The Language of the Readings

The position of certain Roman-rite traditionalists:

FIUV Position Paper: Latin Lections
In Defense of Preserving Readings in Latin

From the second:
'Put differently, it is not equivalent to do the readings in Latin and in the vernacular, because the former, as perfected and fixed over time, is for us the very language of formal liturgy, while the latter is a diverseand ever-changing medium of ordinary communication.'

But is it a language (as opposed to sounds) if the hearer does not understand it? "Objectively" it may be a language but subjectively, no. If lay people in general understood Latin, such an argument would be applicable.

Both papers deserve a longer response.

Maybe I would have held to this position initially; the compromise of having the readings in both languages (with the vernacular being read before the homily) seemed to be redundant and perhaps dumb. Such a compromise seems also to be concession that the proponents for the readings being in the vernacular may be right. Is Latin necessary for the integrity of the liturgy, to its character as worship? I don't think so. Repeating the readings also seems to break up the 'rhythm' of the liturgy, even more so than the homily itself.

If the sentiment that the readings should be in Latin only is strong in certain communities, then it seems unlikely that they would be willing to compromise or admit of legitimate liturgical changes. How widespread is this opinion in the world of the EF?