Saturday, July 12, 2008

Preferencium Latinium vs. I prefer the vernacular.

I have never written on my blog about the "liturgy wars." I saw a post on another blog and thought I might make a comment or two. The blogger I read said the contest was between those who favor 'beautiful, elevated' language over simpler, easier to understand more direct vernacular language.

Let's take Latin vs. Today's English (American). The assumption seems to be that the former is more 'elevated', more 'beautiful' than English. But the purpose of language is to communicate. But, you say, isn't poetry more beautiful than prose. Absolutely not. Poetry is a form of compressing language so that the thought will be stated MORE clearly and more efficiently than a much longer prose statement of the thought.

In evaluating one language against another we should remember that one language is not more "elevated and beautiful' than another. The criterion is which most effectively and efficiently expresses what is being conveyed. "Italia petula est sacramentum" is no more beautiful than "I will go to the store." Which communicates best is the criterion of excellence. In my example, can there be any doubt as to which is the better language?

English has become almost the universal language because it is direct, and efficient. Latin is dead because it was emcumbered with exceptions and rules making it very difficult to convey meaning. And the same with French. Why, for example, should adjectives have gender? "Big" is "Big" regardless of what it modifies. English adjectives do not have gender when they mean exactly the same thing.

Earlier forms of English did have a multiplicity of unnecessary variations, but over the years these have dropped as useless and unnecessary making communication easier. We say
I do
You do
He does
We do
You do
They do."
At one time, each of these verbs was a different word. Now only 3rd person singular remains irregular. But you say: We can't say "he do." It isn't right! But why? Only because we have been taught not to say it. I'm sure if we could bring back an Englishman from hundreds of years ago he would be offended by "You do." He would want a different word for second person.

So the Liturgy War is provoked by those who do not understand the purpose and development of language.

Oh, but the Latin advocates say, we , as Catholics, should all be praying in the same language. Thus when we go to another country we can follow the service. So let's all use Latin. Apparently they desire that we all must be equally ignorant of what is being said or read. That will be the unity of ignorance!

Not to sound provincial, but a majority of students of the history of language say the direct, simplicity of English easily trumps the elaborate, difficult variations of most other languages.
"Goedinium farwellium" or Good bye. Jack

I should point out that the other blogger said there was a distinction between" good" books and "Great" books. And, of course there is. A great book is one that communicates more clearly to more people over the expanse of time. The same goes for the other arts. Bach is great, not because he is "elevated" but because his music communicates to us, those before us, and those to come. Farwellium againium. Jack

7 comments:

  1. What an interesting contribution on language issues! I wonder if you have ever looked at Esperanto as an international language.
    It is a planned language which belongs to no one country or group of states.

    Take a look at www.esperanto.net
    Esperanto works! I've used it in speech and writing in a dozen countries over recent years.

    There is an active association of Esperanto-speaking Catholics, and the liturgy exists in Esperanto too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bill, thanks for your connent. I will check out the site you mentioned. Jack

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jack,

    Great post! I agree that "more beautiful" and "more appropriate for Mass" are value-judgments, not objective rankings. I did some research on this a while back because my son's Godparents actually slammed shut their hymnals and refused to sing the recessional because they found the song objectionable. Ook!

    The one thing I found compelling in the "Liturgical Purity" argument relates to the conversation between the people and God at Mass. Many of the more modern hymns are not songs of worship, meaning that they are not part of a conversation where the people sing to God or glorify Him. Instead they are songs the people sing about themselves "We are Called, we are chosen, we are Christ for one another..." or to each other "Will you let me be your servant? Let me be as Christ to you. Pray that I may have the grace to let you be my servant too."

    These are nice songs which carry a meaningful message and should be sung...but NOT at Mass where the operative conversation must be between us and God.

    That was the only point that spoke to me, though. Each culture has its own music and ways of worship, and none is more valid than another. It strikes me as a bit elitist to claim God is more pleased with Latin chant than African drumbeats, for instance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, Tienne. I am Catholic because of the great potential of 1 billion people carrying out God's work here on earth. Unfortunatly we spin too much time on the non essentials. Of course, we cannot be perfect but what we could be if we all follow the way of Jesus. I include myself in those who could do so much more. Jack

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joe

    Back in the dark ages when I was in school and Mass was in Latin, the nuns so carefully and lovingly taught us what was happening at Mass because of course pig latin :- ) was the only latin we knew.

    After the mass went to the vernacular, there seemed to be an attitude that it is in English we do not need to teach it. Wrong. Since almost every word at mass harkens back to one or another verse of scripture the mass needs to be taught from the point of view of the bible stories and context. An example the HOLY HOLY HOLY comes from two bible passages. What are they?* If it is not taught and the students don’t read the Bible on their own they will miss a rich understanding. Even if they read the bible on their own but happen to be a little tired when they read it, it might just go past them.

    Say or sing the mass in English, Latin, Esperanto, Old Church Slavonic or whatever.. BUT TEACH WHAT IS HAPPENING>

    Thanks for the space to vent a pet peeve.



    * Isaiah 6 and Revelation 5

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe

    I do
    You do
    He does
    We do
    You do
    They do."



    I worked in an office with some southern persons.

    It is

    I do
    You do
    He does
    We do
    Y’all do
    They do."


    Except in Texas where it is

    I do
    Y’all do
    He does
    We do
    Y’all y’all do
    They do."





    Standard English uses nick names where other languages use the singular forms.

    I have read in several places of serious comment on linguistics that the difference between the singular and plural second person are trying to reassert itself with you as the singular. Apparently the natual flow of Europen languages seem to encourage it.


    An important question is what sort of context suggest the more standard and coloquial uages.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any time, Hank. I read this just as I was going to your blog. A morning ritual for me. Jack

    ReplyDelete