Lingusitics Does studying Latin help in learning other languages?

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Oh good, something to discuss that gives me a coding break and gets my mind off today's brilliant but tragic match between England and Croatia. I really enjoy this subject.

Latin is truly an amazing language, but I do not recommend studying it except for a short time. If I was going to continue with it for some reason, I would study from a "church Latin" type of textbook and read the Vulgate, as opposed to the classical literature. You can even read Newton's Principia in the original Latin, not that I would ever try to do that! I'm just saying there is much more to Latin than Caesar's stupid war stories, or Cicero's political babble. The modern romance languages developed out of the "vulgar" or common Latin.

I took less than a year of Latin, when I was nine. I got kicked out of the class, because for some reason I made the teacher angry to the point where he grabbed me and pushed me around. Lucky for me I was not in some old English school, since I probably would have been caned for upsetting the master. Maybe he was of old Roman ancestry, or a reincarnated centurion, and did not like Anglo-Germanic barbarians? To which I say, who are the barbarians, Roman! We did not go around crucifying people, did we? (But I digress. Sorry.)

I didn't mind, I never liked the Romans anyway, and I was happy to escape from that class. But I would say that knowing a few elements of Latin is a good thing, because it helps you with the Latin element in English vocabulary. But German helps you more, in my opinion. Besides, German is a living language, so I would recommend German over Latin.

I will quote a fellow I used to have lunch with on occasion, who took a few years of Latin when he was growing up in England. He said it's totally useless. But it's fun to study, because in a few years you can learn all the vocabulary. That's the positive side of being a dead language. Also, it's been regarded as impressive to get an A-level in Latin, since it's supposedly the hardest subject in school, even more so than mathematics or physics. I suppose that helped him get into his college of choice at his university of choice. Of course Latin used to be required in English schools, but no more. It was also a part of the standard college preparatory course in the USA in the states that had high educational standards, Pennsylvania being one example. But that was many decades ago.

After I was kicked out of Latin, they put me in French, which I studied for a few years. I think French is much more useful than Latin for most people. I would strongly recommend French instead of Latin.

I admit that Latin has a strange sort of charm. At one stage I became very interested in the whole Latin Mass movement and attended a bunch of those. It's hard to explain, but I will admit that Latin seems to have some kind of strange effect on me as it does on others. For example, I used to listen a lot to Latin hymns, such as those sung by the Sistine Chapel choir, and it's really hard to listen to hymns in another language after that experience. Latin just seems incredibly deep for some reason. But that is once again the "vulgar" Latin, not the flowery oratorical language of Cicero. When I hear Latin hymns sung by boys who are mostly from Italy, it's amazing to think of all the history behind what I am hearing. Also the fact that in some cases, the same Latin hymns have been sung to the same tunes for centuries. (Please do not infer any religious conclusions from this. Remember that being enlightened does not mean one abandons one's cultural heritage!)

People here in the USA promote Spanish, and I think it's a beautiful and useful language. There's no doubt it's one of the most important world languages. I would recommend Spanish over Latin every time, unless of course one is interested in becoming a traditional Latin priest or a Latin teacher.

Now as to what it takes to become fluent in another language, my experience is that Latin is irrelevant. What matters is a strong desire to learn, diligent study, and most of all language immersion. It took me about six months of feeling like I would never understand anything anyone was saying to me. Then one day I realized I could understand most of what people were saying to me. Then I began to think in that language. It's all about immersion. There's no substitute for immersion. You need to allow the language to penetrate deeply into your subconscious. This is why just studying a few hours each week in a classroom does not turn you into a fluent speaker.

[EDIT and full disclosure] If I had a happy English song about Latin, I would post it. But I can't think of England now without wanting to cry. So instead here's something to get back at my old Latin teacher and his Roman friends. It also happens to be in my favorite non-English language, and in all seriousness I still think it's the best for math and science students.

The first version is my favorite. The second one has English translation. Sorry, I'm too tired right now but I will get rid of the second version and replace it with English text when I have some time. I don't want to post too many videos so I will try to curtail my video posting activity. Thanks for reading and watching.

This is my normal brain: "I love Latin. It's the finest language. Next comes Italian. Then the other Romance languages. Definitely it's good to learn Latin. Enlightenment? That's when I light a candle in Church. "

This is my brain back when I was drinking beer and listening to Heino and marching music with very loud thumping sounds: "Ja, Ich liebe Good Old Germany. Wir tanzen Polka denn wir lieben Germany, Germany. More beer, please, and give my mein akkordeon. Danke!"

I definitely support Latin.

 

[jedishrfu]

Well, you're at odds with Arminius, he wasn't a fan of the Roman Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

 

[rumobritt Reference]

I agree with those saying that Latin helps - especially if you follow up with some basic linguistics. Learning languages is all about making connections in your mind, and Latin - being the foundation of so many European languages - is a handy tool for that purpose. You don't need a whole lot, just enough to recognise basic structures and commonly used words.

 

[pinball1970]

I agree with those saying that Latin helps - especially if you follow up with some basic linguistics. Learning languages is all about making connections in your mind, and Latin - being the foundation of so many European languages - is a handy tool for that purpose. You don't need a whole lot, just enough to recognise basic structures and commonly used words.

Latin would have been a useful o level to have studied for me. I learned about Latin and Greek stems only when I got to uni.

 

[Dr.D]

The two most useful courses I took in high school were geometry and Latin. I did great in geometry and poorly in Latin. Despite my poor performance in Latin, it has proved extremely valuable in the 60+ years since I left high school. I would strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to be educated.

 

[Klystron]

Late to the party but the OP's question deserves an answer. I studied Latin and Spanish for 3 years as a teen. Latin education greatly enhanced my English vocabulary and ability to understand new words. Latin's regular grammar and structure enhanced thinking and writing in a structured format. Many old books written in English presuppose knowledge of French. Latin helps me figure out written French with decent accuracy.

My first college had conventions where we were read to and spoke Latin in the refrectory (dining hall) Mondays and Wednesdays, Spanish Tuesdays and Thursdays. To this day while I forget most spoken Latin, at meals I am surprisingly fluent in Spanish. Immersion helps language education.

While studying Latin Vulgate with Spanish seems helpful, Spanish speakers claim I sound Italian; i.e., I speak Espanol with an Italian accent and rhythm. ?Que?

 

[DarMM]

Latin is a typical older Indo-European language, where to get to grips with it you need to learn formal linguistics to a certain degree.

Thus it's a good introduction to Indo-European grammar and can be helpful with studying Romance languages that descend from it. Although studies tend to show other Romance languages are better for this.

It's not more "mathematical", all the other old Indo-European are as or more inflectional and some branches such as Older Slavic and Celtic contain grammar not found in Latin.

 

[DEvens]

How many Romans?

 

[jedishrfu]

How many Romans?

Is this a pretext to a joke as in:

How many Romans does it take to make the Colosseum?

Ans: I don't know, how many Romans are there?

 

[Auto-Didact]

Latin is a typical older Indo-European language, where to get to grips with it you need to learn formal linguistics to a certain degree.

Thus it's a good introduction to Indo-European grammar and can be helpful with studying Romance languages that descend from it. Although studies tend to show other Romance languages are better for this.

It's not more "mathematical", all the other old Indo-European are as or more inflectional and some branches such as Older Slavic and Celtic contain grammar not found in Latin.

The necessity to learn a bit of formal linguistics in order to understand it is what makes it more "mathematical", i.e. more exact, more structured and hence more amenable to a systematic approach than the grammar of most modern internationally widely spoken/read popular languages.

Doing serious Latin translation is practically solving a highly systematic puzzle with a level of exactness not too far from solving Sudoku puzzles, which is obviously a far more highly exact "mathematical" game or activity than language translation is.

You might be surprised how many academics and practitioners from both STEM fields and the social sciences, who have no prior background whatsoever in and/or proper exposure to formal linguistics, misunderstand and underestimate the highly exact and formal and systematic nature of the modern science of linguistics.

 

[symbolipoint]

The necessity to learn a bit of formal linguistics in order to understand it is what makes it more "mathematical", i.e. more exact, more structured and hence more amenable to a systematic approach than the grammar of most modern internationally widely spoken/read popular languages.

Doing serious Latin translation is practically solving a highly systematic puzzle with a level of exactness not too far from solving Sudoku puzzles, which is obviously a far more highly exact "mathematical" game or activity than language translation is.

You might be surprised how many academics and practitioners from both STEM fields and the social sciences, who have no prior background whatsoever in and/or proper exposure to formal linguistics, misunderstand and underestimate the highly exact and formal and systematic nature of the modern science of linguistics.

I have no idea what that means, but I gave it a LIKE anyway.

 

[DEvens]

Is this a pretext to a joke as in:

How many Romans does it take to make the Colosseum?

Ans: I don't know, how many Romans are there?

 

[DarMM]

The necessity to learn a bit of formal linguistics in order to understand it is what makes it more "mathematical", i.e. more exact, more structured and hence more amenable to a systematic approach than the grammar of most modern internationally widely spoken/read popular languages.

I wouldn't say it is more structured or exact than any language today. It has more complex inflectional grammar, but less complex syntactic grammar. There are languages where learning them requires far more formal linguistics than Latin, even within Indo-European. For example Old Irish or Sanskrit.

Doing serious Latin translation is practically solving a highly systematic puzzle with a level of exactness not too far from solving Sudoku puzzles, which is obviously a far more highly exact "mathematical" game or activity than language translation is.

Well translating any highly inflectional language often begins as a "systematic puzzle", but eventually you can just read it and it feels no different from any other language you learn. I mean it was a natural language that five year olds spoke.

 

[Auto-Didact]

I wouldn't say it is more structured or exact than any language today. It has more complex inflectional grammar, but less complex syntactic grammar. There are languages where learning them requires far more formal linguistics than Latin, even within Indo-European. For example Old Irish or Sanskrit.

Of course, you are correct here and many professional linguists would probably argue the same, but the fact remains that those languages are simply less conventionally taught in education on such a massive scale across countries and time as Latin is, and they are therefore less popular. This is essentially a marketing issue: any product, no matter how good, which doesn't reach an intended market is a dead product.

Historical circumstances therefore make Latin the preferable (proto)typical case to refer to in our age instead of to those other languages. The level of universality afforded by Latin of engendering a skill in formal linguistics in academia and far beyond simply does not apply to those other languages, despite their superior linguistic complexities, again reflecting the nature of the dichotomy between specialism and generalism/universalism.

Well translating any highly inflectional language often begins as a "systematic puzzle", but eventually you can just read it and it feels no different from any other language you learn. I mean it was a natural language that five year olds spoke.

I am solely focusing on the translation aspect as a mapping between natural languages and the academic utility of mastering this mapping process. During my education, doing such translations has given me generally applicable skills of reasoning - quite similar in general applicability to the skills of reasoning learned in elementary algebra and classical logic - which have benefited me far beyond what a naive reading of the high school syllabus containing Latin implies.

Also, being able to read a natural language as a native can does not in any way diminish the difficulty of that language to any non-native. In exactly the same spirit, even Euclidean geometry, elementary arithmetic and elementary algebra were once viewed as sophisticated only capable of understanding by a mathematician, while today we expect them to be simple mental skills which are to be mastered during childhood.

The point I am trying to make is that concepts, whether simple or complicated, if picked up at a young age, can be understood intuitively if approached in a manner that is conducive to intuition; therefore conceptual clarity is always something worth striving for. This is why I strongly believe - following the arguments of Brouwer, Weyl and Poincaré - that the currently dominant philosophies of mathematics within education and academia, i.e. formalism as championed by Hilbert and logicism as championed by Russell, are more toxic to mathematics and society at large than is realized by their proponents.

Going beyond the earlier historical example in mathematics, I am quite convinced that the same arguments favoring conceptual clarity over formalism applies to the core concepts of many if not most sophisticated mathematics courses - such as group theory, graph theory, fractal geometry and so on - and moreover, that a grasp of such concepts at a sufficiently young age might naturally even lead to someone spontaneously inventing a new form of (physical) theory based on such mathematics which automatically solves our current foundational issues in physics and/or other sciences.

This is of course exactly what Newton did in his time when he invented calculus and revolutionized the theory of mechanics, and what Einstein did when he applied Riemannian geometry to physics, again so vastly shifting the very foundations of physics. As for QT, its revolution in contrast seems to fail exactly because - despite its pragmatic success - it does not have a clear formulation of its core concepts; instead there is a highly ad hoc formalist/logicist formulation of pure its calculational apparatus, which is both an embarrassment when compared to the previous foundational theories of physics and a travesty as a mathematical object in pure mathematics, but I digress.

 

[DarMM]

Of course, you are correct here, but those languages are less conventionally taught in education on such a massive scale across countries and time as Latin is, and they are therefore less popular; this is a marketing issue: any product, no matter how good, which doesn't reach an intended market is a dead product.

Historical circumstances therefore make Latin the preferable (proto)typical case to refer to in our age instead of to those other languages. The level of universality afforded by Latin of engendering a skill in formal linguistics in academia and far beyond simply does not apply to those other languages, despite their superior linguistic complexities.

Well I'm not really thinking of them in terms of being "superior" or "better products", just their features as languages. If you want to engender a skill in formal linguistics I would say simply getting a textbook on formal linguistics is a far better route.

 

[DarMM]

I am solely focusing on the translation aspect as a mapping between natural languages and the academic utility of mastering this mapping process. During my education, doing such translations has given me generally applicable skills of reasoning - quite similar in general applicability to the skills of reasoning learned in elementary algebra and classical logic - which have benefited me far beyond what a naive reading of the high school syllabus containing Latin implies.

Also, being able to read a natural language as a native can does not in any way diminish the difficulty of that language to any non-native

I mean even as a non-native you eventually pass out of this "systematic" analysis stage of learning an inflectional language and eventually you just read it and don't analyze it as a puzzle.

 

[Auto-Didact]

Well I'm not really thinking of them in terms of being "superior" or "better products", just their features as languages. If you want to engender a skill in formal linguistics I would say simply getting a textbook on formal linguistics is a far better route.

I don't necessarily want to engender a skill in formal linguistics: in contrast, I claim that the formal linguistic mapping applied between natural languages is an applied version of some novel form of mathematics - more specifically a distinct method of analogy - perhaps still officially undiscovered or unrecognized. It is this more abstract, generally applicable skill that I want to engender and abstract away from the comparative linguistic analysis and translation of languages to the comparative analysis and mapping between any possible (natural) objects and so help discover their similar and different intrinsic properties. Translating Latin to some other languages just seems to be a convenient route to begin from in order to learn this; to make engendering formal linguistics the goal in itself would be not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[DarMM]

Hard to know what to say there. Is there some currently unrecognized skill that's helpful to mathematics for which a simpler version is developed in the early stages of learning an inflectional language? Well maybe, but I can't really say anything else. I doubt it though.

 

[Auto-Didact]

Hard to know what to say there. Is there some currently unrecognized skill that's helpful to mathematics for which a simpler version is developed in the early stages of learning an inflectional language? Well maybe, but I can't really say anything else. I doubt it though.

To give another example, I think the theory of taxonomy in biology is another instance of an application of this more general form of mathematics. From my own study of this topic, both approaching natural language as a dynamical system (see my thread on it) and approaching the process of translation through category theory, I believe that this is a ripe interdisciplinary area of study, for the discovery of new mathematics.

Moreover, the direct applicability of those methodologies to the formal study of the medical reasoning process and contrasting it to both the mathematical reasoning process and the physical reasoning process shows that this is not an empty endeavor, but that there exist many more naturally occurring phenomena of which their mathematical properties can be abstracted and studied, perhaps eventually even capable of being studied as new kinds of physical systems, far beyond what physicists usually tend to think belongs to the domain of physics: sociophysics and econophysics are some examples.

 

[Auto-Didact]

Hard to know what to say there. Is there some currently unrecognized skill that's helpful to mathematics for which a simpler version is developed in the early stages of learning an inflectional language? Well maybe, but I can't really say anything else. I doubt it though.

My apologies for the vagueness; the new branch of mathematics that I am speaking about has many more properties, more concretely it seems to also be a cross between network theory and dynamical systems theory. It has been a year or two that I spent serious time on these ideas and I am as always distracted by other currently more pressing endeavors. In any case, fortunately I am not the sole person who thinks this but others have gone before and paved the way; from my study of the literature on these ideas this new form of mathematics seems to already exist at least in one more or less simplified form: category theory.

 

[DarMM]

I've seen papers about languages being treated as dynamical systems. To my mind very little about languages is learned from such an approach and they often have very poor treatment of phonology and its back reaction on grammar and syntax.

Again I'll just iterate that there is little I can say about ideas about language translation possessing hints of some new generally applicable skill. I don't even really have a clear idea of what these methodologies are.

In line with the thread all I'll say is if you want to learn mathematics, learn mathematics. If you want to learn a language, even a Romance language then learn that language. If you want to learn linguistics, get a linguistics textbook. The idea of Latin as this great secondary skill is very "19th Century" to me where Latin was ascribed daft almost magical properties of being "deeper" or "more logical" than other languages.

What Latin is great for is if you want to read Roman authors, i.e. to read literature in Latin.

 

[Auto-Didact]

Of course, the papers on languages as dynamical systems are at quite a preliminary stage: serious specialized experts in applied mathematics as well as physicists are needed to advance and generalize the available models in order to make them more accurate. Will this lead to new mathematics? Does this require new mathematics? Is natural language translation merely a form of applied category theory? These are genuine open questions.

At such an early stage of these scientific inquiries, one shouldn't worry too much about the level of accuracy and range of validity of these models, compared to the insane standards of accuracy and wide range of validity afforded to the best theories in physics based on a centuries long developed methodology for physics. Instead, the fact that there are any positive results at all is what is worthy of attention.

I - as many practicing academics, scientists and mathematicians - don't want to learn more old mathematics. I instead want to discover new mathematics by studying natural phenomenon and discover new physics by using mathematics which was discovered in a different context and which currently has no applications. History has taught us that the best way to achieve this is to look at natural phenomena and try to understand them.

I end by citing Henri Poincaré (The Foundations Of Science), who sums up my entire viewpoint: Only, they [i.e. logicists and formalists] must commit it [i.e. reasoning by recurrence and admitting the principle of induction] the day they wish to make any application of mathematics. This science [i.e. mathematics] has not as sole object the eternal contemplation of its own navel; it has to do with nature and some day it will touch it. Then it will be necessary to shake off purely verbal definitions and to stop paying oneself with words [i.e. purely formal axiomatics without any regard for application in physics or science].

 

[symbolipoint]

I am solely focusing on the translation aspect as a mapping between natural languages and the academic utility of mastering this mapping process. During my education, doing such translations has given me generally applicable skills of reasoning - quite similar in general applicability to the skills of reasoning learned in elementary algebra and classical logic

Why do so few people recognize and agree with that?

 

[DarMM]

Of course, the papers on languages as dynamical systems are at quite a preliminary stage: serious specialized experts in applied mathematics as well as physicists are needed to advance and generalize the available models in order to make them more accurate.

More accurate for what though. The general view of linguists is that these models don't really achieve anything. I've worked in both mathematics and linguistics. I like dynamical systems as an area of mathematics, but I still don't see anything that is really needed in linguistics from these models or anything interesting they have produced.

I - as many practicing academics, scientists and mathematicians - don't want to learn more old mathematics. I instead want to discover new mathematics

Of course. What has this got to do with Latin? I'm also not really sure how the quote from Poincaré is relevant. I'm not arguing that one must study mathematics for its own sake. I'm not even talking about mathematics, I'm talking about learning Latin.

 

[*now*]

I don’t know about use learning other languages and so on, but it is still interesting to note the changes and interconnections, like the threads interconnecting different languages with Latin, for example Varro, De Lingua Latina, including some Aeolian.

Also, maybe interesting in this sub-forum with threads about rhythm etc, are qualities including a flexible rhythmical sensitivity for influences like a traditional epic weaving lament e.g.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30037962?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Or rhythm with melody substituted for words, (Nagy, Harvard), Liszt-

 

[Auto-Didact]

More accurate for what though. The general view of linguists is that these models don't really achieve anything. I've worked in both mathematics and linguistics. I like dynamical systems as an area of mathematics, but I still don't see anything that is really needed in linguistics from these models or anything interesting they have produced.

This opinion of the linguists mirrors that of the opinion of most economists w.r.t. econophysics: they don't see the scientific value nor the potential of sophisticated mathematical models, but are content with what is already available i.e. the orthodox theories despite the clear limitations of the orthodox theories, which delimit the very interest in their respective subjects. Their specialized interest in only what has been conquered already and a select set of remaining issues as dictated by the community of elders as well as direct utility is typical narrow minded thinking which serves mostly to uphold a status quo and obscure their ignorance of their subject's proper foundations.

How many people are specifically not interested in studying language? The majority of those who go into STEM explicitly have a disinterest because natural language is in their own fields seen as a vague thing to be hated upon and avoided, i.e. scientific anathema. This disregard is far more corrosive than is realized, because the remaining population who may be interested, usually do not have the stomach for formal linguistics, which halts the overall march of science; this is related to why modern linguistics - i.e. after the arrival of Chomsky et al. - did not arise earlier despite Leibniz already laying some foundations almost 400 years ago.

Of course. What has this got to do with Latin? I'm also not really sure how the quote from Poincaré is relevant. I'm not arguing that one must study mathematics for its own sake. I'm not even talking about mathematics, I'm talking about learning Latin.

My apologies, I was not being as clear as I could be. I was responding against the typical justification for specialism and indirect assault on universalism (or generalism) by calling it a very 19th century view, as you espouse here:

In line with the thread all I'll say is if you want to learn mathematics, learn mathematics. If you want to learn a language, even a Romance language then learn that language. If you want to learn linguistics, get a linguistics textbook. The idea of Latin as this great secondary skill is very "19th Century" to me where Latin was ascribed daft almost magical properties of being "deeper" or "more logical" than other languages

The quote from Poincaré is literally the opposed 19th century pro-universalism stance against 20th century specialism. I acknowledge, like Poincaré, that scientifically studying any and all natural phenomena, including natural languages and all related aspects - i.e. their usage, dynamics, evolution, and so on - end in mathematics, i.e. pure mathematics once properly appreciated actually touches nature. Poincaré's stance here is essentially an argument in favor of universalism and also a proclamation of both the unity of mathematics as well as the unity of science.

The fact that Poincaré, who at the turn of the century was simultaneously the most potent constructive pure mathematician of his age, a major force in theoretical physics as well as the best philosopher of physics in his time - literally the last universalist - felt this way, yet this view is almost specifically ignored or rejected by the viewpoint of modern academic mathematics, just shows how strongly politicized academic sociology really is by systematically censoring the viewpoint of opponents. This just shows how much Poincaré's premature death markedly altered the march of science, leaving us with only a yearning for what could have been in mathematics and science had he lived a full life.

The tale of Feynman - himself an avid follower of most of Poincaré's philosophies - can be understood in a more tragic sense once seen in this light:
Feynman was one of the only scientists after Poincaré to come close to a level of universalism like which Poincaré and a few others before him had attained. Feynman's personal philosophy of science is the ultimate example of being a product of unfortunate circumstances: he wanted to be a mathematician but openly rejected modern mathematics because logicism and formalism had become the academic norm after Poincaré - the only serious opponent - died; as a consequence of his death, Feynman's ambition of becoming a mathematician was already made nigh impossible from the get go.

Moreover, Feynman openly rejected philosophy - including the philosophy of science and physics - partly because of the upheaval of the subject which took place within the foundations of physics due to both the arrival of GR which occurred one year after Poincaré's death, as well as the subsequent complete degeneration of the foundation by QT, leaving the foundations of physics in the abysmal state that we know too well. This degeneration happened again because Poincaré died before being able to do anything about it and no one else of his calibre was around to handle the task.

Feynman, despite all of this, ultimately rejoins in the Poincaréian view of the unity of science by uttering the following words:
So, ultimately, in order to understand nature it may be necessary to have a deeper understanding of mathematical relationships. But the real reason is that the subject is enjoyable, and although we humans cut nature up in different ways, and we have different courses in different departments, such compartmentalization is really artificial, and we should take our intellectual pleasures where we find them.

There are many interesting phenomena … which involve a mixture of physical phenomena and physiological processes, and the full appreciation of natural phenomena, as we see them, must go beyond physics in the usual sense. We make no apologies for making these excursions into other fields, because the separation of fields, as we have emphasized, is merely a human convenience, and an unnatural thing. Nature is not interested in our separations, and many of the interesting phenomena bridge the gaps between fields.

 

[DarMM]

This opinion of the linguists mirrors that of the opinion of most economists w.r.t. econophysics: they don't see the scientific value nor the potential of sophisticated mathematical models, but are content with what is already available i.e. the orthodox theories despite the clear limitations of the orthodox theories, which delimit the very interest in their respective subjects. Their specialized interest in only what has been conquered already and a select set of remaining issues as dictated by the community of elders as well as direct utility is typical narrow minded thinking which serves mostly to uphold a status quo and obscure their ignorance of their subject's proper foundations

I don't think anybody in linguistics is only concerned with the opinions of "elders". There are plenty of innovations in linguistics all the time and lots of new developments. They just aren't using dynamical systems to study things. I think going from "they're not interested in paper A" to "they're pseudo-controlled by a council of elders" is a bit of a leap.

My apologies, I was not being as clear as I could be. I was responding against the typical justification for specialism and indirect assault on universalism (or generalism) by calling it a very 19th century view

I wasn't attacking "universalism" or "generalism" I was saying in the 19th Century silly properties were ascribed to Latin.

The quote from Poincaré is literally the opposed 19th century pro-universalism stance against 20th century specialism

As I mention above I was attacking "universalism" at all. I wasn't even talking about it. I was talking about silly views of Latin that were common at the time.

 

[symbolipoint]

Posts #56 and #57 are much more difficult to understand, and seem to not be bringing a better understanding to the original question; but if the contrary, then try better to explain how. "Does studying Latin help in learning other Languges?"
Yes/No/Maybe

 

[DarMM]

Posts #56 and #57 are much more difficult to understand, and seem to not be bringing a better understanding to the original question; but if the contrary, then try better to explain how. "Does studying Latin help in learning other Languges?"
Yes/No/Maybe

Learning any language helps in learning other languages, but there is nothing special about Latin in that regard. The only case where it would be of special help is learning Romance languages, but even then studies show modern Romance languages would be better.
I already said all this however. #57 is just me clarifying that I wasn't criticizing or even talking about "universalism", just Latin.

 

[symbolipoint]

Learning any language helps in learning other languages, but there is nothing special about Latin in that regard. The only case where it would be of special help is learning Romance languages, but even then studies show modern Romance languages would be better.
I already said all this however. #57 is just me clarifying that I wasn't criticizing or even talking about "universalism", just Latin.

Again: LIKE, LIKE