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

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

Expand Messages
  • John Vertical
    ... You d consider kj) tS in Italian a separate development then? ... Regardless, you d need to assume a rather asymmetric intermediate system with tj) vs.
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:18:42 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

      >I have wondered for long how k' merged with tj in Gallo- and
      >Ibero-Romance and come to the conclusion that it was *not*
      >via a progression k; > c > tS > ts but rather that k' merged
      >with tj directly. It is believable in that at least to the
      >naked ear the two palatalized sounds k' and t' sound much
      >more similar to each other than the non-palatalized k and t.

      You'd consider kj) > tS in Italian a separate development then?

      >But how come then that when g' and d' merge they both become
      >/dZ/ and not both /dz/? Perhaps simply because d' was so
      >infrequent to begin with?

      Regardless, you'd need to assume a rather asymmetric intermediate system
      with tj) vs. gj).

      Altho I suppose this could have happened at a stage before there were any
      significant amounts of imported Germanic gw); then the precence of the third
      voiceless velar kw) could have provided the push for kj) but not gj). But
      then one is left to wonder why didn't it unround until new kj) and gj) had
      developed (French) if at all (Spanish)? Or why didn't plain k do anything in
      this chain?

      >An older generation of Romanists thought that g'
      >in all positions went through a [j] stage before becoming
      >/dZ/, and that this together with a prestige pronunciation
      >of the letter _z_ as d' worked against a merger. It is
      >notable that the lenited reflex of k' is _dz_ but that of g'
      >is [j]!

      So what does speak against this route? Far as I kno (admittedly not all that
      far) it seems to fit the data just as well, and explains the t' <> g'
      asymmetry with fewer assumptions.


      >(There is no "alveolar" diacritic in CXS: [tdnszl] are
      >alveolar by default. I guess the 'retracted' [_-] diacritic
      >could be used as well (which would then agree with the way
      >Dravidianists mark alveolar consonants with a subscript
      >minus); [d_+] could then mean a "postdental" [d] as opposed
      >to interdental [d_d] if one wants to.)

      To go on a slight tangent, this is another place where a more unified
      conlang community would be helpful. The ZBB has worked out ASCII
      transcriptions for everything in the Extended IPA as well, and many other
      things (non-alveolar lateral frics, epiglottal trill, etc). Their Z-SAMPA
      symbol for "explicitly alveolar" (corresponding to the ExtIPA dubbel
      underline) is [_a\]. I would understand [d_-] to mean a postalveolar voiced
      stop!

      John Vertical
    • Benct Philip Jonsson
      Yes it seems that Eastern Romance k tS and Western Romance k t ... point where Italian goes together with Balkan Romance, so there s nothing remarkable
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes it seems that Eastern Romance k' > tS and Western Romance k' > t'
        > ts are mutually exclusive developments. Of course this is only one
        point where Italian goes together with Balkan Romance, so there's
        nothing remarkable about it if it is so.

        I'm afraid I've cheated big in Rhodrese in that k' there shows the
        Western development and sk' the Eastern development. Perhaps it can be
        explained away so that sk' > st' > sts' > ss' > S but I must admit
        that it feels a bit ad hoc. However the temptation to get to use tx
        for /tS/ and sç (that's s + c-cedilla in case it gets garbled) for /S/
        in the same orthography was simply too great! ;-)

        The only thing I see speaking against a development g' > j > g' > dZ
        is Occam's razor! Clearly [g;] or [J\] and [j] can both develop out of
        and into each other, but to posit a to-and-fro development seems a bit
        suspicious. The relative infrequency of dj compared to tj is probably
        a better and sufficient explanation why the voiceless palatals develop
        differently in Western Romance.

        For all that I want an alveolar diacritic _a\ seems a poor choice
        unless a\ stands for some alveolar sound. I dislike _t for breathy
        voice for the same reason. To me _t for alveolar and _h\ for breathy
        voice would make much better sense. I guess I'll have to add that one
        to my list of 'BXS' modifications. Of course the only goal of BXS is
        to be inherently consistent, unlike Z-SAMPA and even less than CXS
        caring about backwards compatibility. This surely makes it nasty in
        some people's opinion. As for various lateral fricatives [x_l] etc.
        are fine with me, as there hardly can be any possible distinction
        between a laterally released fricative and a lateral fricative, since
        only a stop can be 'released' to begin with. By the same token I'm
        happy to use [4\_l] for alveolar lateral flap, since I need [l\] for
        alveopalatal lateral. Unicode includes Chao's symbols for alveopalatal
        stops, nasal and lateral, so BXS has a full series t\ d\ s\ z\ n\ l\.

        2008/2/1, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>:
        > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:18:42 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
        >
        > >I have wondered for long how k' merged with tj in Gallo- and
        > >Ibero-Romance and come to the conclusion that it was *not*
        > >via a progression k; > c > tS > ts but rather that k' merged
        > >with tj directly. It is believable in that at least to the
        > >naked ear the two palatalized sounds k' and t' sound much
        > >more similar to each other than the non-palatalized k and t.
        >
        > You'd consider kj) > tS in Italian a separate development then?
        >
        > >But how come then that when g' and d' merge they both become
        > >/dZ/ and not both /dz/? Perhaps simply because d' was so
        > >infrequent to begin with?
        >
        > Regardless, you'd need to assume a rather asymmetric intermediate system
        > with tj) vs. gj).
        >
        > Altho I suppose this could have happened at a stage before there were any
        > significant amounts of imported Germanic gw); then the precence of the third
        > voiceless velar kw) could have provided the push for kj) but not gj). But
        > then one is left to wonder why didn't it unround until new kj) and gj) had
        > developed (French) if at all (Spanish)? Or why didn't plain k do anything in
        > this chain?
        >
        > >An older generation of Romanists thought that g'
        > >in all positions went through a [j] stage before becoming
        > >/dZ/, and that this together with a prestige pronunciation
        > >of the letter _z_ as d' worked against a merger. It is
        > >notable that the lenited reflex of k' is _dz_ but that of g'
        > >is [j]!
        >
        > So what does speak against this route? Far as I kno (admittedly not all that
        > far) it seems to fit the data just as well, and explains the t' <> g'
        > asymmetry with fewer assumptions.
        >
        >
        > >(There is no "alveolar" diacritic in CXS: [tdnszl] are
        > >alveolar by default. I guess the 'retracted' [_-] diacritic
        > >could be used as well (which would then agree with the way
        > >Dravidianists mark alveolar consonants with a subscript
        > >minus); [d_+] could then mean a "postdental" [d] as opposed
        > >to interdental [d_d] if one wants to.)
        >
        > To go on a slight tangent, this is another place where a more unified
        > conlang community would be helpful. The ZBB has worked out ASCII
        > transcriptions for everything in the Extended IPA as well, and many other
        > things (non-alveolar lateral frics, epiglottal trill, etc). Their Z-SAMPA
        > symbol for "explicitly alveolar" (corresponding to the ExtIPA dubbel
        > underline) is [_a\]. I would understand [d_-] to mean a postalveolar voiced
        > stop!
        >
        > John Vertical
        >


        --
        / BP
      • John Vertical
        ... But you need to set up j dZ anyway, so then you have a palatal palatovelar palatal to-&-fro development there. And for the same, a continuant stop
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:24 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

          >The only thing I see speaking against a development g' > j > g' > dZ
          >is Occam's razor! Clearly [g;] or [J\] and [j] can both develop out of
          >and into each other, but to posit a to-and-fro development seems a bit
          >suspicious.

          But you need to set up j >> dZ anyway, so then you have a palatal >
          palatovelar > palatal to-&-fro development there. And for the same, a
          continuant > stop > continuant development is not only possible, but necessary!

          However, it just occurs to me that starting from j > gj) rather than j > J\
          directly would be symmetrical with w > gw)... or "/gj)/" could have been
          phonetically a simplex [J\] since the beginning anyway...

          Is there any evidence on which of the kj) tj) and gj) j mergers took place
          first?

          >The relative infrequency of dj compared to tj is probably
          >a better and sufficient explanation why the voiceless palatals develop
          >differently in Western Romance.

          I'm afraid I don't quite see the logic behind this argument. It's a merger,
          not a chain shift, so there can be no pull effect due to either palatalized
          coronal.


          >For all that I want an alveolar diacritic _a\ seems a poor choice
          >unless a\ stands for some alveolar sound. I dislike _t for breathy
          >voice for the same reason. To me _t for alveolar and _h\ for breathy
          >voice would make much better sense. I guess I'll have to add that one
          >to my list of 'BXS' modifications. Of course the only goal of BXS is
          >to be inherently consistent, unlike Z-SAMPA and even less than CXS
          >caring about backwards compatibility.

          We all have our SAMPA idiolects, don't we? Like me with my preference to use
          ) not _ for an actual tie bar; tS_w_h would become thSw))) or maybe even
          tWS)) ;)

          John Vertical
        • Benct Philip Jonsson
          ... No, that would be a straight palatal fricative palatal stop alveopalatal affricate palatoalveolar affricate shift. ... The possible distinction
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            2008/2/1, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>:
            > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:24 +0100, Benct Philip
            > Jonsson wrote:
            >
            > >The only thing I see speaking against a development g' >
            > >j > g' > dZ is Occam's razor! Clearly [g;] or [J\] and
            > >[j] can both develop out of and into each other, but to
            > >posit a to-and-fro development seems a bit suspicious.
            >
            > But you need to set up j >> dZ anyway, so then you have a
            > palatal > palatovelar > palatal to-&-fro development
            > there. And for the same, a continuant > stop > continuant
            > development is not only possible, but necessary!

            No, that would be a straight palatal fricative >
            palatal stop > alveopalatal affricate > palatoalveolar
            affricate shift.

            > However, it just occurs to me that starting from j > gj)
            > rather than j > J\ directly would be symmetrical with w >
            > gw)... or "/gj)/" could have been phonetically a simplex
            > [J\] since the beginning anyway...

            The possible distinction between [g;] and [J\] is academic.
            I doubt kids learning a language could distinguish them, so
            you may have /g;/ realized as [J\] and/or [J\] phonemicized
            as /g;/. Also the thing with the Germanic /w/ > VL /gw/ is
            that after w > B /_V /gw/ was the closest thing VL had to
            [w], not that it was in any way parallel to /j/ which
            existed in both languages. FWIW /gw/ may have been realized
            [Gw] / V_V, which made it even more like [w].

            > Is there any evidence on which of the kj) tj) and gj) j
            > mergers took place first?

            I've got the impression that spelliongs like NACIONES appear
            earlier than G/I confusion. Z for affricates unfortunately
            only occurs in words that were or were thought to be Greek,
            though often significantly erroneously from an etymolgical
            POV, like ZABULUS (diabolos) and ZODORUS (Theodoros).
            Conversely you find spellings like Zoulia = Iulia in Greek.

            > >The relative infrequency of dj compared to tj is probably
            > >a better and sufficient explanation why the voiceless
            > >palatals develop differently in Western Romance.
            >
            > I'm afraid I don't quite see the logic behind this
            > argument. It's a merger, not a chain shift, so there can
            > be no pull effect due to either palatalized coronal.

            No, but kids learning to speak would hear many more tokens
            of [t;] to confuse
            [c] with than they'd hear tokens of [d;] -- the frfequency
            of [d;] tokens was simply to low to make a mental
            imprint, or alternatively the few that appeared stood
            out enough to preserve their identity. Perhaps the
            preservation of /dz/ in Italian was due to kids there
            being called to PRANDIU at least once a day, while kids
            in Gaul were callled to DESIEIUNUM! :-)

            Also it seems that [c] is more perceptually similar to [t;]
            than [J\] is to [d;] for whatever reason. The Hungarian
            spellings _ty_ for /c/ but _gy_ for /J\/ are probably
            significant for whatever reason. Also /ts/ is more
            widespread crosslinguistically than /dz/. I'm not sure
            what's at work here, though something clearly is. Perhaps
            palatalization is more audible as such in voiced sounds,
            while in [t;] the frequent secondary affrication ([t;] >
            [ts;] > [ts]) is more salient? Dirk, are you reading this?

            > >For all that I want an alveolar diacritic _a\ seems a
            > >poor choice unless a\ stands for some alveolar sound. I
            > >dislike _t for breathy voice for the same reason. To me
            > >_t for alveolar and _h\ for breathy voice would make much
            > >better sense. I guess I'll have to add that one to my
            > >list of 'BXS' modifications. Of course the only goal of
            > >BXS is to be inherently consistent, unlike Z-SAMPA and
            > >even less than CXS caring about backwards compatibility.
            >
            > We all have our SAMPA idiolects, don't we?

            Sure. There have always been IPA dialects
            (diagraphies? :-) too.

            > Like me with my preference to use ) not _ for an actual
            > tie bar; tS_w_h would become thSw))) or maybe even
            > tWS)) ;)

            Actually I think [tS_h_w], since labialization would persist
            through the aspiration phase! ;-)

            > John Vertical
            >


            --
            / BP
          • John Vertical
            ... ...and then it decays to a fricativ in most branches. :) Point being, I don t think back&forth developments are in principle suspicious if there s
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 7, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:09:50 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
              >2008/2/1, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>:
              >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:24 +0100, Benct Philip
              >> Jonsson wrote:
              >>
              >> >The only thing I see speaking against a development g' >
              >> >j > g' > dZ is Occam's razor! Clearly [g;] or [J\] and
              >> >[j] can both develop out of and into each other, but to
              >> >posit a to-and-fro development seems a bit suspicious.
              >>
              >> But you need to set up j >> dZ anyway, so then you have a
              >> palatal > palatovelar > palatal to-&-fro development
              >> there. And for the same, a continuant > stop > continuant
              >> development is not only possible, but necessary!
              >
              >No, that would be a straight palatal fricative >
              >palatal stop > alveopalatal affricate > palatoalveolar
              >affricate shift.

              ...and then it decays to a fricativ in most branches. :)

              Point being, I don't think back&forth developments are in principle
              suspicious if there's sufficient time; no memory of sound change, right? See
              also: u > U > o > ou > u in Portuguese, ts > s_m > T > in in Finnish, f > v
              > f in German, oi > ui > oi in English...


              >> However, it just occurs to me that starting from j > gj)
              >> rather than j > J\ directly would be symmetrical with w >
              >> gw)... or "/gj)/" could have been phonetically a simplex
              >> [J\] since the beginning anyway...
              >
              >The possible distinction between [g;] and [J\] is academic.
              >I doubt kids learning a language could distinguish them, so
              >you may have /g;/ realized as [J\] and/or [J\] phonemicized
              >as /g;/.

              Oh, nobody's asking anyone to actually distingush them, the question is ...
              well, nevermind. Doesn't really matter.


              >> >The relative infrequency of dj compared to tj is probably
              >> >a better and sufficient explanation why the voiceless
              >> >palatals develop differently in Western Romance.
              >>
              >> I'm afraid I don't quite see the logic behind this
              >> argument. It's a merger, not a chain shift, so there can
              >> be no pull effect due to either palatalized coronal.
              >
              >No, but kids learning to speak would hear many more tokens
              >of [t;] to confuse
              >[c] with than they'd hear tokens of [d;] -- the frfequency
              >of [d;] tokens was simply to low to make a mental
              >imprint, or alternatively the few that appeared stood
              >out enough to preserve their identity.

              Still, if the system is in effect tj) kj) gj), how does kj) > tj) make the
              system any more regular? Yes, the first two are close enuff to be confused,
              but tj) > kj) should be just as likely then, no?


              >Also it seems that [c] is more perceptually similar to [t;]
              >than [J\] is to [d;] for whatever reason. The Hungarian
              >spellings _ty_ for /c/ but _gy_ for /J\/ are probably
              >significant for whatever reason.

              Wikipedia says of the Hungarian alphabet that "denoting /ɟ/ by <gy> is a
              remnant of (probably) Italian scribes who tried to render the Hungarian
              sound", so we might need something more remote.

              I agree, tho, that /ts tS/ are both about as easy, but /dz/ clearly harder
              than /dZ/; then again, this could be because Finnish has /ts/ but no /dz/,
              and English has /tS) dZ)/ but no /ts) dz)/. I get less practice on it. :)
              Which also supports your point I suppose...


              >Also /ts/ is more
              >widespread crosslinguistically than /dz/. I'm not sure
              >what's at work here, though something clearly is.Perhaps
              >palatalization is more audible as such in voiced sounds,
              >while in [t;] the frequent secondary affrication ([t;] >
              >[ts;] > [ts]) is more salient?

              No, that's not the thing; you need to consider that voiced obstruents are in
              general rarer than their voiceless counterparts. The issue would be /dz/
              being rarer than /dZ/ - which I gather does also seem to be the case. But is
              it still rarer when one consider than palatoalveolar affricates are in
              general more common than alveolar, ie. are there actual /dz/ *gaps* anywhere
              else? I should do some checkup...


              >> We all have our SAMPA idiolects, don't we?
              >
              >Sure. There have always been IPA dialects
              >(diagraphies? :-) too.
              >
              >> Like me with my preference to use ) not _ for an actual
              >> tie bar; tS_w_h would become thSw))) or maybe even
              >> tWS)) ;)
              >
              >Actually I think [tS_h_w], since labialization would persist
              >through the aspiration phase! ;-)

              >/ BP

              Phonation before 2ndary articulation does make sense, but is there any
              actual IPA/SAMPA standard on the order of diacritics?

              John Vertical
            • Paul Roser
              On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:38:17 -0500, John Vertical ... [...] ... I don t have my copy of the IPA here, but impressionistically I d say
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 8, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:38:17 -0500, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
                wrote:

                >On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:09:50 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
                >>2008/2/1, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>:
                >>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:24 +0100, Benct Philip
                >>> Jonsson wrote:
                >>>
                [...]
                >>> Like me with my preference to use ) not _ for an actual
                >>> tie bar; tS_w_h would become thSw))) or maybe even
                >>> tWS)) ;)
                >>
                >>Actually I think [tS_h_w], since labialization would persist
                >>through the aspiration phase! ;-)
                >
                >>/ BP
                >
                >Phonation before 2ndary articulation does make sense, but is there any
                >actual IPA/SAMPA standard on the order of diacritics?


                I don't have my copy of the IPA here, but impressionistically I'd say that
                the most frequent order I've seen is phonation-2ndary articulation, although
                a few writers merge the two, using eg, a superscript <w> with an under-ring
                for aspirated + labialized, though this does not appear to be common practice.

                But I do believe I've seen the reverse order (secondary articulation -
                phonation) as well - the order seems to be more fluid for ejectives as I'm
                positive I have seen both <kw'> and <k'w> in use (where <w> is superscript).

                Pfal
              • ROGER MILLS
                This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but-- Over the last several weeks, there has been an interesting and rather astounding thread on Spanish Ideolengua (yahoo
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 10, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but--

                  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�ais ne vient pas du latin. (And by
                  implication, neither do the other Romance languages). Have any of you been
                  following it, or has anyone else heard of this book?

                  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. He calls this
                  "Ancient Italian", and it, not CL, is the source of the Romance languages.

                  The amazing thing is that some of the respondents are taking this seriously
                  !!! and are immune to all arguments to the contrary.

                  Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of
                  Proto-Romance? It would almost be worthwhile, and certainly amusing, to
                  actually get the book, to see how he dismisses almost 200 years of scholarly
                  research.........
                • Jeffrey Jones
                  On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:00:29 -0500, ROGER MILLS ... Well, the difference between a dialect (or sociolect in this case) and a language is
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 10, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:00:29 -0500, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    >This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but--
                    >
                    >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 français ne vient pas du latin. (And by
                    >implication, neither do the other Romance languages). Have any of you been
                    >following it, or has anyone else heard of this book?
                    >
                    >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. He calls this
                    >"Ancient Italian", and it, not CL, is the source of the Romance languages.
                    >
                    >The amazing thing is that some of the respondents are taking this seriously
                    >!!! and are immune to all arguments to the contrary.
                    >
                    >Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of
                    >Proto-Romance? It would almost be worthwhile, and certainly amusing, to
                    >actually get the book, to see how he dismisses almost 200 years of scholarly
                    >research.........

                    Well, the difference between a dialect (or sociolect in this case) and a
                    language is almost purely political, so I suppose he could call VL a "separate IE
                    language", if he really wants to. I don't know why he'd call it "Ancient Italian",
                    unless he's reinventing the wheel (otherwise he's just remarketing old
                    information). It might be interesting to compare what he reconstructs ....
                  • R A Brown
                    ... Well, yes, Vulgar Latin was not a colloquialized form of what we call Classical Latin. Indeed, I find that description somewhat misleading. The
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 11, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jeffrey Jones wrote:
                      > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:00:29 -0500, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...>
                      > wrote:
                      >> This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but--
                      >>
                      >> 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 français ne vient pas du latin. (And by
                      >> implication, neither do the other Romance languages). Have any of you been
                      >> following it, or has anyone else heard of this book?
                      >>
                      >> 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.

                      The relationship of Vulgar Latin vis-a-vis Classical Latin was very much
                      like that of Dimotiki vis-a-vis Katharevousa in modern Greek since the
                      19th cent. Indeed, both Classical Latin and Katharevousa were conscious
                      literary constructs: both - as it happens - constructing a 'purer' form
                      of the language under the influence of Classical Attic Greek.

                      I doubt that Classical Latin was ever anyone's L1 any more than
                      Katharevousa was, as I understand it. Clearly, however, the speech of
                      the educated members of the Equestrian & Senatorial ranks would be
                      likely to approach the Classical norm when speaking among peers. I have
                      no doubt, moreover, that just as with modern Greek diglossia, so in
                      Latin the Vulgar (i.e. demotic) and Classical varieties influenced one
                      another.


                      >>He calls this
                      >> "Ancient Italian", and it, not CL, is the source of the Romance languages.

                      This is, I agree, rather odd, to say the least.

                      >> The amazing thing is that some of the respondents are taking this seriously
                      >> !!! and are immune to all arguments to the contrary.

                      Without actually reading the book, it is difficult to comment
                      meaningfully on this point.

                      >> Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of
                      >> Proto-Romance?

                      Isn't Proto-Romance late Vulgar Latin?

                      [snip]

                      > Well, the difference between a dialect (or sociolect in this case) and a
                      > language is almost purely political, so I suppose he could call VL a "separate IE
                      > language", if he really wants to.

                      Yep - like calling Dimotiki and Katharevousa different languages rather
                      than different dialects of Greek. It depends how one defines 'language'
                      and 'dialect'. As I said above, I do not consider VL to be a
                      colloquialized CL - colloquialized CL is surely the sort of thing one
                      finds in Cicero's letters (as opposed to the CL of is speeches and his
                      philosophic writings).

                      I consider Vulgar Latin and Classical Latin to be dialects of an
                      abstract language 'Latin' - both being derived from Early Latin (a
                      continuum of dialects spoken by the Latins, the inhabitants of Latium
                      [modern Lazio]) in Italy.

                      > I don't know why he'd call it "Ancient Italian",
                      > unless he's reinventing the wheel (otherwise he's just remarketing old
                      > information).

                      I don't know why he calls it "Ancient Italian," if, indeed, it is early
                      or Proto-Latin he is calling "Ancient Italian.

                      By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
                      Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
                      derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
                      Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
                      Italian languages?

                      > It might be interesting to compare what he reconstructs ....

                      Yes, I think one would need to read his book to see whether, in fact, he
                      is proposing something substantially different from accepted wisdom, or
                      is just playing around with names and, possibly, making some political
                      point.

                      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.

                      --
                      Ray
                      ==================================
                      http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                      ==================================
                      Entia non sunt multiplicanda
                      praeter necessitudinem.
                    • Andreas Johansson
                      Quoting R A Brown : [snip] ... I don t know what Mr Cortez calls it, but isn t this stage usually refered as (ancient, proto-)
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 11, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Quoting R A Brown <ray@...>:

                        [snip]
                        > By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
                        > Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
                        > derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
                        > Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
                        > Italian languages?

                        I don't know what Mr Cortez calls it, but isn't this stage usually refered as
                        (ancient, proto-) Ital*ic* rather than Ital*ian*?

                        Andreas
                      • R A Brown
                        ... Yes. But if someone started talking about _Ancient_ Italian, I would, unless there was further clarification, assume s/he meant Ancient Italic. OTOH I
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 11, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Andreas Johansson wrote:
                          > Quoting R A Brown <ray@...>:
                          >
                          > [snip]
                          >> By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
                          >> Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
                          >> derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
                          >> Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
                          >> Italian languages?
                          >
                          > I don't know what Mr Cortez calls it, but isn't this stage usually refered as
                          > (ancient, proto-) Ital*ic* rather than Ital*ian*?

                          Yes.

                          But if someone started talking about _Ancient_ Italian, I would, unless
                          there was further clarification, assume s/he meant 'Ancient Italic.'
                          OTOH I would understand 'Old Italian' to mean an older stage of the
                          present Italian language, possibly Dante or slightly earlier.

                          Cortez, from what we have been told, calls Proto-Romance "Ancient
                          Italian" - but I guess this is probably on reflexion poor translation,
                          i.e. translating 'italien ancien' as "Ancient Italian."

                          The trouble is that French 'ancien' and English "ancient" do _not_ have
                          the same range of meanings.

                          As I said in my original mail, I don't think we can get much forwarder
                          in this discussion without actually knowing seeing Cortez's book (or at
                          least having a fuller account of his thesis).

                          --
                          Ray
                          ==================================
                          http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                          ==================================
                          Entia non sunt multiplicanda
                          praeter necessitudinem.
                        • R A Brown
                          SORRY! Forgot to change the reply to line in my previous posting :( ... refered as ... Yes. But if someone started talking about _Ancient_ Italian, I
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 11, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            SORRY! Forgot to change the 'reply to' line in my previous posting :(

                            Andreas Johansson wrote:
                            > Quoting R A Brown <ray@...>:
                            >
                            > [snip]
                            >> By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
                            >> Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
                            >> derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
                            >> Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
                            >> Italian languages?
                            >
                            > I don't know what Mr Cortez calls it, but isn't this stage usually
                            refered as
                            > (ancient, proto-) Ital*ic* rather than Ital*ian*?

                            Yes.

                            But if someone started talking about _Ancient_ Italian, I would, unless
                            there was further clarification, assume s/he meant 'Ancient Italic.'
                            OTOH I would understand 'Old Italian' to mean an older stage of the
                            present Italian language, possibly Dante or slightly earlier.

                            Cortez, from what we have been told, calls Proto-Romance "Ancient
                            Italian" - but I guess this is probably on reflexion poor translation,
                            i.e. translating 'italien ancien' as "Ancient Italian."

                            The trouble is that French 'ancien' and English "ancient" do _not_ have
                            the same range of meanings.

                            As I said in my original mail, I don't think we can get much forwarder
                            in this discussion without actually knowing seeing Cortez's book (or at
                            least having a fuller account of his thesis).

                            --
                            Ray
                            ==================================
                            http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                            ==================================
                            Entia non sunt multiplicanda
                            praeter necessitudinem.
                          • Jörg Rhiemeier
                            Hallo! ... No, that s Ital*ic*. Ancient Italian I would understand to refer to the oldest stage of the Italian language that can be called Italian , namely
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 11, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hallo!

                              On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:33:37 +0000, R A Brown wrote:

                              > I don't know why he calls it "Ancient Italian," if, indeed, it is early
                              > or Proto-Latin he is calling "Ancient Italian.
                              >
                              > By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
                              > Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
                              > derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
                              > Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
                              > Italian languages?

                              No, that's Ital*ic*. "Ancient Italian" I would understand to refer
                              to the oldest stage of the Italian language that can be called "Italian",
                              namely the Vulgar Latin dialect of Italy in late Imperial times, as
                              opposed to other Vulgar Latin dialects.

                              ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                            • Benct Philip Jonsson
                              ... It seems to me that Cortez has simply misunderstood the nature of the relation between CL and VL. In fact a separate IE language _closely related to_
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 11, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ROGER MILLS skrev:
                                > This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but--
                                >
                                > 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 français ne vient pas du latin. (And by
                                > implication, neither do the other Romance languages). Have
                                > any of you been following it, or has anyone else heard of
                                > this book?
                                >
                                > 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. He calls this "Ancient Italian", and it, not CL,
                                > is the source of the Romance languages.
                                >
                                > The amazing thing is that some of the respondents are
                                > taking this seriously !!! and are immune to all arguments
                                > to the contrary.
                                >
                                > Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never
                                > heard of Proto-Romance? It would almost be worthwhile, and
                                > certainly amusing, to actually get the book, to see how he
                                > dismisses almost 200 years of scholarly research.........
                                >
                                >
                                >

                                It seems to me that Cortez has simply misunderstood the
                                nature of the relation between CL and VL. In fact "a
                                separate IE language _closely related to_ Classical Latin
                                but which was already headed toward being a more analytic
                                language" is, given the shadiness of the language/dialect
                                distinction a fitting description of VL: the both descended
                                from Old Latin but diverged around 200 BCE at the latest. So
                                if Scots and English are two closely related languages both
                                descended from Old English a similar description fits CL--
                                VL. VL was emphatically not a daughter of CL, but a sister
                                -- to the extent that CL was not a conlang derived from a
                                mix of OL and VL!

                                /BP 8^)>
                                --
                                Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
                                à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
                                ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
                                c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
                              • Roger Mills
                                Message 15 of 16 , 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 français 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.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >
                                • R A Brown
                                  ... I still consider the situation of Dimotiki vis-a-vis Katharevousa in Greece of the 19th & 20th cent to be a better analog of the relationship between
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 13, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Roger Mills wrote:
                                    >> (Sorry for the delay, I used the wrong email addr.)
                                    >[snip]
                                    >>>> 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.


                                    I still consider the situation of Dimotiki vis-a-vis Katharevousa in
                                    Greece of the 19th & 20th cent to be a better analog of the relationship
                                    between Vulgar Latin and Classical Latin. The term 'diglossia' suggests
                                    they were felt to be in some ways different languages and I think a case
                                    can be made for considering Dimotiki (or rather the continuum of demotic
                                    dialects) and the artificially created Katharevousa as sister languages
                                    (maybe more like Siamese twins :)

                                    But as many people used both forms in different circumstances, the two
                                    forms of Greek (one natural the other artificial) did cross fertilize,
                                    so to speak, so that there was a whole spectrum of dialects/idiolects
                                    between the two. My guess is that something like that was going on in
                                    the Roman Empire. But I'll not labor point any more. As one mailer
                                    observed, it depends on how one defines 'dialect' and 'language'.

                                    >>>>>> 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.

                                    Quite so - the evidence most certainly is there and can be found if one
                                    looks.

                                    [snip]
                                    >>>> 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...?

                                    Yep - I've ordered books from it. It's quite simply:
                                    http://www.amazon.fr/

                                    --
                                    Ray
                                    ==================================
                                    http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                                    ==================================
                                    Entia non sunt multiplicanda
                                    praeter necessitudinem.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.