docoflove1974

Exactly the point with reconstruction...you have to try to use the most solidly-attested 'ancient' forms--by that I mean the older and better attested, the better--as well use those older forms to put into place the phonological and morph-syntactic processes in the entire history of the language. Spanish: de + noun was the default genitive...from the earliest attestations of Old Castilian and Old Leonese (this is all I remember from the top of my head...but I'm sure Old Aragonese followed suit), which is late 9th and early 10th c. Dative was an early casualty pan-Romance...only the ablative was erased sooner. Locative was on the way out even before the fall of the Roman empire. As for the other prepositions, in (en), ab/ad (a) (these two merged early on, even in Late Latin), cum (con), sine (sin), and per (por/para) all were in the very earliest attestations, too; ex was merged with others, particularly de (de + ex > desde). I admit I just looked that up in Penny's A History of the Spanish Language, as it's sitting right next to me on the desk. Italian: here's the tricky part...that I know of, the majority of the Italian peninsula kept using Latin as a written form of communication much longer than the other Romance areas (Iberia, Gaul). I believe that we don't really get much until the 12th century (think Il Cantico del Fraile Sole), but I need to look that up. I'll get back to this. But, even assuming that 12th c. is the start of written Old Italian, the exact same conditions apply as for Spanish. Well, general handbooks are the best place to start. These are the *basic* ones I'm using in my research on a constant basis...there are others, which I didn't list not because they are inferior, but because the list below is the best place to start. I didn't include texts on Rumanian or other 'minor' Romance languages, but I can post their biblios if needed. Also: many of these texts presume a fair amount of linguistic knowledge, and in most cases are heavy on the linguistic lingo (hehe). Not everything is in English, naturally: Baldi, Philip (1999). The Foundations of Latin. New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Buck, Carl Darling (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Cano Aguilar, Rafael (1992). El espa

Interesting, as the reconstruction exercises I've done since an undergrad by-and-large gave a Latin version, of one register or another. And the starting points for my exercises were most often Medieval (10-12th c.) Spanish and Italian. I have my sources lying around here somewhere...I'll see if I can dig them up. I'd love to see what you have, though, Valerius.

Be careful, Cato, when using Greenberg as an example. While he has defined typology as an area of linguistics, his faux-reconstructions have been widely criticized by many, most notably by Lyle Campbell (2001) and especially Roger Lass (1980). He did much good in laying out *tendencies*, particularly with the African languages...but nothing scientific.

Wow...you guys are touching on some deep stuff. I'll just interject on the 'arbitrariness' of language: Ferdinand de Saussure, in the early 20th century, was a noted mathmatician, and turned his attention to language. He surmised (right so) that language is really composed of words and meaning--in his French he used parole and langue, with langue really meaning, well, meaning behind the language. His basic thesis was that there is no reason why a language has certain terms and certain morphology...it is created within the language. There is no reason why English has red while Spanish has rojo and French with rouge, Finnish punainen, Japanese niiro. There's no reason why Latin has nominative/accusative constructions, while Australian languages have ergative-absolutive constructions. Why languages initially form themselves they way they do is arbitrary--we can look at the patterns and theorize about the patterns (which is what my colleagues and I do with language change theories), but ultimately the choices are done with an element of randomness. That being said...with respect to PW...with the level of arbitrariness evident in human language, we do not have the tools to go back much further in time than 7-10K years. Perhaps this will change...but for now, it cannot.

Finishing up the PhD dissertation now, so I went ahead with the last option...it'll be finished by Dec06**. **if my committee plays nice. Also: Capitolinus, fellow magister...*bow* 'ceptin that I teach a more evolved form of Latin (

Actually, yes. 'Traditional' reconstruction techniques have been tested on families such as the Romance family, to see if, given the modern languages, could one reconstruct the 'proto-language' and come out with Latin. In nearly all cases, either the Classical or Vulgar Latin terms were reconstructed, including the morph-syntactic elements (case, number, gender). I'll get back to you on this...I know what was repeatedly brought up in lectures and discussions with my professors...

I'm going to go with Gaul. Rome was more known for the army vs. the navy, and by conquering Gaul, they had much of their northern flank taken care of.

That particular Pinker book is very good for beginners in linguistics...particularly the first, like, 2/3 of it. The rest of it is general rehashing of the same topics, and extremely pro-Chomsky. It tends to rub people the wrong way, but it's all good. A great starting point. To address both Capitolinus and Cato...it's not that I don't believe that we humans all spoke one language at one time. I think anyone who's had a smattering of evolution, archeology and the like knows that somehow there were 'the first humans' and they spoke a common form of communication--we'll call it language for the sake of argument. The problem comes in here: humans first 'existed', what, 75-100K years ago? Historical linguists struggle with reconstructing languages accurately past the 10K mark...we cannot realistically reconstruct language and still have it pass 'scientific' mustard. It's very ad hoc, which is why Proto-World (and the like) really don't work for me. It's a nice thought...but it's not possible.

Born/Raised just south of San Francisco, CA, here. I pulled a 6-year stint outside of Sacramento, followed by another 6-year stint in Austin, TX...both for ed-joo-mi-kay-shun. Now I'm back home...and might I add, I'm damn glad about it, too. I missed the ocean...and I have now realized that heat + humidity = mucho sucko. Oh, and I will be an Italian citizen in 2 years (give or take)! Mom's grandparents were from Milan-area and Genoa, and since they didn't become American citizens, we can get the citizenship. Viva Italia!! I stumbled into here via Google (God Bless 'em)...and I'm grateful for it. Finally some people to talk shop with!

Well, English is a (Western) Germanic language...same branch as Dutch. The Romance influences principally come from 2 areas: 1) Norman invasion: William of Normandy came over with his men, and set up shop in London. Norman French was the langue du court...and was the 'educated' language. Because of the major influx of Norman/French culture, society, language, etc., there was a MAJOR influx of (Norman) French words. That's it, tho...just words. There's argument that 'of' constructions--city of London--is attributed to Norman French, but I just don't buy it, as it's common in older Germanic constructions, too. 2) Renaissance: the thinkers/educators/academians/monks of this era thought that, in order to get back to the 'glory days' of Ancient Rome and Greece, one must use their languages to describe the world. Everything from science to the humanities borrowed not just Latin (and Greek) words wholesale, but took words from these two languages and made them fit into the language. In Spanish they are called cultismos, referring to their high-brow, educated status. Ironically, many of these words are now common use. But everyone in Western Europe borrowed heavily from Latin (in particular) and Greek at this time.

Not a problem! Ok...accents...I'm assuming you're talking about how the various Romance languages and dialects have different phonological features. They actually all stem from the same processes: Vowels: destabilization of the long/short distinction, which lead to an open/closed distinction...which is nothing more than saying that the sound quality of the vowels changed. From here, each language does different things, from simple (Castilian--only 5 'pure' vowel sounds) to inflected (nasalization in Portuguese and French) to everything in between. Consonants: two things here, which are linked to each other--the 'yod' leading to palatalization. Ok, quickie Phonetic/Linguistics 101: the roof of your mouth is your palate...and if you just close your mouth in a 'rest' position, the bulk of your tongue is directly under your palate. It's a central part of your oral cavity (insert perversion here hehe), and so languages--in particular Indo-European languages--tend to gravitate their sound changes here. Palatalization is the process whereby a sound changes so that it is articulated closer to, if not at, the palate. Example: Latin C/G before non-low front vowels (i, e) palatalized into various sounds, but usually either a "ch/zh" or even post-alveolar "s/z". (If you put the tip of your tongue on the back of your teeth, and then work it back towards your palate, you feel a 'bump' or ridge...this is your alveolar ridge.) The 'yod' (Hebrew letter, sounding like a 'y') is a Romance-specific (I believe) sound change...certain combinations of sounds in CLat produced high front vowel sounds (like an "i" or "eeeee"), which in turn lead to palatalization of these groups. There are 4 of them, and in each language they did different things...but the origins are all the same. Some change the sounds entirely (lacte >> It. latte, Sp. leche, Fr. lait, Port. leite, etc.); others just added a couple of subtle additions (platea > platja >> It. piazza, Sp. plaza [ts or th, depending on the dialect], Port. pla

This is an extremely interesting topic for me. Rumanian is an extremely thorny topic for historical Romance linguists...pretty much because we have zero documentation from that area from the 3rd until the 15th century. I mean none. The influx of Turks, Slavic tribes, Greeks and so many others not only destroyed buildings, but destroyed documents and ways of life. The best that we can come up with is what we can observe when a group of people get put through such a series of events: they cling onto their individualism, their language, and their culture in whatever way possible. If that is the case, then it must be true that the Dacians of the late Empire era, once the Romans officially pulled stakes, clung onto their Romance-ways, despite the other linguistic influences around them, and still considered themselves 'Roman(ish)'...probably why they continued to call themselves 'Romanians' (or the more-correct term 'Rumanian') vs. Slavic or anything else. I cannot tell you what my colleagues and I would give for a time-travel unit, so that we could go back there and record linguistic data, or to save documents. As it is, part of my doctoral dissertation cannot be fully expounded upon, since I have nothing to say about Old Rumanian...we have nothing on that era of the language, or how it formed the way it did. As for Britonnic settlements and Romanization...I commented on another topic on this issue. The quick and short of it is that the present-day England areas where the Romans settled were not fully Romanized, and the Britonnic Celts were never truly subjugated...never fully participated in the educational or cultural Roman offerings. The Cmyriam (Welsh), Cornish, Breton, and Gaelic (Irish and Scottish) tribes were even more fierce about their independence, and were never conquered at all. Hence the lack of true Roman influence on the language. All Romance elements can be directly linked to 1) the Norman Invasion, and 2) Renaissance introduction of terms, which was done pan-Europe.

Not just a linguist...a historical Romance linguist! Hmmmmmmmm...how long do ya got for me to answer your second question? heheehe

Oh boy, so much to respond to! Sorry if I get to the comments out-of-order.... Actually, #1 is really the only way that linguists look at the dialect/language debate--except for Italian linguists, funnily enough, because of the Italian language's distinction of dialetto and lingua. At any rate, let's just stick with #1, and #2 is politically and socially charged, which is something that (in particular) historical linguists stay away from. PS--Proto-World *shudddddddddddddddddddddddder* Bull-pucky, if you ask me...but that's just my .02. As a "fur-nur" who lived in Texas for 6 years...yes, they have their own f'ing language. *eek* Depends on what you mean. Sardinian is the most archaic, particularly in the phonology, followed by standard (Florentine) Italian. Morpho-syntactically, it's Rumanian--and, yes, there's a reason for all of the archaisms in the lexicon. They were cut off from the empire in the early 3rd century, and with the constant influx of Hellenic-, Slavic-, and Turkic-speaking peoples, the people conserved as much of their culture and language as possible. The differences in the Rumanian lexicon from the other Romance languages is due to a) borrowing from the previously mentioned linguistic factions; and the fact that they were on the periphery of the Roman Empire, and therefore were using older terms. It's called Wave Effect Theory: the closer you are to the (linguistic) center, the newer the term. It takes longer for the first wave to hit the periphery than the subsequent waves. Portuguese/Spanish and Rumanian have the 'oldest' lexicon, while Italian has the 'newest'. Agreed with point #2...and point #1...sort of. There is a whole host of 12th century poetry from monastic orders in the Umbrian and Marchese areas...San Francesco d'Assisi is just the most known. And perhaps the most studied, too...both lyrically and linguistically. But do not forget Dante Alleghieri...La divina commedia is the first example of Florentine dialect, and is what the 'standard' is based on...even in Medieval times! As for the original question: As has been pointed out on here by a couple of people...it depends on what you mean. 'Classical Latin' was in use in the Empire days as a written standard, but even in Cicero and Caesar times there is plenty of evidence that they, themselves, did not actually speak CLat unless necessary. Vulgar Latin is documented as early as 200BCE. Late Latin is what we historial Romance linguists consider to be pretty much the fall of the empire > 8th century, which is when the first 'true' vestiges of early Romance pop up. And it's called 'Early Romance', too...it's not quite Late Latin, but not quite Old French/Castillian/etc. For the most part, it comes from 2 sources: 1) glosses by monks who were transcribing texts in CLat, but put down 'translations' of what they spoke in order to understand what it is they were copying; and 2) the Andalusian jarchas (which has various spellings), which were the last 4 lines of Moorish poetry in the Andalusian Romance spoken in that area of Iberia. Both are constantly being analyzed and revised...and there is much discrepancy as to the accurate translations into modern-speak. Bottom line...language, like everything else in the natural world, evolves...it's alive and full of energy!

According to what I was taught (by an old Latin professor whose father was an even older Latin professor), final -r was variable, and therefore could be like 'English r' (a retroflex liquid) or a 'Romance r' (an alveolar tap--think Spanish or Italian). Right on the diphthongs: ae sounded kinda like English 'eye'. Final note: all Cs and Gs are meant to be hard--but this changed as early as the 6th century, since this was an early change in the Romance languages--and V sounded like an English W--hence the early confusing in all early Romance languages, and continued confusion of b/v in Spanish.

Sorry to bring up a potentially dead thread, but I just joined the forums today, and this topic being more-or-less my specialty, I thought I could clarify just a bit. Many of you brought up bits and pieces of the 'accepted' answer, but I figure I can tie things together more. Romanization is a large part of the answer: the Romans fully conquered the Gauls, principally with Roman infrastructure, trade, and military. As the substratum culture, the Gauls inputted lexical aspects to Gallic Latin (and the entire Latin language, as a rule), perhaps local pronunciation, but that's about the extent of it. Celtic and Italic languages are highly similar, being that both are from the same branch of Indo-European, so linguistic integration was relatively quick; the education and administration systems put in place by the Romans facillitated this, since in order to get anywhere in Romanized Gaul, you had to speak/read/write in (Classical) Latin. As for the rest of the culture, the Gaulish people (read: the average plebian) were attracted to Roman education and trading systems; the aristocracy were attracted to trade ($$) and military protection from the Roman army. Basically, the Romans were firmly in control in Gaul with a 'superior' system. So much so, that when the Franks came into Gaul, the system which the Romans had installed was far superior to that of the Germanic tribes, even in its declined state. Even though the Franks were the superstratum culture, and continued to use Frankish in the court, they allowed 'Roman' culture and language to continue. By that time, Late Latin--Vulgar Latin taken to the next stage--was the language of the people, and this, plus the Ecclesiastic Latin being used in the Church, lead to the continuation of the area now known as France being Romance-speaking, not Germanic-speaking. This holds true for Iberia (mostly Visigothic tribes) as well as northern Italy (mostly Ostrogothic tribes), with the same process. Interestingly, the borrowed Germanic (and Celtic!) words in the modern Romance languages come from Latin...as in, the Romans borrowed these terms from the Germanic tribes, 'Latinized' them, and as the Romance languages evolved, so did these words into their present-day state. Side note: The biggest difference between Gaulish/Iberian Celts and Britonnic Celts was how they organized themselves. Continental Celts tended to live in towns, hence the relative ease by which they were Romanized. Insular Celts--both the Brythonic and Gaelic groups--were tribal and somewhat nomadic, so Romanization was near impossible. While the Romans did maintain forts and civilizations in present-day England, they were never truly successful, and were constantly being raided and harrassed by the Britonnic Celts. It took the "silly French kniggits" (pardon the Monty Python) to do that in 1066.