Re: Proto-Romance
| From: | Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, March 21, 2004, 21:45 |
|---|
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:43:18 +0000, Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 20, 2004, at 05:13 AM, Paul Bennett wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:14:38 -0500, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. What is the name of the closest common ancestor of the Romance
>>> languages? Romance? Proto-Romance? Late Vulgar Latin?
> [snip]
>
>> There's a romconlang group on Yahoo! Groups. They'll have your answers.
>>
>> I suspect the "normal" starting point is Vulgar Latin,
>
> I don't understand why normal is quoted.
Normal insomuch as it's where the majority of Romance conlangs start from.
It's not the case for 100% of them, AFAIK, but I couln't provide examples
without researching it.
I wasn't suggesting anything about the origin of Romance natlangs. I don't
think there's any debate at all about that.
>> but there's no
>> reason you couldn't start from Classical, or even Proto-Latin-Falliscan.
>
> Depends what you want to do.
Well, I took Mark's message on the face of it, which was that he wanted to
derive forwards from the source of Romance, to make a new
Romance-compatible language. I don't think I knew he was planning working
backwards. Indeed, reading other messages in this thread, it looks like he
will be working forwards, at least to begin with.
> Yes, but as I said it would need an alternate universe
Or, detached almost completely from any universe. A lot of conlangs have
little if any conculture. Most of my efforts have none. Thagojian has a
time and place, barely sufficient to give a rationale for the writing
systems.
Paul
Reply