Re: Vulgar Latin

>From: nicole perrin <nicole.eap@...>
>One of the proposed "Latin + Language X" combinations interested me (I
>won't tell which one, if I pursue this project it'll have to be a
>surprise), and, in case I ever get around to actually putting this
>together, what were the main differences between Classical Latin and
>Vulgar Latin?  Especially phonological differences, but also differences
>in things like the marking on verbs, nouns or adjectives (if there was
>any).  Thanks.
All I can think of, since I'm not that familiar with Vulgar Latin (or
pre-Romance), is that where Class. Latin has five to seven
noun/pronoun/adjective cases, depending on word, Vulg. Latin has only two:
nominative and oblique.  I forgot which form is marked with -(e)s and which
is marked by -i, but you get the -(e)s plural in West Romance (French,
Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan) whereas you get the -i plural (*-ai > -e for
feminine) in Italian and something similar in Romanian.

Also the phonology changes in a big way.  The diphthongs <ae> and <oe> are
pronounced [E] and [e] respectively, and <c> and <g> before the front vowels
<e>, <i> and <y> have the 'soft' palatal sounds [tS] and [dZ] (which became
*[ts] > [s] and [Z] in West Romance).  The ten vowels (six/aeiouy times two:
short/long) merge to seven vowels (the same seven as Italian) with no length
distinction:

short   long
a > a   a > a
e > E   e > e
i > e   i > i
o > O   o > o
u > o   u > u
y had merged with i already

However, the verb system didn't change a whole lot; thus the complexity of
Romance verb inflection including the seven tense system...

(Incidentally, concerning all these changes, you'll find something very
similar in Modern Persian, by the way -- it is greatly simplified from its
ancestors, like Avestan, Pahlavi etc.)

Danny
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com