by Aldus Marius on Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:41 am
Salve, mi Scerio, et Salvete omnes!
Scerio, I am so glad you showed up just now! You and Piscinus were, of course, in on the discussion that got our Collegium names into their present shape. We revised them a time or two before everyone was convinced we'd gotten them right, or at least that the names said what we needed them to say. I won't claim they're perfect even now, but everyone understands them and they get the job done.
Religionem-->Religionum: Bene, it does look like I missed a stitch here, doesn't it? That was the new name that we agreed upon; I'll fix it before I log off tonight. 'Nuff said!
Cot-/Quot-: I gotta love Quintilian. He's a pleb, a Roman of the Empire, and he's from Hispania. Thanks to him, this plebeian Flavian-Antonine Hispano-Roman has license to pronounce his V's as [v]'s instead of [w]'s. Is it our fault Cicero had a speech impediment? >({|;-)
But I don't agree with him about everything; and in the matter of cot- versus quot-, I am vindicated by history. It is the version "quotidian", not "cotidian", that has survived the centuries to grace our present day. We are already scratching our heads to find a different and more "transparent" name for the CollVQ, one that will tell the novice and the newcomer what it's about. Must we make things more difficult for most of them by presenting the name it has in an archaic spelling, even though preferred?
Latin evolves. Any attempt to completely standardize it is like pinning a butterfly to a wall; the thing is preserved, yes--but it becomes static, losing the very qualities that made it alive and a thing of beauty. This is my chief quarrel with the grammarians, ancient as well as present-day; they want everything to be consistent, to the exclusion of any influences of time, place, or personality. I have posted extensively on this in the Collegium Linguarum Antiquarum: Latin will not truly live until it is allowed to play in the street and get grass-stains on its jeans now and again.
"Antiquarum" (since I'm in the neighborhood): I may say more about this in the thread where it started, but...somehow, I don't think the Romans themselves would have had a problem with calling something "ancient". Quite the reverse. The term did not have its present-day connotations of being used-up, worn-out, obsolete. I find our choice of "Antiquarum" to be much less regrettable than the modern Western attitudes about aging that now make it seem offensive.
Literature: I believe this, as with the Collegium names, has already been extensively discussed, and not just once. Literature was originally supposed to go with Languages; this made sense to me, too, at the time. But in practice, the arrangement fell through, and I'll hazard a guess as to why.
People who talk about literature tend to talk about authors, and themes, and symbolism, and modern analogues. As it happens, this is also the way enthusiasts talk about art in general. The language mavens, otoh, generally focus on particulars of grammar, and structure, and teaching techniques, and the best resources for students. We need both kinds of discussion, and I have participated in the Collegium Linguarum to the full extent I am constructively able to. But even though both camps are working with the same material, the contrast between these two approaches could hardly be greater. Hence my conviction that "Litterarum" goes with "Artium". It is the difference between striping a road and driving on it.
Architecture: has belonged to the CollArt all along; anyone like to start a discussion there...? >({|:-)
In amicitia et fide,
Last edited by
Aldus Marius on Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aldus Marius Peregrinus.