Re: [tied] Was proto-romance a pidgin?

--- Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:41:03 +0200, alex_lycos
> <altamix@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Well.... there are several scholars which admit the
> structure of
> >Romanian is not the Latin one.
>
>(MCV) Romanian is a typical Romance language. In its
> nominal morphology, it
> stands rather closer to Latin than any other modern
> Romance language,

> > >(AL)For the phonology there are rules and
> >rules.
>
> (MCV)Your inability to comprehend and apply the

rules

> does not alter the
> fact that Romanian historical phonology is quite
> straightforward.
> Only a small number of simple rules is required to
> derive the Romanian
> from the Vulgar Latin forms. The rules for Romanian
> are I'd say an
> order of magnitude less complex than the rules we
> need to derive
> Modern French from Vulgar Latin.

******GK: The point may have been made before, but I
gather that what this implies is that Proto-Romance
and Vulgar Latin (at some stage: which century?) are
one and the same?******

> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com