14.08.24: follow-up; food and drink [8]; the kivium question

Words can have long, complex and, at times, vague and, the topic here, disputed “biographies”.

The post listing the names of fruit originally appeared in a different group where the word kivium (kiwi) was questioned. According to a member of that group, there could be no Classical Latin word given that the Romans did not have kiwi fruit and, therefore, was most likely invalid.

While the writer is correct in that the Romans did not have kiwis, he did not take it to its logical conclusion that there were other fruits which they didn’t have e.g. pineapples and tomatoes despite which Latin does have words for them, and he did not question those. He’s right that there is no Classical Latin word for kiwi – or pineapple or tomato. However, that there are no Latin words for them is not the case.

Long after Latin was under the “ownership” of the Romans, it continued to develop through the Mediaeval and Renaissance periods, and to embrace new vocabulary. As discoveries were made we can read documents pertaining to, for example, botany, zoology and medicine which were written in Latin because the language was in common use amongst the universities. An academic in England could write research in Latin and know that it could be read in institutions throughout Europe. A post some time back dealt with observations of the weather; it is written in Latin but by a researcher in Bohemia in the 18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Latin

Latin did not stop after the Renaissance. It continues to incorporate new vocabulary thereby allowing us to talk about football, supermarkets, car parks … and flying saucers! Cicero didn’t talk about any of those, but people still want to speak or write Latin and to relate it to the contemporary world around them. Latin can facilitate that, and, personally, I think that, by active use of the language, it helps to reinforce the grammar. If we were to classify Latin as “dead” on the basis that there are no native speakers left, then, by analogy, Esperanto should never have been created by Zamenhof since there were never any native speakers in the first place!

While the main aim of this group is to present the Latin language in order, in the long term, to be able to read the Roman authors, it does not preclude discussing Latin that does not belong to the Classical period provided that it is attested using a legitimate source.

Below are links to sites which will list vocabulary that is not Classical Latin

https://neolatinlexicon.org/latin/

https://latinlexicon.org/latinitas_recens_latine.php

https://neolatinlexicon.org/sources/

https://www.vatican.va/.../rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon...

https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_verborum_neolatinorum

https://archive.org/det.../revisedmedievall0000lath/mode/2up

(Note: this link requires a log-in)

The other source is Traupman’s Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency which is packed with Neo-Latin vocabulary; the book is copyright – all I’m saying is “Seek and ye shall find” 

On file in the group:

[i] a primer of Medieval Latin (Beeson)

[ii] calepinusnovus2002-french-latin.pdf

[iii] calepinusnovus2002-latin-french.pdf

[iv] Centre for Mediaeval Studies: core Mediaeval Latin vocabulary

[v] index verborum neolatinorum – Vicipaedia

[vi] lexicon_latinum_morgan.pdf

If you look up a word in Wiktionary – and it isn’t there or the meaning isn’t the same – you can’t conclude that it doesn’t exist. If you move on to Lewis and Short and you get a similar result, you can’t conclude that it doesn’t exist. Before firing missiles on FB or challenging your opponent in Latin Scrabble, you may need to do a bit of digging!

Image #1:

https://neolatinlexicon.org/latin/kiwi/

Source: LRL - Lexicon Recentioris Latinitatis (Vatican)

Image #2: examples of Neo-Latin from Traupman

Image #3: introduction to the Primer of Medieval Latin (Beeson); the introduction to this book (p13ff) is interesting in that it gives a great deal of information about the differences between Mediaeval and Classical Latin, and refers to the creation of new words or changes in their meanings.