Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)

From:Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 18:28
> (Sorry for the delay, I used the wrong email addr.) > > >> Ray Brown wrote: >>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:00:29 -0500, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Over the last several weeks, there has been an interesting and rather >>>>> astounding thread on Spanish "Ideolengua" (yahoo groups) regarding a >>>>> recent >>>>> (?) book by one Yves Cortez, Le français ne vient pas du latin. .... >>>>> >>>>> His theory, as I understand it without having seen the book (only the >>>>> Prologue has been quoted), seems to be, that the bulk of the Roman >>>>> population spoke not a colloquialized form of what we call Classical >>>>> Latin, >>>>> but a separate IE language _closely related to_ Classical Latin but >>>>> which >>>>> was already headed toward being a more analytic language. >>> >>> Well, yes, Vulgar Latin was not " a colloquialized form of what we call >>> Classical Latin." Indeed, I find that description somewhat misleading. >> >> Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was, CL and the language of >> the man in the street should better be considered as _registers_ of a >> single language, just as, I assume, the language of the KJV was not that >> of contemporary everyday speech; nor e.g. the language of serious writing >> on history, literature, religion, science et al. nowadays is not the >> speech of everyday Americans or Brits. But they are variants of a single >> language, not sister languages-- and the latter, I gather, is what M. >> Cortez is claiming for Roman times. >> >>>>> Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of >>>>> Proto-Romance? >>> >>> Isn't Proto-Romance late Vulgar Latin? >> >> That's certainly been the conventional wisdom for years....Some >> respondents to the thread have said "Well, there's no written evidence >> for anything like VL in Roman times"-- ignoring known dialectal features, >> Plautus, Pompeiian graffiti, etc., and the later CE writers who complied >> lists of correct/incorrect pronunciations and spellings. When one poster >> mentioned these, the response was "How do you know that?" Duh. Read a >> book, people, there's good, though not vast, documentation. Too bad the >> Romans apparently rarely pursued the idea of writing "realistic" stuff to >> provide us with lots more everyday language to ponder. >>> >>> If all that M. Cortez is doing is to say "French ain't descended from >>> Classical Latin," then I go along with that. But if he's saying >>> something radically different, i.e. that Proto-Romance was not related >>> to any sort of Latin then, of course, I disagree. But, as I said, >>> methinks one needs to read the book. >> >> Agreed. I've asked the ideolenguistas where I can get it. Amazon-US >> doesn't turn up anything. Is there an Amazon-France, or equivalent...? I >> haven't searched yet. >> >> >


R A Brown <ray@...>