Names

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>>>>> BTW *romana is given in my dictionary with an "*" and the
>>>>> expresion "lingua romana" is not at all given.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever thought about changing dictionary?!
>>>> C. Tacitus: "ut qui modo linguam Romanam abnuebant [...]"

[...]

>>> It seems more safe to assume the "lingua romana" is not given
>>> because is not relevant to etymology or maybe because it is a
>>> late expresion hence the expresions as lingua prisca, lingua
>>> latina, lingua peregrina are used very usual in clasical latin.
>>
>> You make too many assumptions which do not cope with facts:
>> "lingua romana" is a Latin legitimate pattern defining Latin
>> tongue attested in Classical period. "rustica romana lingua"
>> is the late creation which refers to (Proto-)Romance. I don't
>> know why your dictionary doesn't speak about "romana lingua"
>> or "lingua romana" and frankly, this is far from being a point
>> of major concern for myself.
>
> I don't know if this is a major point or not.

I know. It isn't.

> I am aware in the expresions of Catto

Cato.

> about "lingua rustica" and how I underlined before "lingua
> peregrina", "lingua barbara", "lingua prisca", but not "lingua
> romana"

Then open your eyes and re-read the quote from Tacitus ("De Vita
Iulii Agricolae"). Now you should be aware.

> or "lingua romana rustica". The "lingua romana rustica" cannot
> be by no way any reference to (Proto-)Romance.

You failed to see the point between phrases in my text or to
understand this text as you should. I said "rustica romana lingua"
is a late creation because _that_ expressions refers to vernacular
spoken in early Middle Ages (-> Proto-Romance). The idea behind
my comment is that you should not confuse the regular "romana
lingua" from Classical Latin with "rustica romana lingua" which
is Medieval Latin way to call Proto-Romance vernaculars.

> I am sorry for insisting, but this is simply just a constatation
> which I made

Which amounts to 0.0d0.

> and this could be explained trough ignorance of not having read
> in latin some text which will show the cotrary. But for sure
> Miguel or you should know better and maybe with some references
> you will show me where I have to see with my own eyes.

See the beginning phrases with your reference.

Marius Iacomi