[Foundation-l] STOP DOUBLE STANDARD!!! OR HYPOCRESY!!!

[Thomas Dalton]

> The Ecclesiastic Latin is not the language used in the Bible or in
> Ancient Rome (the pronunciation for example is strongly different) but
> it's a language created when the latin was already substituted by
> "vulgari eloquentia". It has *never* had a native speaker, never. For
> this reason it's an artificial language (or better an artificial
> "version" of latin) and for this reason it can have a translation of
> modern words
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Language_materials).

It might be more accurate to call it an artificial dialect, rather
than a different language it its own right. Apart from differences in
pronunciation, and the lack of modern vocab in the ancient version,
the two are mutually intelligible, right (I don't personally speak
either, so I'm not sure)?