Re: Proto-Romance

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 07:43:18PM +0000, Ray Brown wrote:
> I understand Mark's aim to to build up info for a PIE conlang and it seems
> to me the spoken language as as far as we can reconstruct is going to be
> more relevant.
My ultimate goal is to develop an Indo-European conlang that is
unrelated to any surviving language families on Earth.  But I'm finding
it too much of a leap; I just don't know enough, not just about P-I-E
but about how language change works.  I thought it would be helpful in
terms of my personal experience, even if not in terms of the final
product, for me to start with something that's a little easier.  I think
a Romance conlang qualifies, because the ancestor is so much closer;
the similarities between the descendants are obvious, which makes the
differences the more striking.  I think it will, at the very least,
help me get a feel for the evolutionary process.

The problem is that all the Latin resources I have to hand are Classical - or
Ecclesiastical, which amounts to the same thing.  Which is why I'm
looking for recommendations for resources on the reconstructed
Vulgar Latin.  Books are fine, I love books, and don't mind buying 'em,
but I don't want to do so blind without a recommendation.  Web pages
would be good, too; I've already found orbilat.com/Proto-Romance, which
looks promising.

Anyway, thanks.  I guess I'll go join romconlang - although I don't use
my Yahoo! account for anything; can you sign up for a group and have it
sent to your non-Yahoo! email address?

-Mark

Reply