Re: Romance or Romanic?

R G Roberts wrote:

> I see references constantly being made to the "Romance" languages and I know
> this is traditional but wouldn't "Romanic" be a more apt expression nowadays?
> "Romance" is English means something completely differnt meaning but
> "Romanic" properly reflects the fact that they are derived from the dialects
> *based on Roman* spoken in different parts of the then Roman Empire.
I'm pretty sure most of the troops that spread Latin around the empire
came originally mostly from Italy, not necessarily from Rome itself.  So,
"Romanic" might be misleading to that extent -- Italic would be better,
except for the fact that that's already in use for the family level above that.
I don't see any particularly strong reason why "Romance" should be trashed
now, especially since there are plenty of other terms in the language which
also take on context dependent specialized meanings.


> Does anyone have any knowledge of these other Italic languages and the
> extent to which they varied from Roman by any chance?
I think I've read that early on Oscan underwent a lot of shifts in labiovelars
with e.g.  /k_w/ becoming /p/... but that's about the limits of my knowledge on
particulars in these languages.


===========================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
===========================================