Liturgical Languages

A while back, I wrote about what attributes scientific languages had in common. At the heart of that musing was the question of how we classify languages socially, rather than grammatically. That is, can we create a typology of a sociological nature- based on how languages are used (an idea which was inspired by an article by Michael Clyne in the book Studies in Contact Linguistics.).

With that in mind, I suggest another category of sociolinguistic interest: liturgical languages. I imagine this group to be made up of languages that are principally used for religious purposes, for example: Syriac, Amharic, Latin, Sanskrit.

Unlike scientific languages, most of these tend to have few (if any) native speakers (putting them at the opposite end of the spectrum from pidgins). I would also hazard to say that the total number of fluent speakers is remarkably low for all, with the majority of users limited to reciting certain formulas and rites. On the other hand, liturgical languages enjoy a very high status within their societies.

From a linguistic perspective, the most striking feature of liturgical languages is their glacial pace of change. While colloquial dialects forge ahead, languages like the Vatican's Latin or Koranic Arabic hold steady, with all their grammatical complexities. Their rules and prescriptions are infused with a  divine taboo that even the most puckered English teacher cannot hope to every match-

In other words, don't dangle your modifiers: GOD IS WATCHING.