
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next ... E9qOkM3.01
Which version? Proper Latin or the watered-down Ecclesiastical hogwash?morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today
zer0 wrote:Which version? Proper Latin or the watered-down Ecclesiastical hogwash?morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today
EDIT: Being an isolated language, Basque is also an interesting case. IIRC it's utterly unrelated to anything in Europe, or the world for that. Perhaps even more interesting is the ancient Etruscan language (people living north of Rome). They spoke a language that was closely related to the languages spoken by some proto-Germans up round Switzerland, and the people on one of the small Ionian islands. Good luck trying to figure out how that pattern emerged.
Whilst in Georgia a few years ago, there was talk of cultural and language links with the Basques. Even to yet seen that much real research into it, to be fair so could just be urban myth.rowan wrote:Yes, I spent a year in the Basque Country (Vitoria, Spain), and whereas Catalan is undoubtedly very close to Spanish and French, Euskera sounds more like Georgian. It pre-dates both the Celts and Romans, and also the Moors, of course. That's because the Basques were always a very difficult people to conquer; at least in Spain, anyway. I've heard it described as the 'Russian front' of the Roman Empire. They still look and behave a little differently too. Not the friendliest place I've ever lived in, but I guess they have their reasons. Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian are other non-European languages within the European region, and are all thought to be of Uralic origin (in modern day Russia). But Euskera doesn't fit into that category either. While Spanish appeared to be the commonly-spoken language in Vitoria, learning Euskera was mandatory in schools.
That series looks interesting. If there's one thing the Beeb does well, it's non-political documentaries. I'll check it out when I have time. Cheers.Which Tyler wrote:If you haven't seen it, try to catch The Incredible Human Journey series Alice Roberts recently reshown on the Beeb - very good. IIRC Only really South-Eastern Europeans came directly from the Fertile Crescent, and in through Turkey, most came via the Russian Steppes and down into Western Europe - almost none came over the Straights of Gibraltar prior to the Moorish invasion of the Iberian Peninsular. Current Turks bear next to no relation whatsoever to those who crossed through to SE Europe from Turkey.
Again, IIRC.
In fairness the Turkomans were fairly late entrants to the party in that region. The whole migration of peoples and the subsequent compression in Europe is fascinating, its just a shame that there are so many gaps in our knowledge.Which Tyler wrote:If you haven't seen it, try to catch The Incredible Human Journey series Alice Roberts recently reshown on the Beeb - very good. IIRC Only really South-Eastern Europeans came directly from the Fertile Crescent, and in through Turkey, most came via the Russian Steppes and down into Western Europe - almost none came over the Straights of Gibraltar prior to the Moorish invasion of the Iberian Peninsular. Current Turks bear next to no relation whatsoever to those who crossed through to SE Europe from Turkey.
Again, IIRC.
The original Bulgars were ethnically akin to the Huns, I believe, and may have been named after the Volga River, whence they came. Their language was replaced by Slavic some time in the Middle Ages. They fought many battles with both the Byzantines and the Ottomans. The Byzantine Emperor Basil II 'the Bulgar Slayer' defeated the Bulgars at the Battle of Kleidion, blinded 99 of every 100 captives, and sent them all back to Bulgaria, where the khan Samuel died of a stroke upon sighting them. As for the Ottomans, many communities throughout the Balkans region apparently welcomed them as liberators from the oppression of Christianity.Adder wrote:Bulgarian are thrilled to have been occupied by Turks for 500 years (battle of Nicopolis 1396 marks the end of Bulgarian Resistance).
I must say, from what I have read, it was probably better being colonised by ottomans than by the French or Brits in the 19th century.
Isn't Latin still the official language of the Vatican City, btw? Not that anyone is born and raised there or anything...morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today
Nope, never was either.rowan wrote:Isn't Latin still the official language of the Vatican City, btw? Not that anyone is born and raised there or anything...morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today
Sounds about right, except that Latin is listed at its official language everywhere I look, including Wiki. I actually went there about 12 years ago and got a bird's eye view of the old pope, John Paul, as he just about ran me over in his pope mobile in St Peter's Square. It was a stinking hot day and he sat there at the top of the steps speaking in numerous different languages. Pretty sure it was Latin at the start. At one point he broke into English and welcomed a rugby team from Ireland. That was the only part of the whole hour-long speech that I actually understood. Amazing endurance - and it was just a few months later that he kicked the bucket.Lizard wrote:Nope, never was either.rowan wrote:Isn't Latin still the official language of the Vatican City, btw? Not that anyone is born and raised there or anything...morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today
The Vatican City State was sleazed into existence by Mussolini in 1929. It has no declared official language but its official document have always been in Italian.
The Holy See, on the other hand, being the sovereign entity of the Roman cafflick church does use Latin as its official language.
Quite why a cannibalistic sacrifice cult should have diplomatic recognition as a sovereign entity is beyond me, but that's the world we live in.