>From: Simon Hibbs <Simon.Hibbs_at_marconi.com>
>As I understand it, literate eauropeans (mainly the clergy) could
>read and write latin, which apart from greek was the only written
>langauge anyone was likely to know. However if they read a letter
>out loud, they would either read it out in latin too, or they would have
>to translate it and paraphrase in their local language.
There was some stuff written in medieval English and I think Welsh too. However it was probably written by matching sounds to the Church Latin equivlent which will cause confusion where words are pronounced differently or the writer and reader have different ideas of how the Latin ought to be pronounced. Thus for important communications Latin would be used because there is less potential for error.
>The scriptures were also read out in latin in church. So the congregatio
> didn't have a clue what it meant - so what? To read it in vulgar local
>language would pollute the supposed purity of the text. Is this also
>supposed to be the case with the Abiding Book?
Given that the services include standard blessings read from the Abiding Book I would think so. Otherwise the liturgist would have to know which bits to read in the original and which to translate.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/ --__--__-- End of Glorantha Digest
Powered by hypermail