ABOUT LATIN
For two reasons, the Lord let me see, Latin has not survived other than, strangely enough, within The Catholic Church. One reason why Latin has not survived is the Latin negative view upon human nature. And the other reason is that in Latin the words “it” and “that” have no place.
Jesus came to earth in the great period of ‘Pax Romana’. And so he came to life at a time where one had to wonder if the right way of life was found and the human being was counted for. The Latin word ‘homo’ shows no faith in the human being. The human being is not a power to have expectations to, but the human being, the ‘homo’, is a way of being which is exhausted and which is to control.
One thing is that being a ‘homo’ is a negative thing to be. The word is in Latin also used, I see, by the word ‘homullus’, being ‘deminutiv’, to express “weakness, insignificance, sinfulness”. Every word is in Latin understood by the being, and by ‘deminutiv’ the substantive is rendered account of. By ‘deminutiv’ the substance of the substantive is termed. In other words it meant something to be a ‘homo’. And being a ‘homo’ was not nice. In fact one emperor, the emperor Nemo, went to the step of calling himself “not homo”: “Nemo” is “ne (not) homo”.
Also in English to be a “human” means something, but we are given to grasp what this is by the adjective “human” and by the adjective “humane”. We need the adjective to get a notion of the substantive. What the “homo” is, differently, is grasped by the substantive as an ongoing way of being. And the reason for this is that ‘word’ in Latin is ‘verbum’. Even nouns (names) in Latin are “verbum”. Therefore they could say “hic homo” which in English would be something like “present: a homoing”.
What exactly is wrong with the “homo” is that, one, the “homo” will not count, and, two, he never gets to the point. The being is in Latin like a ship on the ocean, never committing. The Word of Latin seems to be the Word of the sea. “To be or not to be; that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them.” That is what Shakespeare let Hamlet say, and Latin must be what he had in mind. The sea metaphor helps to explain why the language of the Romans could not survive. Culture depends upon nature, and by nature the “homo” is as accountable as the boat on the ocean driven by the wave and the wind.
The lack of the words “it” and “this/that” in Latin shows this to be the case, and I will come to that. The words “it” and “this/that” would constitute a being. But let me first argue that the “homo” was by nature neither “human” nor “humane” and would not really deal with anything as we are expected to deal with each other being “human” or “humane”. We are responsible by being “human” or by being “humane”. The “homo” was not considered to be so. “Errare humanum est” was a popular word, but this word does not say it is only human to make mistakes or to do wrong, but it says that the essential thing about human being is that it behaves erratic – is an error. (This becomes obvious the moment one puts stress on one of the three words in the sentence. We can say “errare humanum est”. We can say “errare humanum est”. And we can say “errare humanum est. In any case the homo is a failure.) The “homo” could not really be trusted. Neither was the “homo” majestic. In Latin the “being majestic” is coined by the word ‘maiestas’. And “Quanta in oratione maiestas” is said to be an expression. The Word as such was in not thought of as being The Majesty naming, calling, or designating the subject, but being majestic was to overwhelm the subject with concepts or notions as if by an army of fishing vessels thundering as they are pondering upon the surface of the sea. There is, though, nothing majestic about never committing. The Word, being Christ, commits itself by the meaning, the importance, the influence of it self. The “homo” by his “quanta in oratione” commits not.
Those sayings are examples. But they are examples of what comes natural when ‘word’ is ‘verbum’. By being ‘verbum’ the word is always unaccountable, always purposed or dependent. And “homo” is a verbum.
The lack of accountability becomes evident by the fact there is no word for “it”, or “this/that”, in Latin. “Bis dat qui cito dat”, is told to have been a word, according to tradition telling us that one gives double help who gives quickly help. According to the meaning of words the word says that “twice the indirect object determined is given by the indirect object determined given quickly”. Or to translate the saying word by word: “Twice (double) ‘this/that’ is given by quickly ‘this/that’”. I understand the meaning of the saying first of all to be that one by showing up quickly also eliminates worry. But to the true Roman it also must state that since this thing what is cannot really be trusted, being verbum, quickly “this/that” is double “this/that” by the verification given – by the arrest which makes one holding on to “this/that”. I understand, though, by this saying a stated despair of Latin speaking people: ‘Dat’ is not a word in the Latin vocabulary. So the use of “dat” must have been an annoyance. The Latin expression, in other words, is a fabrication strange to the language itself. ‘Dat’ is a determination of ‘dativus’ the same way as ‘est’ is a determination of ‘essentia’ (or ‘esse’). In English “dat” must be “this” or “that”. There is no sense, though, in making a determination of the indirect object which by it self is given. A thing cannot be reduced still more to be a thing. There is no sense in making a ‘dat’ of ‘dativus’. But in the world of “verbum” it gives something to hold on to by the tacit understanding by “dat” stated.
I have seen ‘dat’ being translated to “gives”. “Giving” is the nature of both “this” and “that”.
When the word “this/that” is not in use, “what is” has to be repeated from one moment to the next. ‘Verbum’ is not accountable. And so the one in power will be the one to decide upon what “this/that” in fact is (or was) since there is no “this/that” to agree upon. To Jesus Pilate said: “Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?” Pilate said in clear text “what is” relied upon the eyes of the ruler.
In the same way as ‘dat’ is a determination of ‘dativus’, the indirect object, ‘deut’ is a determination of ‘deus’. “Deut” is “it”. “Deut” is also a strange fabrication. ‘Deus’ means “god; goddess”, and, as is the case with “dat”, it makes no sense to make a determination of “deus”. God is not to be found in the world in that respect. Even so the word “deut” was in use, as in “Deuteronomy” and “Deutschland”. In both falls “deut” names what is God given. In “Deuteronomy”, the fifth book of The Law of Moses, the message of the full four first books of The Law of Moses is translated and made explicit. And in “Deutschland”, in Germany, Latin speaking people in The Middle Ages saw the promised land – the land of a new beginning. ‘Deut’, in other words, of ‘deus’, points to the life of The Son.
When exactly these two words, strange to Latin, were made use of, namely “dat” and “deut”, this is of course not incidentally so. “Dativus” is the term naming the indirect object. And to God the human being is the indirect object of life. And “deus” is in Christian faith terming God. Speaking of the first of these two cases; of the indirect object, the human being, having done something to make “dativus” a “dat” (a “this/that”) Jesus said: “… he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” And speaking of the second of these two cases; of the man being in the Spirit of God, in the Spirit of “deus”, letting himself count as such, giving “deut” (an “it”) to come about, Jesus said: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” So in Latin they invented “dat” and “deut”, despite their view upon the “homo”. But this is a problem in Latin: “Dat” and “deut” is obviously nonsense according to the meaning of words.
I do not speak Latin. But I am confident I am correct in what I write. I do believe, though, “deut” in Latin was not used other than in names, but “dat” was used instead. I believe the controversies between Catholic and Protestant priests might be understood by what I have written here, and I believe Luther is to be credited and honoured for the introduction of native language psalms in the mass. I also believe Latin speaking people have discussed this Latin problem themselves.
I believe we are being reminded of this Latin problem even today. I believe the word “deuce” is French and English for “deut”, both when terming the score in tennis of forty all, and when used in exclamations such as “What the deuce are you doing?” In Norwegian the word, and the fun of it, has survived in the exclamation “I do not understand a «døyt»”. By deuce something strange, something uncommon is given.
“Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas” was a word, saying “«Dat» excuses ravens which shakes doves such censured” (or: “This/that” excuses ravens which shakes doves such censured.) Latin speaking people, principally speaking as they always are, might see themselves as doves, never judging. But by their language they are never committing, never getting to the point. So the “homo” sails the sea without ever being responsible.
Hamlet’s question? To be or not to be? I believe the answer is: I will be damned!
