If Latin is the Father of English would you say that England is most equal to Rome & Roman Society?
Topic: Learning by doing hypothesis meaning
June 19, 2019 / By Coriander Question:
Meaning when Rome recalled all of its troops they not only left bath houses behind but public forums and other great buildings but they also left behind a new way of living, thinking , culture and language. They were there for a very long time.When they talk about the so called decent into the Dark Ages. It seems logical that Rome being surrounded by Gauls would be the first to loose Roman culture.
England being an island would have been safe from other outside influences (for a while) long enough that England may have absorbed all that Rome had built, taught and left behind, hence Latin in to English.
So do you think that England is 1st cousin to Rome?
Do you think out of all the tribes and other people England benefited most of what Rome had left behind?
Thank You, yes I looked that up and it is true that the English language did come from Germanic dialects and so on. I was way off on that but it (Latin) did make a contribution to the English lingo.
Which leaves my 2nd question and opinion, that England would be most equal and 1st cousin to Rome and its culture. Basing my hypothesis on the fact that England is an island heavily influenced by Roman society for around 500 years. Rome recalls its troops and those who could afforded it went back to Rome with the Roman legions leaving around 500 years of Roman dominance and influence.
Changing then leaving behind the Brit-Celtics into a Romano-British culture. England being an Island helped to keep it unmolested by 100's of nomadic tribes for many generations. Leaving the new class of people labeled today as the Romano-British culture to thrive many generations until the Vikings showed up etc . But no matter who invaded England it was the invaders who changed to Romano-British culture
Best Answers: If Latin is the Father of English would you say that England is most equal to Rome & Roman Society?
Bessy | 6 days ago
short answer, no. but ur idea is not crazy. sometimes ancient things do survive in out of the way places, esp. islands. and in fact some roman learning survived in ireland during the dark ages. but this has nothing to do with language. the latin elements we do have in english came in after the norman conquest together with the french elements, and do NOT reflect the early roman control of britain.
👍 100 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? If Latin is the Father of English would you say that England is most equal to Rome & Roman Society?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Learning by doing hypothesis meaning
Originally Answered: In the roman empire did north africa speak latin?
Latin was the language of the western half of the empire, including north Africa. How deeply it had soaked into the local population would depend on exactly where, when, and what social class of person you're talking about. Upper classes "Romanized" more thoroughly and earlier than anyone else, and some areas Romanized more thoroughly than others. John Ashtone's answer that most ordinary folks continued to speak their local languages is true for Britain, but Britain was a pretty isolated backwater of the Empire and Romanization was always pretty superficial there. If you look at Gaul or Spain, Latin was used pretty thoroughly by all social classes by the end of the empire - that's why Spanish and French are Romance languages rather than Celtic.
Africa, I'm pretty sure, was more like Gaul than Britain. It was much more of a core province of the empire. If you read Augustine's Confessions from 395 AD, even though his mother seems to have been more of an ordinary African woman (even her name is Punic rather than Roman), he makes no reference whatsoever to any language barriers or to Latin being a "foreign" language he had to learn at school (though he says that people noticed his African accent when he went to Italy).
In the eastern empire, Latin was the language of government only. Educated people spoke Greek. Local languages were much more persistent than in the west, especially because they had literate elites and written traditions of their own - Coptic in Egypt, etc. Hardly anyone was saying "Israelites" any more in the Roman period unless they were quoting the Hebrew scriptures, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were "Judaeans" (from which we get "Jews"). Hebrew was the language of the scriptures for them but on the street they mostly spoke Aramaic, or Greek if they were more upper-class.
Latin is not the "father" of English. Latin is the "father" of Romanian, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan and all their dialects.
English is a Germanic language (related to German and Dutch) which comes from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded those territories around the fifth century. The Latin influences on English are minor, and mostly come from French, not directly from Latin.
👍 30 | 👎 0
Brian, if Romanian isn't a language, what do they communicate in Romania? Durrrrrrrrr.... Italian is the significant language of Rome, it extremely is in Italy. because the abandonment of the Latin Mass, a lot less Catholic monks communicate Latin, even though it continues to be extensively examine and spoken in Vatican city, it extremely is an independent united states positioned completely interior Rome.
👍 25 | 👎 -6
English was basically from Angles and Saxons. Later influence was Normans with the Latin root. So Latin is not the father of English, sort of like a sibling.
👍 20 | 👎 -12
Whaat is the basis for calling English "Germanic"?
Sure it is part Germanic,but not enough to be called that,without calling it Latin based.
A huge portion of English is French-Latin,other latin,plus other non-Latin,non-Germainc languages.
👍 15 | 👎 -18
Originally Answered: What do these verses mean to you? Is Jesus Equal with God the Father or not?
Yes, He is. The Bible more than supports that!
John chapter 1 - In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ....... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,.....
So there you have the Word being described as God, and then we are told the Word was made flesh and came to earth to live among us. Jesus did that. Therefore Jesus Christ is God. There are plenty of other passages like this one that clearly illustrate the deity of Jesus Christ, the fact that He is God, and the fact that the Trinity exists even though people say it doesn't (were they familiar with the real Bible they would know it to be true).
When Jesus came to earth, He willingly humbled Himself. He became a servant for us. It's like a king or prince disguising himself as a commoner so he could travel through his kingdom anonymously. He is still the king, or the prince, but he is willingly humbling himself. That is what Jesus did. But it in no way diminished the fact that He is God.
I wanted to respond to this too:
i personally dont beleive that Jesus and God are equal, the Bible gives scripture to support both sides but Jesus was Gods son, not God, and in Matthew 19:17 "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
To the person who wrote this - Jesus was testing that man when He asked this question. He wanted the man to ponder in his heart whether he knew Jesus to be God or not. It was not that Jesus was saying that He isn't God. It was more like a challenge to the man He was speaking with. Read your Bible, friend - read a good version like the KJB - and you will be able to come to no other conclusion but that Jesus Christ is God. It is in there so clearly that it cannot be denied without ignoring many, many portions of Scripture. You cannot build a doctrine based on one or two verses that you don't understand. That is how heresy is formed.