One of these two languages ought to be made the language of intellectual discourse for the following reasons: First, such languages in their pure forms do not lend themselves well to spoken discourse, but quite well to that which is written. Of these the former champions pithy remarks, sound-bites, punditry, and general logical fallacy. The latter lends itself to contemplation, subtlety, argumentation, and genuine speech-craft. Additionally, a language spoken is a language that can easily become corrupted through slang, neologism (except through an appropriate body not unlike Francophonie), and other such obfuscation. Second, such a language itself would act as a litmus test to one's ability to engage in such discourse. As both languages are quite complicated, consistent poor grammar, diction, &c would act as an alarm-bell that the one who is arguing is not exactly crème de la crème. The lay tongues reach a point at which one cannot tell whom from whom without sacrificing its role as a means of communication. For instance, in English, the language has become 'flattened' in that the same diction and grammar used for speech, writing &c is used for all applications. Third, the greatest of all, is simply the nature of the grammars of both the Latin and Ancient Greek languages. As their highly-structured nature lends itself better to complex sentences than any lay-language, especially those Germanic, both are thus better-suited to complex discourse requiring such sentences. As hinted before, the thinker and the labourer have different needs from langauge. Unto the labourer are only spoken nominal, active things, such as 'do this, get that'. Unto the thinker are written deep things, of the sciences and arts, of history and obscure delights. That alone warrants the question: why should they be yoked to the same language? Why should one inquire as to the cost of an apple in the same tongue as one argues complex matters?