A Commentary on the Development of the Neo-Latin Vocabulary eith Reference to Recent Linguistic Studies

Sylwia Krukowska^*

Uniwersytet Łódzki
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7137-8738

Ein Kommentar zur entwicklung des Neulateinischen Vokabulars im zusammenhang mit aktuellen Sprachwissenschaftlichen Studien

Introduction

Active use of the Latin language is unique in our reality. For about a century, Latin has been considered a dead language dedicated only to specific branches of science. There are still people, however, who are able to speak this language fluently. It can be assumed that the currently developed and actively operating neo-Latin movement was initiated by the congress in Avignon on the initiative of Jean Capelle in 1956. Thus, we can ask ourselves whether it was an actual breakthrough that revived this language or, rather, it initiated a broader trend of returning to tradition. It is also worth considering whether it is appropriate to talk about Latin as a ‘dead language’ in every sense of the word. The aim of this article is to try to find an answer to these questions. To support the thesis of its continued development, an analysis of word-formative processes of the neo-Latin terms will be conducted. Due to the considerable size of the argument, semantic changes will be omitted. The examples provided are intended to give a general overview of the whole problem^[1]. The paper partially refers to a book I authored; therefore, some lexical examples are convergent (Krukowska 2014).

Latin has actively served as a language of diplomacy in Europe in past centuries. As a language of art, science and, above all, clergy, it was in common use until the end of the 19^th century, or even to the beginning of the World War II. Ultimately, it faced a final blow because of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) that introduced reform of the liturgy. As a consequence, Latin was replaced by national languages even within the Church. Until then, interest in Latin continued unabated.

In order to challenge the tendency to consider Latin a dead language, we should look back and analyze its development since the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5^th century AD. Since, this point in time might have been considered a breakthrough in Latin history. The Western Empire lost its power over the region and started to be conquered by numerous tribes, and therefore, a considerable risk of the disappearance of the Latin language arose. However, that is not what happened. At the point when Latin was about to disappear, the Catholic Church took advantage of the existence of an ideal means of international communication to preach the Gospel. This masterstroke not only saved Latin as such but also made this language unchangeable in its grammatical form for over 15 centuries. Even though it was not necessary to provide any changes in the aspect of grammar, Latin, which remained a so-called lingua franca, constantly needed to adapt new concepts to its vocabulary if it was about to serve for generations.

Development of Latin from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the end of the Middle Ages

Together with the development of religious, scientific and technical concepts, new words started to appear, e.g. ecclesia,-ae [SŁŚPL, DMLBS] (‘church’) from the Greek noun ἐκκλησία (‘gathering’, ‘Jewish commune’, ‘Christian Church’), monac(h)us,-i [SŁŚPL, DMLBS] (‘monk’) and monacha,-ae [SŁŚPL, DMLBS] (‘nun’) from the Greek adjective μοναχóς,-ή,-óν (‘solitary’, ‘lonely’), which comes from the adjective μóνος,-η,-ον (‘alone’, ‘lonely’), angelus,-i [SŁŚPL, DMLBS] (‘angel’) from the Greek noun ἄγγελος (‘messenger’, ‘envoy’, ‘one that announces’), diabolus,-i [SŁŚPL, DMLBS] or diabulus,-i [SŁŚPL] (‘devil’) derived from the Greek noun διάβολος (‘accuser’, ‘slanderer’). The primary thing to pay attention to is that all the words quoted above have Greek origins and are basically only transliterated into the Latin alphabet. Their pronunciation, apart from matters related to accentuation, did not change substantially.

Considering changes in meaning of each new Latin lexeme, all examples show a narrowing (or clarification) of the semantic scope already taking place in the Greek words (as Greek was the first language of the New Testament), which were taken over by Latin in their basic, but especially, in new meanings. Their grammatical gender did not change either. The Greek ending of the masculine noun -oς was replaced by the Latin -us, characteristic of the II declination, and these words also have the same inflection. The feminine gender expressed in Greek forms with the endings -η and -α replaced the Latin suffix -a, which is characteristic of the I declination.

During medieval times, apart from religious terms, several other new words were provided in Latin vocabulary. Some of which were of Latin origin, e.g. a noun distillatio,-onis [SŁŚPL, MLW] or destillatio,-onis [SŁŚPL, DMLBS, MLW] (‘distillation’), which comes from the verb destillare [SŁŚPL, DMLBS, MLW] or distillare [SŁŚPL] (‘to drip’, ‘to drop’) derived from the noun stilla,-ae (‘drop’) with the prefix de- (with the sense of ‘down’, ‘from’, ‘off’, as well as ‘opposite of’, ‘apart’ and ‘away’) attached. However, some lexemes, especially those referring to mathematics, had Arabic origins. The word motivating forms algorismus,-i [SŁŚPL, DMLBS, MLW], algorithmus,-i [SŁŚPL] and allegorismus,-i [SŁŚPL] (‘calculation’) appears to be a distorted surname of Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, which underwent a specific graphic-phonetic transformation into the Latin form: (according to various sources) Alchorismi, Algorismi, Algorismus, Algoritmus; this word was probably also to some extent influenced by the Greek noun ἀριθμóς (‘number’) (Louridas 2020: 4–5; Długosz-Kurczabowa 2008: 13). Another example is the noun algebra,-ae [DMLBS, MLW] (‘algebra’). The derivational basis of this lexeme is the Arabic word al-jabr or al-jebr written in the Latin alphabet, of uncertain meaning, mostly translated as ‘reunion of broken parts’. The word appears in a book written by the mathematician mentioned above, under the Arabic title Al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa al-muqabala (Eng. The compendium on calculation by restoring and balancing) (Harper 2023). Another word is the new Latin lexeme zephirum,-i (Leonard of Pisa 1202)^[2] and its synonyms cifra,-ae [SŁŚPL, DMLBS, MLW], ciffra,-ae [SŁŚPL], ciphra,-ae [SŁŚPL]. Both came from the Arabic word sifr, which meant ‘empty’, as well as ‘zero’ and ‘nothing’. The noun cifra,-ae in medieval Latin appeared in the meaning of ‘zero sign’ (which in Latin can also be expressed as figura nihili) (Smith, Karpinski 2023: 51–62) and – as a result of shifting the center of the meaning of the word – ‘cipher sign’, ‘code’, in turn, as a consequence of generalization, i.e. extension of the meaning, it took on a more general meaning – ‘digit’, ‘number’, ‘numeric sign’ (Turek 2002: 97).

Latin in the period of Great Discoveries of the late 15^th– 20^th/21^st centuries

As Latin was still the main language of scientific communication for most of this time, it was necessary to coin terms referring to new discoveries and inventions in this language as well. Latin was able to keep abreast during the period of great geographical discoveries. Every country, land, mountain, or river in expanding western civilization was given a Latin name. The most obvious examples are here the proper names of the continents: Europa,-ae, America,-ae (which actually stands for a modification of the name of Amerigo Vespucci, its alleged discoverer and the first to recognize it as a new continent) and Terra Australis incognita (‘the Southern unknown land’), Terra Australis or simply Australia,-ae. Whereas the first British colony in North America – Virginia,-ae – was given a name to honor Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, from the Latin noun virgo,-inis (‘virgin’).

Curiosity led a man not only to the most distant places on Earth but also to outer space. Therefore, new inventions were created, such as telescopium,-i [DMLBS] (‘telescope’), which is a noun of a Greek origin, combined from the adverb τῆλε (‘far’, ‘long distanced’) and the verb σκοπεῖν (‘to watch’, ‘to observe’). The microworld was also no longer mysterious due to the invention of microscopium,-i [DMLBS] (‘microscope’). The noun was formed from the Greek adjective μικρóς,-ά,-óν (‘small’, ‘little’) and the already mentioned verb σκοπεῖν. Another noun in this context is ‘vision correction device’, i.e. ‘glasses’ – Lat. perspicilla,-orum [LLII].

With time, new methods of communication have been discovered, starting with typographia,-ae [DMLBS] – from the Greek nouns τύπος (‘impact’, ‘dent’, ‘impression’, mark’) and γραφή (‘drawing’, ‘picture’, ‘writing’) – called synonymously impressus,-us [SŁŚPL] and impressa,-ae [SŁŚPL] (‘printing’) – from the Latin verb premo,-ere,-pressi,-pressum (‘to press’) with the prefix in- (‘in’, ‘on’, ‘into’), which already in classical Latin created the verb form imprimere [SŁŚPL, DMLBS] (‘to stamp’, ‘to incise’) – in the 15^th century, and next in the 19^th century, with the mastery and use of ‘electricity’ (Lat. electricitas,-atis [LLH, DA, LL, IVL], electris,-idis [LRL] or electrica vis [LRL]) – telegraphum,-i [LLH, DA, LL], telegraphium,-i [DA], instrumentum telegraphicum [DA], machina telegraphica [DA], filum aeneum [N&Q, PCA], filum telegraphicum [PCA] or filum electricum [PCA], which all mean ‘telegraph’. The ‘telegram’ itself was defined as telegramma,-atis [LLH, DA, LL, LRL], nuntius telegraphicus [LLH, DA, LL], nuntium telegraphicum [DA] and telegraphema,-atis [LLH, DA, LL, IVL]. The ‘telephone’ also got its Latin name, namely: telephonum,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL] or telephonium,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL]. The next breakthrough discovery in the period of industrial revolution of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was radiophonum,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL] also called radiophonium,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL], instrumentum radiophonicum [LLH, DA, LRL] or capsella radiophonica [DA, LRL] (‘radio’), from the Latin noun radius,-ii (‘ray’) and Greek φωνή – (‘voice’, ‘sound’), as well as ‘cinema’ called in Latin with a few synonyms: cinematographeum,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL], cinemateum,-i [LLH, DA, LL, IVL], theatrum cinematicum [LLH] or cinema,-atis [LLH, LL]. These nouns were built from Greek stem κίνη- existing in the nouns κίνημα,-ατος (‘movement’, ‘motion’), κίνησις,-εως (of the same meanings in this context) and in the verb κινεῖν (‘to move’). A ‘film’ was given the Latin names pellicula,-ae [LLH, DA, LL, LRL] based on the classic noun pellis,-is (‘animal skin’, ‘integument’,’ ‘animal skin products’), as in Spanish [RAE 2023] and taeniola,-ae [DA, LRL] from the noun taenia,-ae (‘ribbon’). While the latest technology Bluetooth is called caerulidens,-tis [LLH].

Mass or interpersonal communication was not the only thing of concern for scientists of that time. New methods of transportation were also invented. First can be mentioned the simplest two-wheeled vehicle – birota,-ae [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL] (velocissima) [LW] – ‘bicycle’ (first called as ‘velocipede’). The noun was already known in classical Latin, where it had the meaning of ‘two-wheeled cart’. It consists of the prefix bi- (‘twice’, ‘double’) and the noun rota,-ae (‘circle’). The adjective velox,-ocis (in the superlative) appears optionally next to the noun birota and refers to its ancient meaning – ‘fast’, ‘quick’. Birota automataria [LLH, DA, LL, LRL] or autobirota,-ae [LLH, LL, IVL] are the Latin names for a ‘motorcycle’. Both consist of the adjective automatarius,-a,-um or its stem, and come from the Greek form αὐτóματος,-η,-ον (‘acting of one’s own will’, ‘spontaneous’, ‘automatic’). At the beginning of the 19^th century also ‘railway’ appeared, which was called via ferrata [DA, LL, LRL] or ferrivia,-ae [LLH, DA]. The Latin noun via,-ae (‘road’) and the adjective ferratus,-a,-um (‘made of iron’) derived from the word ferrum,-i (‘iron’) form the basis of this term. The most modern vehicle of that time was a ‘car’ – Lat. autocinetum,-i [LLH, DA, LRL, IVL] also known as autoraeda,-ae [LLH, DA, LL], raeda automataria [LLH, LL], autocurrus,-us [DA], automobilis,-is [DA], automobile,-is [DA], automatum,-i [DA], currus motorius [DA], currus automobilis [DA], currus automatarius [DA, LL], automobilis vectura [DA], automobilis raeda [DA], automataria raeda [DA, LRL] or automatarium vehiculum [DA]. In this case, Latin users again returned to the Greek language using the pronoun αὐτóς,-ή,-ó (‘self’, ‘one’s own’, ‘by oneself’) or the adjective αὐτóματος,-η,-ον and known to the Romans the adjective mobilis,-e (‘mobile’) as well as the nouns: currus,-us (‘wagon’), vectura,-ae, vehiculum,-i (‘vehicle’) and raeda,-ae (‘carriage’) – a loanword from the Gallic. At the beginning of the 20th century first successful flight on a flying machine driven by an engine took place. It was given a few synonymic Latin names: aëroplanum,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL], aërovehiculum,-i [LLH, DA, LRL], aëronavis,-is [LLH, DA, LL, LRL], aërinavis,-is [DA], aëronavigium,-i [DA], velivolum,-i [DA, LL], aëria navis [DA, LL], aërium navigium [DA], vehiculum aërium [DA], navis volans [DA] and navis aëroplanigera [DA]. These terms are based on Latin nouns, namely: aër, aëris (‘air’), planum,-i – ‘flat surface’, navis,-is, navigium,-i (‘ship’), vehiculum,-i as well as the participle volans,-tis (‘flying’). Another kind of flying machine, i.e. helicopter, got only one name – helicopterum,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL]. Since people also succeeded in building spacecrafts, Latin had to enrich its vocabulary with this new referent, namely: rocheta,-ae [LLH, DA], rucheta,-ae [DA IVL] and missile,-is [DA, LL, LRL]. The most modern and increasingly widely used flying machine is the drone, Lat. aërofucus,-i [LLH], aërovehiculum inane [LLH], aëria navis sine gubernatore [LL] (‘pilotless aerial ship’) or teleplanum,-i [Vici].

Richness of a language or chaos? The process of coining new terms in a language in the past centuries

Taking into consideration the process of constituting and accepting the new word forms, we can make some interesting observations. Namely, the lack of unanimity (which often resulted from the distance between the residence of Latin using experts or insufficient knowledge when it comes to Latin spelling) led not only to variations in the orthographical system, but also to parallel existing lexemes. The multitude of synonyms is noticeable. We can demonstrate this in many examples. As the first can be given eleven parallel existing nouns referring to a ‘sundial’, which differ only in spelling: horologium,-ii [SŁŚPL, DMLBS], herrologium,-i [SŁŚPL], horalegium,-i [SŁŚPL], horalogium,-i [SŁŚPL], horelogium,-i [SŁŚPL], horilegium,-i [SŁŚPL], horilogium,-i [SŁŚPL], horolegium,-i [SŁŚPL], orilogium,-i [SŁŚPL], orlogium,-i [SŁŚPL], orologium,-i [SŁŚPL], which all take origin from the Greek noun ὡρολóγιον (‘sundial’), which is a combination of two stems: ὥρα (Gr. ‘season’, Lat. hora,-ae – ‘hour’) and -log- or -leg- from λόγοϛ (‘word’) or λέγειν ‘to tell’, ‘to speak’ (Lat. legere – ‘to read’). Our next example will be six synonymic terms used to determine a ‘telescope’, namely: oculus artificialis teledioptricus (Zahn 1685), telescopium,-i (Zahn 1685; Rogaliński 1776, 129) or tubus opticus (Rogaliński 1776, 129), perspicillum,-i, specillum,-i^[3] [DMLBS], conspicillum,-i^[4] – originally from Latin for ‘an instrument used for visual observation’, with the prefix per- (‘through’) and con- (‘with’). As mentioned above, ‘printing’ was given five following Latin names: typographia,-ae [DMLBS], res typographica, impressus,-us [SŁŚPL], impressa,-ae [SŁŚPL] and impressura,-ae [SŁŚPL]. Whereas a ‘print run’ in medieval Latin was defined in seven different ways, as: impressio,-onis [SŁŚPL], inpressio,-onis [SŁŚPL], impressa,-ae [SŁŚPL], impressus,-us [SŁŚPL], inpressus,-us [SŁŚPL], typis excusus and actus typis excudendi [SŁŚPL]. The ability to travel, trade and learn new cultures led a man to taste unusual flavors at that time. This is how the noun ‘coffee’ was introduced into Latin. Latin users borrowed the Turkish word kahveh, from Arabic qahwah (Harper 2023) and created twelve synonymic forms of coffeum,-i [DA, Vici], cofeum,-i [Vici], caffeum,-i [Vici], cafeum,-i [LLH, DA, LRL, Vici], cafaeum,-i [DA, LRL, Vici], coffea,-ae [LLH, DA, LL, Vici], cafea,-ae [LLH, DA, LL, Vici] cafearia,-ae [DA], potio cafearia [DA], potio cafaearia [LLH, DA, LRL] or pure Latin potus Arabicus [LLH, LL, Vici] and potio Arabica [LLH, DA, LL, LRL] (‘Arabic beverage’).

Apart from orthography: spelling with or without an h- at the beginning (e.g. horologium,-i / orologium,-i), alternation of forms which differ in the vowels: -o-/-e- (e.g. horologium / herrologium or orilogium / horolegium), -o-/-a- (e.g. coffeum / caffeum), -o-/-a-/-e-/-i-/no vowel (e.g. horologium / horalogium / horelogium / horilogium / orlogium), -i-/-e- (e.g. imprimere / impremere) and consonants: geminate usage versus non-usage (e.g. herrologium / horologium or coffea / cafea), -m-/-n- (e.g. impressio / inpressio), the parallel existing forms of grammatical gender (e.g. feminine: I decl. impressa,-ae; III decl. impressio,-onis; masculine: IV decl. impressus,-us, or feminine: I decl. coffea,-ae and neutral II decl. cafaeum,-i) as well as differences in etymology, can be observed. The given vocabulary mostly represents the group of words of Latin and Greek origin (with the exception of derivates from Arab. kahveh). All these lexemes are codified in dictionaries, which was already mentioned.

After an initial analysis of the above-mentioned terms, several reflections arise. First of all, alternation of forms is a sign of the richness of a language, its constant development and an indicator of its survival inclinations, but such an expansion of so many word-forms disturbs the communication process and may lead to misunderstandings or accusation of misspelling (which in the case of Latin is an evident fact). Moreover, territorial differences can have an impact on forming dialects, in the long term (which did not happen in this case). In addition, the creation of homonyms in such a situation is almost inevitable. For example, perspicilla,-orum [LLII] and conspicilla,-orum [ML] (Nominative plural) in Latin dictionaries, apart from the ‘telescope’ (in singular: perspicillum,-i, conspicillum,-i) also refer to ‘eyeglasses’. This phenomenon is not surprising, though, if we consider the whole territory where Latin as a language of science was used. Of course, word forms were well considered (scientists knew the basics of classical languages very well), analyzed (with the help of dictionaries) and discussed (for example, during congresses or by publications), but in many cases, they were created similarly to modern languages of that time, where professional terms differed from each other even in the same country, and the specialists sometimes needed to guess from the context the meaning of specific word and its connection to the given referent.

Referring to the analogical situation in modern languages, we can give a few examples of the development of Polish medical terms in the second half of the 19^th century, where the richness of homonyms is conspicuous: błona wrzekoma, błona rzekoma, nibybłona, pokład (‘pseudomembrane’); biegunka krwawa, dysenteryja, czerwonka (‘dysentery’); letarg, śpiączka zamartwa, zachwat, śpik (‘morbid drowsiness’, ‘morbid, sound sleep’); niedomiarowość, oko niedomiarowe, krótkowidztwo, oko krótkowidzące, krótkowidzenie, krótki wzrok (‘myopia’); nakłucie, kropka, znamię, piętno (‘birthmark’); pasożyt wnętrzny, robaki, czerw, wnętrzak, wnętrzaki, robaki wnętrzne (‘parasite in the body’); rażenie, raz, apopleksyja, udar (‘stroke’), sapka, nieżyt, nieżyt nosa, katar, uciążliwość (‘runny nose’); nudności, nudność, mierziączka, ckliwość, brzydzenie, mdlenie, mdłości, mierźliwość (‘nausea’); wyprzenie, odparzenie, zaprzenie, otręt, wilk, starcie (‘dermatitis’, ‘skin damage, e.g. as a result of rubbing, especially in children’, e.g. around the anus, genital parts, in the crook of the thigh, ‘a callus or ulcer on the leg’, ‘abrasion’) (Jankowiak 2015: 283–358).

Several of these words survived and are still used in the Polish professional and/or colloquial language. However, some of them have now and had back in the 19^th century more than one meaning, which might have been confusing. In addition, some of them are similar in form, others are more distant, having different stems. Which, as already mentioned, happens often by creating up-to-date vocabulary. According to Jankowiak, “only since the 19^th century can we talk about scientific medicine” (Jankowiak 2015: 21). In this period, new concepts about physiology and pathology have been created, and new therapy methods have also been invented, while the anatomy of the human body has not been fully discovered. To understand the phenomenon of synonymy in Polish medical terms of the 19^th century, one needs to know the history of Poland, as the Polish history of this period had a great impact on establishing new terminology. As a result of the annexations, the country was divided into three parts controlled by Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Therefore, these languages participated in the creation of Polish scientific terms, including medical vocabulary. French, which enjoyed considerable prestige during that period, exerted a noticeable influence on the Polish language – an influence that persists to this day. In addition, the Polish culture has never died. Therefore, also this language itself has been used regularly and overcame transformations comparable to other European languages. Thus, at least six languages, namely: Polish, Russian, German, Latin, Greek, and French influenced the decisions of the Polish medical society when it comes to establishing new terminology.

The analogical processes can be observed in Latin. Not only was this language used in separated countries, which made almost impossible to avoid local language influences on it, but the limited possibilities of sharing knowledge and exchanging ideas as well as insufficient fluency in Latin resulted in the use of specific terms in a certain region, the parallel development of synonymous words and orthographic errors. Nevertheless, the Latinists managed to keep this language homogeneous.

Contemporary attitude towards Latin in the context of a recent linguistic study

Although modern languages by coining new terminology still refer to classical lexical sources, Latin is not a language of science anymore. However, it does not mean that Latin lovers stopped to make effort to keep this language efficient enough to meet the needs of its contemporary user. The process of coining new terms is taking place before our eyes, as has been happening throughout the centuries. The vocabulary introduced is constantly discussed and undergoes constructive critique. The discussion takes place in different fields. However, some issues seem to be more important and others less important for Latin lovers. The problem of grammar apparently does not bother them too much. The reason for this seems to be clear. That is, classical Latin grammar is complex enough to meet the needs of its speakers. Naturally, the spoken language may differ from its written form, as happens in every language, and speech varies among specific people depending on their level of linguistic skills. Therefore, simplifying and rationalizing grammar seems to be a secondary problem. Also, pronunciation does not occupy Latin lovers as much. Although from time to time there are voices saying that the pronunciation should be standardized, surprisingly, it has been accepted by many that in European countries and in the United States the pronunciation is a bit different. The reason for this is probably that it does not cause major communication problems and therefore does not have to be changed or unified. Moreover, for some countries like Poland, which have gotten used to their model over the centuries, it would be difficult to switch to another type of pronunciation, and maybe even not as much for professional philologists, but especially for the whole nation, to whom still clang sounds of Jan Kochanowski’s or Mikołaj Sęp-Szarzyński’s Renaissance poetry as well as Latin expressions and phrases (like: curriculum vitae or Veni, vidi, vici) often quoted unchangingly according to the medieval pronunciation system. Although increasingly less Poles understand them, many recognize Latin only from hearing.

Variations in pronunciation refer to few specific sounds, for example: c – spelled as [c] or [k], sometimes even as [č], v – spelled as [w] or [u], blend of letters: qu – spelled as [kʷ] or [kᶣ], and analogously ngu – spelled as [ngʷ] or [ngᶣ], diphthongs: ae, oe – spelled as [e] or [aⁱ] and [oⁱ]^[5]. The reasons for the different types of pronunciation of Latin words, varied territorially, have a historical background and later accretions from foreign languages. For instance, the type of pronunciation in Poland has been influenced since the Middle Ages by Latin propagated by the Catholic Church, which changed it for its own purposes. On the contrary, many western countries have returned to the so-called lingua Latina restituta (‘restored Latin’), which is intended to bring pronunciation closer to the original classical articulation, while characteristic Italian influences on spelling are observed on the Apennine Peninsula.

Therefore, the changes needed refer to the vocabulary itself. Having in mind that Latin is no longer the mother tongue of anyone, if we want to present it as a potentially spoken language, it is necessary to describe it as any other living language, referring to the processes occurring within Latin to modern linguistic theories describing lexicogenesis, which “is defined with reference to the operations involved in creating words” (Miller 2014: 83). We will try to answer the question of whether the processes of coining novel words occur in an artificial or natural way. Therefore, Latin examples will be given by illustrating each of them.

According to John R. Taylor (2015: 419), in “lexicogenetic mechanisms (…) four basic types may be distinguished: morphological word formation, transformation of existing words, pure neologisms, and borrowing.” The first thing he mentions is that new words may be coined “through the combination of existing words, or through the combination of existing words and affixes”. The first is related to the so-called “composition”, i.e. the process of combination of two or more stems (e.g. nouns aeroplanum,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL] – ‘airplane’ [from Lat. aёr,aёris – ‘air’ and planum,-i – ‘flat surface’]; agoraphobia,-ae [LLH, DA, LRL] – ‘agoraphobia’ [from Gr. ἀγορά – ‘square’, ‘market square’, ‘place of citizen gathering’ and φόβος – ‘fear’]; birota,-ae [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL] – ‘bicycle’ [from Lat. bis – ‘twice’, ‘double’ and rota,-ae ‘circle’]). In the latter, which is related to the derivation, the affixes are conjoined to the stem (e.g. noun autophotographema,-atis [LLH] – ‘selfie’ [here is used a Gr. pronoun αὐτóς – ‘self’, ‘one’s own’, ‘by oneself’ as a prefixoid^[6], as well as Gr. nouns φῶς, φωτός – ‘light’ and γράφημα – ‘picture’, from the verb γράφειν – ‘to write’], adjective autocineticus,-a,-um [LLH, DA, LL] – ‘referring to a car’ [a compositum of the already mentioned prefixoid αὐτóς, a stem κίνημα,-ατος described above, and suffix -us characteristic for adjectives of the II decl.], noun automatizatio,-onis [LLH, DA] – ‘automatization’ [from Lat. adj. automatus,-a,-um [LLH, DA, LL], originally Gr. ‘a self-acting machine’, with a noun suffix -tio referring to an action or state], verb supraordinare [LLH] – ‘to give sth. precedence over sth.’ [from Lat. prep. supra – ‘above’, ‘beyond’, ‘over’ and a verb ordinare – ‘to order’, ‘to count’], noun intercommunicarium,-i [LLH] – ‘intercom’ [from Lat. prep. inter – ‘between’, stem communicare – ‘to communicate’ and suffix -arium as a neuter noun ending]).

The second type is “the transformation of existing words, for instance through clipping or blending”, which, according to Taylor (2015: 419–420), is the most productive in media and computer speech. Both processes have also been very common in colloquial speech and jargons. However, if we intend to refer to them for the development of Latin, they require some explanation. According to Bakaradze, three types of clipping can be distinguished, depending on which part of the word was clipped: “1. apocopation – clipping of the final syllable; 2. syncope – clipping of the middle syllable; 3. aphaeresis – clipping of the initial syllable.” As mentioned above, these kinds of neologisms are often coined, especially in colloquial languages and slangs. “Newly created shortened forms of the words are more emotional and stylistically colorful, they belong to spoken language, but some of them enter the language vocabulary and are not recognized as clipped words^[7]” (Bakaradze 2016: 430). It seems that the more free and certain people feel in their communication process, and the closer together they live, the easier clipping, abbreviations and any other forms of shortenings (verbal or sentential) are created. In addition, any kind of shortening is formed in words or phrases that are frequently used by a certain group of people, so that they do not cause any misunderstanding in the communication process. In fact, it is quite the opposite; they make it shorter and simpler. In other words, if one wants to use clippings, he should be sure that he will be easily understood. For this reason, Latin appears to be quite poor compared to other spoken languages in this respect. There are still too few Neo-Latinists to create jargon; furthermore, they are dispersed across the globe, so their contacts and interactions are limited. For this reason, Latin lovers use well-known, full in-form vocabulary, and sometimes even longer, descriptive forms, especially while talking about things that the recipient might be unfamiliar with, referring, for instance, to social networks or modern technology. Although, there are obviously some examples of clipped words in Latin, like rete,-is – ‘net’ (from Lat. interrete – ‘Internet’), the Latin vocabulary is much richer in composita. Referring to the phenomenon of blending, which may also be considered as univerbation, the situation looks alike; nevertheless, there are several examples of such a process in Latin. “According to Andersen (1987), univerbation can be observed on three different levels: (i) the morphological level (loss of morpheme boundaries), (ii) the prosodic level (e.g. stress shifts), and (iii) the segmental level (phonological reduction). Univerbation usually takes place at the morphological and the prosodic level, but not necessarily on the segmental level” (Norde 2009, 77). As already mentioned, there are only a few examples of this phenomenon in modern Latin vocabulary, for instance: altisonum,-i [DA] or altiloquium,-i [DA] (‘speaker’) – from the Lat. adjective altus,-a,-um (‘high’, ‘deep’, ‘loud’) or the noun sonus,-i (‘sound’) and the verb loqui (‘to say’, ‘to speak’), brevinuntiare [LLH] (‘to text’) – from the Lat. adjective brevis,-e (‘short’) and the verb nuntiare (‘to announce’, ‘to inform’, ‘to report’), as well as the noun vultuliber,-bri [LLH] – a calque^[8] from Eng. ‘Facebook’ (from Lat. vultus,-us – ‘face’ and liber,-bri – ‘book’). Examples of “acronyms, i.e. abbreviations formed by using the initial elements of a compound word or phrase, can also be included here” (Taylor 2015: 420). Only a few examples of this phenomenon exit in Latin, some of which have been created as early as in ancient Rome, such as the following: S.P.Q.R. (Senatus Populusque Romanus – ‘The Senate and People of Rome’), S.P.D. (Salutem Plurimam Dicit – in salutation X ‘says [wishes] as much health as possible’), or more recent TTT (Tela Totius Terrae [DA] – ‘World Wide Web’, ‘www’) and RIV [LL], IRV [DA] or RVI [LLH] (Res Inexplicata Volans, Inexplicata Res Volans or Res Volans Inexplicata – ‘Unidentified Flying Object’, ‘UFO’). “In recent years, the use of initials (the first element of a word) has been very frequent in compounds and blends with the characters e for electronic and i for internet” (Taylor 2015: 420). Latin has also adopted this model, for instance: i-diarium,-i [spok.] (‘blog’) – where i- stands for ‘referring to the Internet’ (from Lat. adjective interreticus,-a,-um of the noun interrete) and is attached to the noun diarium,-i (‘diary’). Although Latin does not accept as freely this kind of forms, there are several borrowings from English representing the above-mentioned processes, which undergo inflection within Latin itself (some stay in indeclinable form) and are treated in this language as regular nouns, such as: laser,-eris [Vici], laser indecl. [DA, LL] (from Eng. acronym ‘laser’ that stands for ‘Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation’), bloga,-ae [spok.], blogum,-i [Vici], also blog indecl. [LLH, Vici] – ‘blog’ (from Eng. ‘web’ and ‘log’), podcast,-is [spok.], podcast indecl. [Vici] – ‘podcast’ (from Eng. ‘iPod’ and ‘broadcast’), ipodium,-i [Vici], also iPod indecl. [Vici] – ‘iPod’, memum,-i [Vici] – ‘meme’ (“coined from Greek sources, such as mimeisthai ‘to imitate’, and intended to echo gene” [Harper 2023]), taxium,-i [LLH] or taxiraeda,-ae [LLH] – ‘taxi’ (“from taximeter ‘automatic meter to record the distance and fare’, (…) from Medieval Latin taxa,-ae ‘tax, charge’” (Harper 2023) and the above mentioned noun raeda,-ae).

The third phenomenon distinguished by Taylor are the so-called neologisms, which “may be created out of the blue, without starting from existing words or word formation rules” (Taylor 2015: 420). In modern Latin, such words are rare. For, all word formation processes are supervised and controlled. However, when we consider neologism in the boarder sense as “any type of lexical innovation” (Geeraerts 1997: 120), we can give plenty of examples, such as album,-i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL] – ‘screen’ (from Lat. adjective albus,-a,-um – ‘white’), auscultabulum,-i [DA, LL, IVL] – ‘telephone receiver’ (from Lat. noun auscultare – ‘to listen’) and exceptaculum,-i – [LLH, DA, LL] 1. ‘receiver’, [LL] 2. ‘telephone receiver’ (from Lat. excipere – ‘to receive’).

Finally, as the fourth type, new vocabulary “borrowed from another languages” is mentioned. It is worth remembering that only words or word-structures will be discussed here, while the issue of semantic calques i.e. “loan translations, when each of the composite elements of a foreign word or phrase is translated into the receptor language” (Taylor 2015: 421), will be omitted. Latin derives new vocabulary from many languages, such as: Polish – narta,-ae [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL] (‘ski’), German – cobaltum, -i [LLH, DA, LL, LRL] (‘cobalt’), English – Google,-is [LLH] or Gugula,-ae [Vici] (‘Google’), Italian – violoncellum,-i [LLH, DA, LL] (‘cello’), Spanish – sigarum,-i [LLH, DA, LL] (‘cigar’), Mexican Spanish, from Mayan – socolata,-ae [LLH, DA, LL, LRL, IVL] (‘chocolate’), Japanese – karate indecl. [Vici], Turkish – cafaea,-ae (‘coffee’) etc. The discussion about borrowings in modern Latin is not simple, though, since many European (and, as a consequence, also American) languages have been crating their vocabulary on the basis of Latin (or Greek) roots. Therefore, an interesting process occurs in the area of Latin loanwords, that is, the case of the process of returning of loan words, where “a source language may borrow back a word after it was developed independently by the receptor language” (Taylor 2015: 421). This topic, however, represents in most cases, apart from morphological changes, also semantic development of Latin vocabulary; therefore, it will not be discussed in this paper.

Summary

Based on the examples above, it can be concluded that Latin, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, never stopped developing. Moreover, its development can be compared with other European languages of a specific period. Due to its universality and flexibility, it could perfectly meet the communicational needs of a man in every epoch. The fossilized form has not been Latin’s fault, but its incredible weapon. As W. Stroh states, “Only through its ‘death’ could Latin become immortal” (Stroh 2007: 111). For all the reasons mentioned above, unlike other languages, Latin survived unchanged throughout the centuries. The process of creating new vocabulary in Latin was controlled, but not artificial. The perfect evidence for this is the fact that many European languages have been loaning Latin vocabulary from the very beginning of their existence. Latin not only survived itself but also lives in other languages. Classical morphemes have been easily adopted, well recognized and communicative. No wonder they are still a great resource for every person who deals with coining new terminology. Classical-origin internationalisms are entering modern languages today, often “in English disguise” (Janson 2006: 161). In case of the development of Latin, neologisms that are based mostly on classical morphemes too, are discussed continuously as has been throughout the ages, with the only difference that lately new methods of communication have emerged, such as the Internet or mobile telephony. There are many forums and discussion groups on social networks where such conversations take place. People ask questions if they are not sure how to use or create a specific term.

The results of mutual exchanges of thoughts and ideas are satisfactory and comparable to those of many years ago. However, surprisingly, Latin lovers not always manage to avoid resorting to the less appropriate patterns; for example, there are still some cases of synonyms for the same referent, where one of the differences is spelling or the noun’s affiliation with a specific declension, such as: sixteen terms for the noun ‘Internet’ – internet,-is [spok.], internetum,-i [DA, LL, CVC], interreticulum,-i [DA], interrete,-is [LLH, DA, LL, CVC, Vici], intrarete,-is [LLH], internexus,-us [Vici], intextus,-us [spok.], rete,-is [DA], tela,-ae [DA, CVC], interrete internationale [DA], rete internationale [DA], rete globale [spok.], rete electronicum globale [spok.], intertextus internationalis instrumentorum computatoriorum [LL], intextus internationalis instrumentorum computatoriorum [DA], Tela Totius Terrae (TTT) [DA, LL, CVC], six synonyms for the adjective ‘referring to the Internet’ – interneticus,-a,-um [LL], interreticus,-a,-um [LL], internetalis,-e [DA, CVC], interretialis,-e [LLH, DA, LL, CVC], intraretialis,-e [LLH], retialis,-e [spok.] or thirteen terms for the noun ‘blog’ diarium interretiale [LLH], i-diarium,-i [spok.], diarium retiale [spok.], diarium,-i [spok.], diarium nauticum [spok.], ephemeris,-idis [Vici, spok.], ephemeris interretialis [Vici, spok.], commentarii interretiales [LLH, Vici], blogum,-i [Vici], bloga,-ae [spok.], bloge,-is [spok.], blog,-is [spok.], blog. indecl. [LLH, Vici]. Nevertheless, parallel forms exist also in other languages, which is at times confusing for their users, but does not create communication problems or misunderstandings, for example: the nominative plural form of Pl. postać (‘character’) may be postaci and postacie, the same form of psycholog (‘psychologist’) may be psychologowie and psycholodzy, another example is chłopak (‘boy’) that takes pl. form of chłopaki (non-masculine personal gender) or chłopacy (masculine personal gender), the noun sanie (‘sleigh’) takes the instrumental form of saniami and sańmi, while the masculine adjective form of an English ‘curious’ – in Polish is ciekaw and ciekawy, ‘ready’ – gotów and gotowy, ‘full’ or ‘complete’ – pełen and pełny. In this respect, Latin acts in a similar way.

Many examples show that Latin acts as many other languages; this is why it is easy to describe it according to modern theories. Therefore, Latin does not appear to be a peculiar language that acts on its own principles. It easily adopts the new vocabulary needed for communication purposes of a specific period. Nevertheless, the form of this language still seems to be a little bit rigid, unwilling to accept characteristic to the 21st century speech shortenings. In return, Latin becomes reach in neologisms that are created on the basis of classical as well as loaned morphemes.

In the aspect of borrowings, an interesting thing can be observed. Latin, not differently from other languages, copies foreign structures as a consequence of international contacts. It is not surprising then that Latin accepts new words or word-formative structures of a foreign origin (for example: Lat. altiloquium from Sp. altavoz – ‘loudspeaker’; from Lat. altus and Sp. alto – ‘high’, ‘tall’ and Lat. loquium from the verb loqui – ‘to speak’ and Sp. voz – ‘voice’). However, many more examples show the tendency to adopt its native vocabulary back from modern languages, which makes this language absolutely unique. This leads to the conclusion that we should reconsider our way of thinking of Latin as a ‘dead language’ in the fullest sense of the word. Despite of the fact that even some classical philologists and Latin experts, who often are distinguished scholars and Latin propagators, take this stand, which manifests itself, for instance, in a title of an article Latin’s Life After Death (Tekieli 2004), it is good to bear in mind a sentence by Julian Tuwim: What kind of dead language is it if, without withering, it has survived for millennia? as an inspirational motto for efforts in promoting this language.