Proto-Romance and Romance Languages

[ASCLEPIADES]

But where else do you see Latin subliminally?

Salve, Amici.

 

The most obvious and not so subliminal answer would be at most words in any of the 47 or so contemporary romance languages.

[docoflove1974]

The most obvious and not so subliminal answer would be at most words in any of the 47 or so contemporary romance languages.

 

47!!?? That's quite a number!

[ASCLEPIADES]

The most obvious and not so subliminal answer would be at most words in any of the 47 or so contemporary romance languages.

 

47!!?? That's quite a number!

 

Salve, Doc

 

That figure is currently quoted both by ethnologue (check their list) and SIL (Summer Institute of Linhuistics at US).

 

This estimation is inherently controversial, mainly due to their dialect continuum ( ie, calling the Mirandese a Portuguese dialect or a language by itself is to a great extent in the eye of the beholder).

[Gaius Octavius]

Some linguistic scholar has held that a tounge that has poetry, (songs?), and a literature of its own, constitutes a language.

Isn't Mozarabic a Roman Catholic Church (sorry) Rite and not a language?

Doesn't the unworthy R.C.C. preserve and maintain at least three forms of Latin that, (to me), don't seem to be included in their listing?

Edited May 20, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[docoflove1974]

Salve, Doc

 

That figure is currently quoted both by ethnologue (check their list) and SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics at US).

 

This estimation is inherently controversial, mainly due to their dialect continuum ( ie, calling the Mirandese a Portuguese dialect or a language by itself is to a great extent in the eye of the beholder).

 

Quite controversial...I would say that the list at that link describes both languages and recognized dialects of the languages. 47 is quite a large number, too big for my taste, and I would imagine the same would be true for the colleagues I research with. The number for us would probably be closer to 20.

 

The basic definition for a 'language' in the linguistic sense is that there is little-to-zero mutual intelligibility between the two linguistic groups. If there is some, then they are dialects. It's a slippery definition, to be sure, one which leads to various interpretations and lists, like the one you posted.

Edited May 21, 2008 by docoflove1974

[docoflove1974]

Some linguistic scholar has held that a tounge that has poetry, (songs?), and a literature of its own, constitutes a language.

Isn't Mozarabic a Roman Catholic Church (sorry) Rite and not a language?

Doesn't the unworthy R.C.C. preserve and maintain at least three forms of Latin that, (to me), don't seem to be included in their listing?

 

Point #1: I think that's quite a literature-centric definition; see my previous post as to what a linguistic definition of a language is.

 

Point #2: Nope, in this case Mozarabic is the brand of Spanish that was spoken by the mozarabes, those Iberian people who, upon the Moorish Conquests, changed their ways to be more in line with their conquerers; it also describes the language of the Jews (mostly Sephardic) who lived in Iberia in this time. When the Catholic Monarchs kicked out the mozarabes and Jews in 1493, they brough this language with them, and it's essentially the Spanish of the 16th century. It's still spoken by many Sephardic Jews around the world.

Edited May 21, 2008 by docoflove1974

[Gaius Octavius]

"The number for us would probably be closer to 20."

 

Would you kindly list them DoLl?

[docoflove1974]

"The number for us would probably be closer to 20."

 

Would you kindly list them DoLl?

 

This list from Oris Latinus.com is similar to the one from Ethnologue...but organized/labeled a bit more accurately*. What should be noted is that many are labeled as 'dialects', as there is some mutual intelligibility. Creoles are often inserted, but I tend to treat them as being different; while there are various Romance-based creoles, they don't quite pattern like the Romance language family, therefore I don't include them below. But as for true language distinctions, the list would probably break down thusly (languages would be italicized:

 

Latin > Ibero-Romance > Northern Iberian Romance > Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Castilian (Spanish), Galician, Portuguese

Southern Iberian Romance > Mozarabic (extinct)

Gallo-Italic > Gallic > French, Occitan/Proven

Edited May 21, 2008 by docoflove1974

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

 

Gratiam habeo for your last posts, Doctum; they have been quite informative and clarifying.

 

I will eventually bother you with some additional questions on the same (or related) topics, but I think they will deserve their own thread.

[Silentium]

Salve, Amici

 

Gratiam habeo for your last posts, Doctum; they have been quite informative and clarifying.

Asclepiades, what do you mean exactly with Doctum? Doctum as in "doctum doces"?

 

Anyway, it would be interesting to discuss Proto-Romance and the Romance languages in a separate thread, I don't want to go off-topic here.

[Northern Neil]

Anyway, it would be interesting to discuss Proto-Romance and the Romance languages in a separate thread, I don't want to go off-topic here.

I believe it would. Maybe the moderators will do this, as I believe that this in itself is a fascinating topic. Keeping on this topic (or off it) I have come across this tantalising reference to a North African Romance which was apparently spoken until the 1600's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Romance

 

A question for the Doc: If the basis of calling something a language is zero intelligibility from its neighbours, then how do Italian - Spanish figure in this? Or Dutch and German? Even English people - myself included - have noted that Dutch appears to be on the verge of partial intelligibility with English. Sorry to stray even further off topic, but this has long been something puzzling to me, and it sort of relates to statements made earlier about how languages are defined, as opposed to dialects.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Northern Neil

[ASCLEPIADES]

Asclepiades, what do you mean exactly with Doctum? Doctum as in "doctum doces"?

No. My mistake was using the neuter when the feminine Docta was clearly required.

 

Anyway, it would be interesting to discuss Proto-Romance and the Romance languages in a separate thread...

We agree

 

I have come across this tantalising reference to a North African Romance which was apparently spoken until the 1600's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Romance

Gratiam habeo for that link, NR. Its first reference, "Latin loans in Berber: A Review" (in Italian with a French abstract) seems particularly interesting. It includes the following quotation in English (Van den Boogert 1997: 220):

 

"Some loans were probably taken from Latin, e.g. afullus, Lat. pullus, while others were taken from a Romanic language spoken in North-Africa rather than one of the existing Romanic languages). cf. ifilu, "thread": Italian filo, Spanish hilo, but Latin filum."

Edited June 8, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[docoflove1974]

A question for the Doc: If the basis of calling something a language is zero intelligibility from its neighbours, then how do Italian - Spanish figure in this? Or Dutch and German? Even English people - myself included - have noted that Dutch appears to be on the verge of partial intelligibility with English. Sorry to stray even further off topic, but this has long been something puzzling to me, and it sort of relates to statements made earlier about how languages are defined, as opposed to dialects.

 

Oh, it's a slippery definition, to be sure, and why it's one that while used with 'lay people' (for lack of a better term), it's usually quanitified by most linguists.

 

Think of it this way: British English vs. American English vs. Irish English all have almost identical syntax and morphology, both of which are very hard to borrow across languages. The basic phonetic inventory is about the same; the biggest difference is in the vowel inventory, which is slippery in English (as a whole); there is much movement in the history of the language on how the vowels are pronounced, etc., and this is true across modern dialects. One can't go by the lexical inventory, as borrowing of terms is profound. By all rights, these three Englishes are all of the same language, just of different dialects. Granted, there are many times when a speaker of one has a hard time understanding a speaker of the other, but if one were to write it out, one could understand what is being communicated.

 

Now take English (as a whole language) and Dutch. The grammars have much similarity (lack of subjunctive, SVO word order, etc.), but they are still quite different. Dutch still has some assemblance of case and gender, whereas English lost both hundreds of years ago. There is still considerable verb morphology in Dutch--inflection for various tenses and for 3 persons--which English no longer possesses and instead uses complex verb constructions and adverbial constructions. There are still quite a few differences in the syntax between the two languages; for example, if there is an auxilliary verb and a main verb in the sentence ("I can work"), the main verb will be at the end of the phrase in Dutch. If an English speaker (who has never had any lessons in any other Germanic language) were to try and read Dutch, they wouldn't understand much of it; test yourself by going to Onze Taal's site, which is geared for advanced learners of Dutch. Granted, English and Dutch are 'close cousins' in the Germanic-speaking world, but there are enough differences that a speaker of one cannot (usually) understand a speaker of the other.

 

(FYI: a great breakdown of Dutch grammar can be found, oddly enough, at Dutch Grammar.com

 

The same would be true for a Spanish and an Italian speaker, if neither speaker were educated in foreign Romance languages; there are various differences which would keep a speaker of one from fully understanding a speaker of the other. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a little bit of intelligibility; let's face it, Europeans and Latin Americans are educated in at least one other foreign language anymore, as long as they are not of the poorest social class. Most anyone who goes to university in these countries at least learns English and/or French, and often other languages. This is to say nothing of those who grow up in bilingual situations, which often happens.

[ASCLEPIADES]

A question for the Doc: If the basis of calling something a language is zero intelligibility from its neighbours, then how do Italian - Spanish figure in this? Or Dutch and German?... how languages are defined, as opposed to dialects.

 

Oh, it's a slippery definition, to be sure, and why it's one that while used with 'lay people' (for lack of a better term), it's usually quanitified by most linguists.

 

Salve, Amici

 

These are some of my own questions for Docta about the fascinating topic of quantitative linguistics:

 

- Exactly how is lexical similarity measured? (BTW, I've noted Ethnologue gives figures under 90% for similar languages; ie, Spanish/Portuguese or Italian/French).

 

- Ethnologue gives also figures for mutual intelligibility, a related but clearly different concept. How is it measured? Are intelligibility and Comprehensibility synonymous?

 

- I understand intelligibility might be asymmetrical (ie, it may be easier for Dutch subjects to understand written Afrikaans than it is for South African subjects to understand written Dutch). Can this be a significant problem for the dialect/language definition?

 

- Can any of the previous (or additional) measures be used as standard cut-off values for the quantitative definition of language vs dialect?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Ludovicus]

Salve, Doc

 

That figure is currently quoted both by ethnologue (check their list) and SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics at US).

 

This estimation is inherently controversial, mainly due to their dialect continuum ( ie, calling the Mirandese a Portuguese dialect or a language by itself is to a great extent in the eye of the beholder).

 

Quite controversial...I would say that the list at that link describes both languages and recognized dialects of the languages. 47 is quite a large number, too big for my taste, and I would imagine the same would be true for the colleagues I research with. The number for us would probably be closer to 20.

 

The basic definition for a 'language' in the linguistic sense is that there is little-to-zero mutual intelligibility between the two linguistic groups. If there is some, then they are dialects. It's a slippery definition, to be sure, one which leads to various interpretations and lists, like the one you posted.

 

 

There's another aspect of the dialect vs language controversy. My parents' generation spoke a dialect inherited from their Abruzzi parents. What I could see growing up was that this dialect had a very small vocabulary. I'm sure that you couldn't have described open heart surgery using their words. Others say that the definition of a language is a dialect with an army. So political power, never an option in my grandparents' region (a least not in the past 1000 years), is an important factor. Perhaps here is where the dialect of Castille, Spain, became a language and triumphed over Leonese and the other stillborn tongues.