A question for linguists

[docoflove1974]

While it is true that Spanish has an 'object case marker', I wouldn't consider its syntax like Latin at all. There is a radical break in the Romance languages from the Latin syntax:

 

• a lack of case markers,
  
• restricted word order,
  
• increased use of prepositions,
  
• reorganizing of some verb forms (future) and the creation of new, analytic forms,
  
• reduction of verbal aspect, and
  
• the loss of the third gender
  

This is just in general, and there are various other observations which are made when comparing a specific Romance language to Latin.

 

As for Italian grammar being Germanic-like...I wouldn't say that at all. Germanic languages (save English) are inflectional like Romance, but there is a complexity in the subordinate clauses (SOV word order, instead of SVO order in independent clauses) that doesn't exist. Also the employment of the subjunctive mood is radically different in Germanic than it is in Romance. Additionally, in most Germanic languages one leaves the verbal particle at the end of the sentence and not with the word; this cannot be done in any Romance language.

 

Yes it is true that there was a perfect aspect which was developed in all Romance languages (not just Italian) which includes a form of habere, but in Italian this is not so much of a perfect aspect anymore, but it is used as a non-imperfect past tense, and also includes forms with essere with some verbs. This construction in the Romance languages replaces many of the elements that the Latin perfect had; in turn, the Latin perfect tended to track to the preterite/'remote past' form for the various Romance language, and while it kept its past tense, its aspect had changed from being perfective to punctual (in most cases). This compound past-tense form is something that evolved in many Indo-European languages, not only in Romance or Germanic, and there is no connection among the languages. So overall, I wouldn't say that Italian has much in common with the syntax of Germanic languages.

 

If you want more information on the Romance languages as a whole, I'd highly recommend looking at the following 'handbooks'...while they may be older, they are definitively thorough.

Elcock, W. D. 1960. The Romance Languages. London: Faber & Faber. Translated by.

 

Meyer-L

Edited April 17, 2008 by docoflove1974

[Kosmo]

I have been told, but have no idea how accurate this is, that Romanian is one of the closest languages in vocab and structure to classical Latin. I should imagine it must have plenty of Byzantine and Ottaman influences too - does anyone know the truth of this?

 

SF

 

 

What is quite interesting about the Romanian language is that it still has some scant traces of pre-Latin Daco-Getae in it. Take, for example, some of the country's river names: although adapted to Latin, I am told that they still sound quite Thracian (e.g. Marisius, Alutus, Ordessus, Crisius, Rhabon, Donaris, Pyrhetus, Ararus, Napenis). Also the names of ten plants with healing powers (apparently) still maintain the Thracian names.

 

The existence of daco-getic reminents in romanian vocabulary it is open to debate as we know almost nothing of dacian-getic-moesian. Linguists searched common terms using albanian as a comparison, but albanian (actually there are 2 languages and several dialects) it's considered a mix of illyrian and thracian so it's hard to establish parallels and a later (medieval) influence from albanian it is possible.

The continued use of river names it is seen as one of the proofs for romanian continuity in Dacia.