Latin Variants

[Hugh Cayless]

Neolatin also frequently uses vocabulary you wouldn't find in Classical Latin. 

Sent from my phone. 

> On Feb 27, 2016, at 09:51, Andrew Dunning <andrew.dunning at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 27 Feb 2016, at 2:05 pm, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Is Carruthers’ 1964 translation “Alicia in Terra Mirabili” in Classical Latin? In Neo-Latin? How can one tell?
> 
> Most Latin written today uses Classical orthography and syntax, but under the scheme I am proposing it would fall under Neo-Latin; the Knight and Tilg volume I cited defines this as 'Latin language and literature from around the time of the early Italian humanist Petrarch (1304–1374) up until the present day’ (http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199948178.001.0001). But it’s possible that it would be more useful to tag it as Classical Latin.
> 
> The problem, as Arthur’s note also indicates, is that ‘Neo-Latin’ can mean many things from a linguistic perspective; one cannot, for example, apply one set of spelling rules to it, especially as v and j (the so-called ‘Ramist' letters) were introduced as consonants during the Renaissance but are used in a few different ways. That could be a good reason either for limiting the number of variant tags to two for now (probably classical/medieval, but one could also make a case for classical/modern), or for breaking it down further.
> 
> All best,
> 
> Andrew Dunning
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages