--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, g <george.st@...> wrote:
> Christmas Specials (20-DEC-2003)
> http://www.economist.com/printedition/
> PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2281926
I express my feelings about the content of this site
in a conlang of my own creation:
ddakhtah bbomrozir grauzrlarkutulnahomvalferiga
hrauziram na-Ryolek bbaadurkzirkromlugakh nreewird
nasagoman okhtornagdoledirm mlenzhirfaskauramand
enoknounis naaskom faskomfereskur naferigman nagdoour!
> <<Latin today - Roman rebound - So you thought
> that irksome language was dead?>>
There are some fanatics that think Latin is not dead. They try to
speak it again, but forgetting a simple detail:
Latin spoken by Romans at Julius Ceasar's times was not priestish
Latin. Pronounciation was quite different. For example, no palatal
consonants at all, no assibilation.
Latin didn't undergo a real extinction, but rather a transformation,
and gave origin (in its vulgar forms) to Romance languages.
As a classic language (e.g. Virgilius' Latin, etc...) it is
hopelessly dead, and is a waste of time trying to speak it again if
the false pronounciation used by Catholic Church obscures any attempt
of reconstruct it as it was used by Romans.
Regards
Marco