I tried to remove the bias where this article implicitly states as fact the theory that Latin evolved from Proto-Indo-European, a language theorized by linguistic evolutionists to have been spoken at about 3900 BC, a date incompatible with Christian teachings about all languages being created by God in the third millennium BC. My attempt to create balance was quickly reverted by User:MatteeNeutra, so now again, there's a strong pro-evolution bias in the article. I wonder if this is really fitting for a conservative encyclopedia. --Brtkrbzhnv 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Is it fair to say Latin was the language of the Roman Empire? Greek was spoken in the East, and many subject peoples maintained their native languages as a birth tongue for some time.--All Fish Welcome 16:06, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
I changed it a bit, what do you think about how it is now? DanH 16:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, I've decided to go through this entry and expand it considerably. Hopefully people will find my work of use :) Here's a summary of what I've added:
1) Major expansion of the description of Latin grammar, particularly with regards to nouns and verbs. I've also laid out the various noun cases in more detail as well as the verb tenses.
2) Small discussion of Latin syntax. This is a good candidate for further work.
3) Expanded discussion of the importance of Latin in the development of modern Romance languages, as well as information about the use of Latin as a "lingua franca" in the middle ages and the renaissance.
4) Expansion of the surviving reasons for studying Latin, including reading classical authors, Church Fathers, medieval works, legal terms and references to medicine.
5) Minor touch-up and grammatical fixes for those sections I left behind from the original article.
I hope everyone finds this useful! CrunchyFrog 18:36, 12 November 2008 (EST)
- Added catholic church modern relevance to your list. EternalCritic 18:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)