CK3 Dev Diary #78: Taking Language to Court

[Axis89]

Latin was, indeed, the language of education, but I still fail to see how it makes it related in any way to languages of court.

Not quite, but even if - it's oral business language, not, again, the language of documents. Oral Latin seems to have been an exclusively-clergy thing until Renaissance (and even not all clergy).

British Library

www.bl.uk

And I quote "It is true that Latin was primarily used for learned purposes such as literature and official business.",
but please read more to get the context.
Casual everyday conversation is not the same as court language, as in the court everything, from clothing to language has a meaning, and if latin is the language of the learned, then it is the language which you want to show you master both literally and orally.

Edit: Also want to add this "The proportion of manuscripts written in Latin as opposed to any other language on this website attests to the vast significance of this language throughout the Middle Ages, and especially in the period 700–1200. When we talk about the Middle Ages in western Europe, we are talking above all about the Latin Middle Ages. The vast majority of manuscripts preserved from this era are in Latin, and Latin continued to be the language of scholars, of literature, and of ecclesiastical, educational, and political institutions throughout the Middle Ages".

If this is the most widespread used language in the west, the language which is used to learn writing, and the language you must master to educate yourself not only in theological matters but basically everything, it is only proof that this is the language of the higher classes.

Edit 2: Also if poetry was normally written in latin, then it surely was meant to be read out loud, and expected to be understood. Sure, some might have trouble, but thats when some nobleman can show off his skill and explain its meaning to some of the listeners who are a bit less educated in latin. (Now I am hoping this is events coming with RC)

 

[Viridianus]

If this is the most widespread used language in the west, the language which is used to learn writing, and the language you must master to educate yourself not only in theological matters but basically everything, it is only proof that this is the language of the higher classes.

No, it is not. This is wishful thinking. Language of educated people and language nobility uses in court are not the same languages in Western Europe. And poetry is a double-edged sword: those poetry texts which were most likely to actually be read aloud in court, such as The Song of Roland, are among the few texts not in Latin.

 

[Axis89]

No, it is not. This is wishful thinking. Language of educated people and language nobility uses in court are not the same languages in Western Europe. And poetry is a double-edged sword: those poetry texts which were most likely to actually be read aloud in court, such as The Song of Roland, are among the few texts not in Latin.

When sources tell you that the vast majority is in latin, but you still manage to say "oh but this is not in latin so therefore your guessing is wishful thinking".
Youre just guessing too, but I at least have used sources like the British library, and looked into what Dr Cillian O’Hogan is trying to tell.

Edit: Also, look at my next post for some others who are of the same opinion of me, upvoted and supported by both historians and linguistics alike.

 

[Axis89]

Was Latin used as a spoken language in Medieval Europe? If yes, in what cases was it spoken?

Answer: Yes. Educated people certainly conversed in Latin. It was often the only language that educated people from different regions had in common. When they met, at universities or at royal courts, they would have conversed in Latin. Latin was often used as a diplomatic language (even verbally)...

www.quora.com

Tom Graves
Ph.D Linguistics, SUNY at Buffalo, Poet and Professor.

Seems like there are more people sharing my opinion on the matter.

Edit: Oh and here is another I guess

Until when was Latin the spoken common language?

Answer (1 of 14): It never ceased to be the common language, really. Latin began to break up in the Romance languages in the Dark Ages, and the Romance languages became distinct, separate, languages in the 15th century. You really cannot say when Latin ceased to be Latin and became Spanish, for e...

www.quora.com

"Susanna Viljanen
, works at Aalto University
Updated Oct 15, 2020 · Upvoted by
Logan R. Kearsley
, MA in Linguistics from BYU, 8 years working in research for language pedagogy. and
Andrey Kopylov
, Master's Degree Linguistics, Moscow State Linguistic University (2016)"

Some interesting thoughts on latin as aliving language here too:

Latin as a Universal Language on JSTOR

Louis John Paetow, Latin as a Universal Language, The Classical Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6 (Mar., 1920), pp. 340-349

www.jstor.org

 

[Viridianus]

I hope we're not here for comparing our degrees, but if we do, I also happen to hold a Master's degree (Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, <university removed because of European privacy craze>, 2020).

More on point:
1)It's symptomatic that the few historical examples of Classical Latin (rather than vulgar languages) those… answers can give are from clergy or with active clergy participation. In Royal Court terms, Charlemagne indeed seems to have tried to make Latin his court's language but his successors did not keep the tradition - perhaps because many of them didn't speak Latin in a couple of generations or, at least, couldn't make their (rather rebellious) subjects to use it. Louis the German and Charles the Bald did not use oral Latin in Oaths of Stratsbourg in 842 or in Coblenz in 860, despite the situation being quite official (and despite the fact that at least Charles the Bald is known to have known Latin, so it can't have been forced by lack of knowledge) - they instead talked in some vulgar Romance and in Old High German.
2)About this:

When sources tell you that the vast majority is in latin, but you still manage to say "oh but this is not in latin so therefore your guessing is wishful thinking".

Erm, duh. We have a huge disbalance in surviving sources - things in which educated clergymen dabbled had a much higher chance of getting to us than the talkings of the court, because written sources were mostly in monasteries. And when we exclude monasterial sources, the remaining sources are no longer as skewed towards Latin. (And even in monasteries, chronicles are more often not in Latin than educational texts - and it is chronicles that are often mentioned to have been made for a specific secular ruler.)

 

[Axis89]

I hope we're not here for comparing our degrees, but if we do, I also happen to hold a Master's degree (Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2020).

More on point:
1)It's symptomatic that the few historical examples of Classical Latin (rather than vulgar languages) those... answers can give are from clergy or with active clergy participation. In Royal Court terms, Charlemagne indeed seems to have tried to make Latin his court's language but his successors did not keep the tradition - perhaps because many of them didn't speak Latin in a couple of generations or, at least, couldn't make their (rather rebellious) subjects to use it. Louis the German and Charles the Bald did not use oral Latin in Oaths of Stratsbourg in 842 or in Coblenz in 860, despite the situation being quite official (and despite the fact that at least Charles the Bald is known to have known Latin, so it can't have been forced by lack of knowledge) - they instead talked in some vulgar Romance and in Old High German.
2)About this:

Erm, duh. We have a huge disbalance in surviving sources - things in which educated clergymen dabbled had a much higher chance of getting to us than the talkings of the court, because written sources were mostly in monasteries. And when we exclude monasterial sources, the remaining sources are no longer as skewed towards Latin. (And even in monasteries, chronicles are more often not in Latin than educational texts - and it is chronicles that are often mentioned to have been made for a specific secular ruler.)

But you have ecclesiastic latin and medieval latin, just like you had a written latin, a high latin if you will during classical Rome, but most Romans didnt speak the written form, they had a vulgar latin. There is a term which several linguistics are trying to show is that there was indeed a medieval latin, different from the ecclesiastic one.
Look, I guess youre an educated person in terms of linguistics, but I am not showing MY credentials, I was using several others, so if I am to believe that you have that degree I still have to lean towards the other sources, now referring to the British library and Cillian O’Hogan. But also the others which are mentioned, so you are in the minority.
Also, what was your specialisation? Linguistics is a very very broad term.

Your examples, I believe them no rpoblem, but please link your sources, and also you are proving the fact that Charlemagne(Karl the Great) had an ambition of using latin as a court language and therefore in CK3 terms it should be an option to attempt the same. Also, Charlemagne in context to this, had a PR problem with the Romans(Byzantine) as he wanted them to officially recognize him and his Frankish empire as the Western half or Rome, something he never got, to hsi frustration. So even him, Charlemagne, looked to the east and Constantinople, and latin was one of many tools to achieve it.

In other words, in CK3 there are enough reasons to implement medieval latin, or just short, latin into the game.

 

[Viridianus]

In other words, in CK3 there are enough reasons to implement medieval latin, or just short, latin into the game.

The language exists in the game, as developers mentioned it - and its special relationships with clergy - several times, but the language that's recognizable as Latin (i.e. "Ecclesiastical Latin", educated Latin) wasn't the language of the actual courts at the start dates.

But you have ecclesiastic latin and medieval latin, just like you had a written latin, a high latin if you will during classical Rome, but most Romans didnt speak the written form, they had a vulgar latin. There is a term which several linguistics are trying to show is that there was indeed a medieval latin, different from the ecclesiastic one.

That's, indeed, a huge problem with a number of sources you quoted as well (though, again, Quora answers are not, erm, too reputable sources, I would honestly prefer Wikipedia over that). They tend to call "vulgar Latin" what would by our start dates be different early Romance languages, not quite comprehensible to each other - the very languages the game is going to call "d'Oil vulgar", "d'Oc vulgar" and so on. Of course, it is partly a matter of taste whether you call 9th century Old French "Old French" or "Medieval Vulgar Latin in modern-day Northern France", but in terms of gameplay, it should not be the same "Latin" in Paris, Rome, and Galicia (unless you speak of Ecclesiastical Latin - which does have its place, see above, but it is a different language), it should be different languages.

Also, what was your specialisation? Linguistics is a very very broad term.

As written in diploma - "Theoretical and Applied Linguistics". In practice - theoretical phonology and morphology.

you are proving the fact that Charlemagne(Karl the Great) had an ambition of using latin as a court language and therefore in CK3 terms it should be an option to attempt the same.

It is an option in CK3, judging by the dev posts. Invite a clergyman, have him teach you Latin, declare it your court language, profit. Precisely what Charlemagne did - according to your sources, it's not me proving anything in this regard.

please link your sources

Sources on what? On Oaths of Stratsbourg not being written in Latin? Oaths of Stratsbourg themselves. On disbalance in sources? Take any listing of sources from Middle Ages and track where they were stored.

 

[Axis89]

The language exists in the game, as developers mentioned it - and its special relationships with clergy - several times, but the language that's recognizable as Latin (i.e. "Ecclesiastical Latin", educated Latin) wasn't the language of the actual courts at the start dates.

That's, indeed, a huge problem with a number of sources you quoted as well (though, again, Quora answers are not, erm, too reputable sources, I would honestly prefer Wikipedia over that). They tend to call "vulgar Latin" what would by our start dates be different early Romance languages, not quite comprehensible to each other - the very languages the game is going to call "d'Oil vulgar", "d'Oc vulgar" and so on. Of course, it is partly a matter of taste whether you call 9th century Old French "Old French" or "Medieval Vulgar Latin in modern-day Northern France", but in terms of gameplay, it should not be the same "Latin" in Paris, Rome, and Galicia (unless you speak of Ecclesiastical Latin - which does have its place, see above, but it is a different language), it should be different languages.

As written in diploma - "Theoretical and Applied Linguistics". In practice - theoretical phonology and morphology.

It is an option in CK3, judging by the dev posts. Invite a clergyman, have him teach you Latin, declare it your court language, profit. Precisely what Charlemagne did - according to your sources, it's not me proving anything in this regard.

Sources on what? On Oaths of Stratsbourg not being written in Latin? Oaths of Stratsbourg themselves. On disbalance in sources? Take any listing of sources from Middle Ages and track where they were stored.

Youre avoiding a lot here, and I did say I relied on the British library, not on quora. But all these quora voters who seemingly have these titles are not of the same opinion you have, and you are just that, someone who posted a title on a forum. Your word is just as much worth it as the other one claiming a title, but they disagree with you.

Also again, I was leaning towards an actual source, the British library and Cillian O’Hogan.

ABoutyour sources, I am not arguing against the oaths, but you are filling in with youropinions which are not part of the oaths, you are arguing that there wasnt any spoken latin in formal occasions right? Well who can back that up?
I claim there was a medieval latin, different from the ecclesiastic latin, which was spoken in formal occasions, like court or diplomacy and higher learning etc. In everyday life vulgar latins inheritors, the romance languages whi9ch at this time havent evolved that much was spoken.
A peasent, a knight or many nobles didnt master medieval latin, but the higher class nobles, the well educated I think did.

Its kinda like societies, you have to know certain things unless you are to be seen as an outsider, and I think this among many things enforced it. But that last part is a complete guess.

About your specialization, do you work with all languages, I can hardly believe you work with Japanese, Urdu and lets say Bulgarian and still be an expert of latin in medieval europe and have the intellectual history degree to udnerstand the perspective of things here?
You are missing my point of the question, maybe on purpose, what specifically do you work on, what is your field within your education?
Also, how is it so that others disagree with your assesement, which have either linguistic or history degrees? May it be that you should be so certain, and that both you and them could be wrong?

 

[Flockingbird]

what specifically do you work on, what is your field within your education?

Whoa, that information, along with posting history, could reveal his/her RL identity—and to my understanding is against forum rules. Best to withdraw your request, I think.

(Next-day edit: there are a minimum of 4 people in my family whose subspeciality in academia &/or science is so...niche that if you knew it, & figured out what part of the world they lived in by their usual posting times, you’d know their RL identity.)

 

[Viridianus]

I claim there was a medieval latin, different from the ecclesiastic latin, which was spoken in formal occasions, like court or diplomacy and higher learning etc.

One, Russell's teapot. It's on you to provide sources that it was a sufficiently different language, not on me to defend the null hypothesis of the Latin used for that being virtually the same (especially given that the game's definition of a language is wide, it is more akin to a small language group). Two, I am not arguing that Latin was never used in courts in Medieval history, just that it wasn't true of any of the (maybe a dozen) courts in the two start dates - as I noted in the previous message, you do have options to recreate it by hand in game.

A peasent, a knight or many nobles didnt master medieval latin, but the higher class nobles, the well educated I think did.

Indeed, some higher-class nobles mastered Latin, but note that in the few cases where we know who taught them (like with Charlemagne and his children), it's clergymen, which supports the idea that the Latin they learnt was essentially the same as ecclesiastical Latin.

About your specialization, do you work with all languages, I can hardly believe you work with Japanese, Urdu and lets say Bulgarian and still be an expert of latin in medieval europe and have the intellectual history degree to udnerstand the perspective of things here?

As @Flockingbird correctly notes, if I list the languages I have worked on, along with my username, posts history, and a freaking year and issuing university of degree, hunting me down is trivial (it's, what, fifteen people who graduated the same program on the same year? You actually can probably do it already, at least if you read Russian). Let's just say they belong to several language families (I think that still applies to several people in my group).

 

[FunGaming]

It says "You can also directly adopt the language of a certain Culture by clicking on the button next to the language in that Cultures own View."

but that doesnt do anything as it doesnt function as a button so someone forgot to implement the button part in that screen

 

[FunGaming]

I made a fix for this for now until paradox fixes it https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2749870594

Bug report here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...age-in-that-cultures-own-view-bugged.1510257/

 

[FunGaming]

I made a fix for this for now until paradox fixes it https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2749870594

Bug report here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...age-in-that-cultures-own-view-bugged.1510257/

Bug has been confirmed and has been passed onto the devs, until then everyone can use my fix until they updated it with the fix

 

[kingdomkeyblade]

Thread helped me find how to change my language, thanks for the help

 

[Alduizard]

Sanskrit was definitely THE prestigious language in major northern parts of the Indian subcontinent even during these times, and it would have very much likely dominated the courts as well. Would be a much better option to go for 'Sanskrit' as a court language in these parts, rather than the vastly less popular regional dialects and generalized groupings of Magadhan, Shauraseni and Gurjar.

More cultures and their respective regional languages/dialects can be explored, and used as such for specific 'cultures'(hope to see this happen sometime in future with a flavor pack maybe ), but for royal court and the court language in these realms, Sanskrit would def. be the best choice. Since it was not particularly a language of the masses, but widely adopted by the high culture and nobility.