Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

151088Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)

Expand Messages
  • Roger Mills
    Feb 13, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > (Sorry for the delay, I used the wrong email addr.)
      >
      >
      >> Ray Brown wrote:
      >>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:00:29 -0500, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...>
      >>>> wrote:
      >>>>> Over the last several weeks, there has been an interesting and rather
      >>>>> astounding thread on Spanish "Ideolengua" (yahoo groups) regarding a
      >>>>> recent
      >>>>> (?) book by one Yves Cortez, Le fran├žais ne vient pas du latin. ....
      >>>>>
      >>>>> His theory, as I understand it without having seen the book (only the
      >>>>> Prologue has been quoted), seems to be, that the bulk of the Roman
      >>>>> population spoke not a colloquialized form of what we call Classical
      >>>>> Latin,
      >>>>> but a separate IE language _closely related to_ Classical Latin but
      >>>>> which
      >>>>> was already headed toward being a more analytic language.
      >>>
      >>> Well, yes, Vulgar Latin was not " a colloquialized form of what we call
      >>> Classical Latin." Indeed, I find that description somewhat misleading.
      >>
      >> Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was, CL and the language of
      >> the man in the street should better be considered as _registers_ of a
      >> single language, just as, I assume, the language of the KJV was not that
      >> of contemporary everyday speech; nor e.g. the language of serious writing
      >> on history, literature, religion, science et al. nowadays is not the
      >> speech of everyday Americans or Brits. But they are variants of a single
      >> language, not sister languages-- and the latter, I gather, is what M.
      >> Cortez is claiming for Roman times.
      >>
      >>>>> Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of
      >>>>> Proto-Romance?
      >>>
      >>> Isn't Proto-Romance late Vulgar Latin?
      >>
      >> That's certainly been the conventional wisdom for years....Some
      >> respondents to the thread have said "Well, there's no written evidence
      >> for anything like VL in Roman times"-- ignoring known dialectal features,
      >> Plautus, Pompeiian graffiti, etc., and the later CE writers who complied
      >> lists of correct/incorrect pronunciations and spellings. When one poster
      >> mentioned these, the response was "How do you know that?" Duh. Read a
      >> book, people, there's good, though not vast, documentation. Too bad the
      >> Romans apparently rarely pursued the idea of writing "realistic" stuff to
      >> provide us with lots more everyday language to ponder.
      >>>
      >>> If all that M. Cortez is doing is to say "French ain't descended from
      >>> Classical Latin," then I go along with that. But if he's saying
      >>> something radically different, i.e. that Proto-Romance was not related
      >>> to any sort of Latin then, of course, I disagree. But, as I said,
      >>> methinks one needs to read the book.
      >>
      >> Agreed. I've asked the ideolenguistas where I can get it. Amazon-US
      >> doesn't turn up anything. Is there an Amazon-France, or equivalent...? I
      >> haven't searched yet.
      >>
      >>
      >
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic