Is there a big difference between classical Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin?

Question

As far as comprehension between the two. I'm learning classical Latin but I'd also like to be able to read historical Catholic documents (written in Ecclesiastical Latin). Are the two basically interchangeable?

Answer 1

There's very little difference. As some others have pointed out, there are some differences in pronunciation--in classical Latin, c and g are always hard (like k and the g in "get," respectively); in ecclesiastical Latin, when they occur before e and i, they're sound like the English ch and j, In classical Latin, v was pronounced as w; in ecclesiastical Latin, it's pronounced as it is in French, Italian, and English. Yes, pronounced like modern Italian.



The grammar and syntax of ecclesiastical Latin are somewhat simpler than those of classical Latin. Someone with a good grounding in classical Latin will probably notice simply that ecclesiastical Latin is easier to follow and translate, without even noticing what the differences are.



In short, if you're learning classical Latin, you'll be able to read ecclesiastical Latin with NO trouble! I'm surprised that anyone who has taught Latin would say otherwise.

Answer 2

Ecclesiastical Latin

Answer 3

Medieval Latin is a newer version of the same language. It sounds different and will have some different grammatical rules from Classical Latin, something you might expect around the time of the Roman Republic or the early Empire. It's like Middle English, which has heavily influenced by Scandinavian languages. You may be able to make some sense of it, but it's still very different from modern English. Ecclesiastical Latin is the Latin used by the Roman-Catholic Church for their rituals and such. I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between it and other forms of Latin, though I assume it's more similar to Medieval than Classical Latin.

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.



RE:

Is there a big difference between classical Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin?

As far as comprehension between the two. I'm learning classical Latin but I'd also like to be able to read historical Catholic documents (written in Ecclesiastical Latin). Are the two basically interchangeable?

Answer 5

yes - the differences are more spoken than structural... Ecclesiastical Latin refers to the pronunciation and usages of Latin by the Catholic Church. In some respects, such as pronunciation, it differs from the Latin spoken by Caesar, Seneca and Cicero, called Classical Latin. Classical Latin is what classics departments in major universities teach, and is also the Latin taught on language tapes, unless Ecclesiastical Latin is specified. A characteristic difference would be the pronunciation of regina coeli. In Classical Latin the "g" is hard and the "c" sounds like "k". In Ecclesiastical Latin, which is defined as Latin spoken as Italian would be pronounced in Rome, the "g" is soft and the c has a "ch" sound.





YES NOT FAR OFF, as the C0G of the Church is there; don't forget the Vatican is an independent country

Answer 6

the first two answers u got are incorrect; doethine's is correct but incomplete. first of all, once u know classical latin, u should be able to understand ecc. because the latter will look like what it is, an attempt at latin by someone whose native language is much like your own and unlike real latin, so that they will simplify the syntax and make mistakes reflecting the way modern european languages work. however, there is one complication: the vocabulary of ecc, lat. has had to adapt to changing circumstances and so it will contain a number of usages alien to classical latin, and while many will again be calques of modern european languages, some will just have to be learned.

Answer 7

Ecclesiastical Latin is much easier to understand, with a simplified syntax. Take a look at what I mean. http://www.sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm

Answer 8

Reading the two is almost identical but the pronunciation is quite different. God bless!



In Christ

Fr. Joseph