Slavic_ language when I hear it.


> (if I am not mistaken, a new orthography was invented, which might have caused some changes in the language)


There were added many letters from _Greek_. Then half of the alphabet had Greek letters but Russians had never used them before and after ever.


> The main idea was that the believers understand what is going on (back then all the Slavic languages apparently were mutually comprehensible


Why English church led its liturgy on _Latin _not _Old-English_? Because it was forbidden to change the liturgy's language. Only when England separated from Vatican, it translated the liturgy on _English_ and King Jemes Bible appeared about 1600.


> The main idea was that the believers understand what is going on (back then all the Slavic languages apparently were mutually comprehensible


I'm Russian, I don't understand church's language, I don't understand the modern _Ukranian _(because it is artificial language: 50%_Russian_/40%_Polish _and _Hungarian_), I don't understand _Polish_ language completely. I don't understand _Bulgarian_, _Cheh_, _Serbian_. But I understand _Belarussian _easily.


----------



## rushalaim

Karton Realista said:


> Circa 4 BC, although it doesn’t even matter. Even if I say: in I century BC or in I century AD my previous statement will still be accurate.


Some say that Jesus was born in the 12-th century.


----------



## rushalaim

Mori.cze said:


> (0 ± 15) CE


So why we count our modern years as 2016 today?


----------



## Karton Realista

rushalaim said:


> Some say that Jesus was born in the 12-th century.


And some say the Earth is flat. Go figure.


----------



## Stoggler

rushalaim said:


> Some say that Jesus was born in the 12-th century.



Then who the on earth were Christians worshipping before the 12th century?  That's very prescient of pre-12th century Christians!


----------



## Stoggler

The name Latin simply comes from the name of the region that Rome was located, namely Latium (or Lazio in modern Italian).

The name Italia comes (probably) from a Greek word which itself came from an Oscan word.  It originally only applied to a small part of the southern part of the Italian peninsula, but came to be used for the whole peninsula up to the Alps in the 1st century BC.  Both names long pre-date Christ, whenever he was born.

It's just coincidence that the Lati- part of Latium spells out Ital- backwards.  No efforts by any Catholic priests or anyone else in the Anno Domini period could have come up with the names as the names had been in existence for centuries already.


----------



## rushalaim

Karton Realista said:


> And some say the Earth is flat. Go figure.


From religious perspective, you're right, the Earth is flat. However, the scientific method is to watch one's eyes (experience) and use analysis. "Analysis" means to use many different sources. According to scientific method our Earth is a globe.


----------



## rushalaim

Stoggler said:


> Then who the on earth were Christians worshipping before the 12th century? That's very prescient of pre-12th century Christians!


Apparently, there were not any so-called _"Christians"_ before Jesus of 12-th century.



Stoggler said:


> The name Latin simply comes from the name of the region that Rome was located, namely Latium (or Lazio in modern Italian).
> 
> The name Italia comes (probably) from a Greek word which itself came from an Oscan word.  It originally only applied to a small part of the southern part of the Italian peninsula, but came to be used for the whole peninsula up to the Alps in the 1st century BC.  Both names long pre-date Christ, whenever he was born.
> 
> It's just coincidence that the Lati- part of Latium spells out Ital- backwards.  No efforts by any Catholic priests or anyone else in the Anno Domini period could have come up with the names as the names had been in existence for centuries already.


Etruscan civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There were lived Etruscans long before Romans, and together later. Etruscans wrote and read from right to left. Perhaps, Etruscans permitted Romans to be on their lands and named them too. If Etruscans named Romans as _"Italia"_, Romans read it backwards as _"Latin"_, isn't it?


----------



## Stoggler

rushalaim said:


> Etruscan civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> There were lived Etruscans long before Romans, and together later. Etruscans wrote and read from right to left. Perhaps, Etruscans permitted Romans to be on their lands and named them too. If Etruscans named Romans as _"Italia"_, Romans read it backwards as _"Latin"_, isn't it?



Etruscans didn't name the Romans as Italia.

I feel that this is going to be hitting one's head against a brick wall: I'm going to bow out before being drawn into yet more nonsense


----------



## Karton Realista

rushalaim said:


> Perhaps, Etruscans permitted Romans to be on their lands and named them too. If Etruscans named Romans as _"Italia"_, Romans read it backwards as _"Latin"_, isn't it?


No, because Etruscans used a different alphabet...  Their letters were reversed, left to right:







rushalaim said:


> From religious perspective, you're right, the Earth is flat. However, the scientific method is to watch one's eyes (experience) and use analysis. "Analysis" means to use many different sources. According to scientific method our Earth is a globe.


I was satirising what you said by comparing it to flat Earth theory. It is as historically and scientifically incorrect.


----------



## rushalaim

Karton Realista said:


> No, because Etruscans used a different alphabet...  Their letters were reversed, left to right:


Your own drawings show that Etruscian alphabet must be read from right to left. I assume, Etruscans are Phoenicians. Phoenicians invented the first alphabet on earth and Greeks adopted it. At first Greeks also wrote from right to left, later they changed the direction. Romans took their alphabet from Etruscans.
Greek alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> _"Greek was originally written predominantly from right to left, just like Phoenician, but scribes could freely alternate between directions."_


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Some say that Jesus was born in the 12-th century.


Wasting time by discussing theories of nationalistic nutjobs like Фоменко is excluded by EHL forum rule 15. Outside of the context of his theory your question would not make sense.

This thread is therefore closed.


----------

