Re: Proto-Romance
| From: | Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, March 20, 2004, 20:54 |
|---|
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:13:56 -0500 Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:14:38 -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> > 1. What is the name of the closest common ancestor of the Romance
> > languages? Romance? Proto-Romance? Late Vulgar Latin?
>[skip]
>
> There's a romconlang group on Yahoo! Groups. They'll have your
answers.
Yes, to join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romconlang is a good advice.
New members always add to activity. You even need not to have an account
at Yahoo.
Just send an empty msg to
romconlang-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
and start sending mail to
romconlang@yahoogroups.com
> I suspect the "normal" starting point is Vulgar Latin, but there's no
> reason you couldn't start from Classical, or even
Proto-Latin-Falliscan. I
> don't think I know of a Proto-LF-derived Conlang, it might be an
> interesting project.
Common agreement is that Proto-Romance is Vulgar Latin. I use
information from my "Introduction to Romance Philology" textbook, it's
rather extensive, so I don't often need other sources, but doing some
googling won't hurt.
But any weird ideas will be welcomed.
-- Yitzik