Yes, we all know that. Do you think the guy writing the article said that the the printing press accelerated the demise of the ecclesiastical and scientific latin? And, if he did say that, would he be correct? Given that the printing press was invented in the early 1400's - what decline did it hasten? The decline of the already dead spoken latin, or the decline of ecclesiastical and scientific uses of latin that didn't - as you pointed - decline for another 500 years after the printing press?Svartalf wrote:Err, Coito, You know that Latin was still the major language for international scientific publications in the early 1800s?
Latin remained an indispensable language for the literate centuries (heck, a millenium), after it died as a spoken language for the common people...
Well, right. As a language, it was pretty much out of common use by the early 800s.Svartalf wrote:
What really buried Latin was not printing, though,
What killed Latin was the fact that it evolved out of existence into Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and some others. Even at the end of the western Roman Empire there was already a problem with provincial latin dialects becoming difficult to understand for Romans.Svartalf wrote:
it was the rise of the bourgeoisie as a wealthy class that could afford learning to read without becoming Churchment. Those were the people, illiterate in Latin, who created a demand for books written/printed in a language they could read.