[tied] Re: Cicero , barbarian

From: Amedeo Amendola
Message: 16236
Date: 2002-10-14

Basically, barbari = foreigners.
If you check my translations of your Cicero, Quintilian, etc., you
get the idea that barbarisms were improprieties in the use of Latin;
hence such people (though citizens of Rome, not foreigners) would be
called barbarians. (So, Barbar becomes Uncouth.)

--- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mrcaws" <MrCaws@...>
> To: <cybalist@...>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:46 AM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Cicero , barbarian
> > The Romans may have consulted "barbaric" neighbors for
> divination
> > because they practiced a similar religion to what the Romans
> used to
> > before they became more urbanized and removed from older
> religious
> > practices. As for consulting Etruscans, the Romans definetly
> > borrowed/shared a lot of religious practices with the
> Etruscans.
> > Also, the Etruscans were noted for their skill at divination
> long
> > after the collapse of their political power in the region.
> [Moeller]
> I am very afraid to say out what I think. I think the so
> called "barbarian languages" were the languages used by the
> folks inside of roman empire, folks which was not latin. And
> the actualy neo latin languages like spanish, french,
> portugal, italian, romanian are in fact these "barbarian
> languageas".
> They change a letter, put a verb somewhere else, pronounce bad
> a latin word , etc.In fact all features described in the given
> texts.
> And we remember the greek got a lot of their Gods from
> thracians, the roman took it too. Somewhere it seems the link
> is working.
> If we take a look at Europa, beside the small exceptions we
> know, there are 3 big families. Germanic, slavic and latin.
> If folks of germanic and slavic family are to be seen as
> geneticaly close the folks from latin family are to be
> explained after today explanations just as language-related,
> their only common point beiing the roman empire and the
> borrowing of the latin language, "destroyng" of the latin
> language and making of new languages from it.. Is that indeed
> true?
> Or we have to think ( there are many ancient indices which
> speak about) these so called " neo latin" folks are trough
> something else related to each other, something older as the
> roman empire?And if we can find out the latin folks are
> geneticaly related to each other as the folks of germanic and
> the slavic families, then we have a very best explanation of
> so called " latinisation" of this very big areal.And the
> romanist linguists who dealed with the latinisation did not a
> mistake in fallowing the path, but they did a mistake in
> establishing the point zero. The common point beeing not after
> roman empire, but before of this.
> The pre roman world shows toponyms and hydronims which have
> cognates in all this region of south Europe from east to west
> and that cannot be from such different people who , later,
> trough roman empire , became related to each other..And here
> we can be helped by the greek documents before rise of the
> roman empire and too, by the old egyptian texts.
> regards