From: bmscotttg
Message: 18399
Date: 2003-02-03
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, x99lynx@... wrote:
[...]
> PIOTR ALSO WROTE:
> <<Classical Latin is not the direct ancestor of Romance, so by
> comparing it with Proto-Romance we don't actually test the
> reconstruction.>>
> Piotr, do you mean Latin is not the 'immediate' ancestor of
> Romance? In all the descriptions I've seen of the development
> of Romance, it seems as if the analysis seems to be saying
> Classical Latin > Vulgar Latin > Romance.
I believe that Piotr does indeed mean 'direct'. As I understand
it, Vulgar Latin is simply the non-elite vernacular that existed
side by side with the more elite Classical language.
[...]
> PIOTR ALSO WROTE:
> <<Instead, we learn more about Latin and its internal
> differentiation. The PIE counterpart of Classical Latin may
> have never existed, for all we know.>>
> Well, this seems important. If, just for the moment, we posit
> that the PIE counterpart of Classical Latin never existed, what
> would that say about what we are reconstructing or about what
> additional explantions we might need for the existence of the IE
> languages?
I don't see that it says anything at all. We aren't reconstructing
a counterpart of Classical Latin, but rather of Vulgar Latin.
Brian M. Scott