Many of the bishops and periti (experts) at the Second Vatican Council delivered addresses in Latin. Some even spoke to one another in Latin.
It's important to remember that the participants in any language exhibit varying levels of literacy, eloquence, and interest. Also, some will speak with a higher register and others with a lower register, even if these registers are mutually intelligible. There could never be a direct line of Classical Latin predominance from the golden Latin literary age because even Cicero broke grammatical rules!
I wish that some would stop idealizing the classical dialect. A thorough reading of the early and classical Roman authors reveals a very complex, and often convoluted, morphology. Expect a massive multiplication in morphological complexity over 1500 or more years of a sporadically enforced use of classical-dialect Latin.
Ironically, the Roman Mass has preserved more archaic Latin than former golden age authors. Indeed, the liturgical Latin we have today is often a better preservative of Latin than attempts to create a neo-Latin.
It's important to remember that the participants in any language exhibit varying levels of literacy, eloquence, and interest. Also, some will speak with a higher register and others with a lower register, even if these registers are mutually intelligible. There could never be a direct line of Classical Latin predominance from the golden Latin literary age because even Cicero broke grammatical rules!
I wish that some would stop idealizing the classical dialect. A thorough reading of the early and classical Roman authors reveals a very complex, and often convoluted, morphology. Expect a massive multiplication in morphological complexity over 1500 or more years of a sporadically enforced use of classical-dialect Latin.
Ironically, the Roman Mass has preserved more archaic Latin than former golden age authors. Indeed, the liturgical Latin we have today is often a better preservative of Latin than attempts to create a neo-Latin.
Last edited: