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

P&G wrote:

>> ******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?******
>
> The phrase "vulgar Latin" is often used loosely, to mean
> "proto-Romance" But don't confuse that use with its more precise use,
> where it must be distinguished from proto-Romance. It is quite clear
> what Miguel meant here
>
> Peter

Indeed? What whould suggerate here with "a more precise use?"
I just think at the "lingua prisca", and the Latin spoked in Italia
until II century BC.
This was too vulgar Latin. And we cannot speak about a "Proto-Romance"
here. It would imply there has been a Proto-Romance in the time when
Odrysian State was still alive and dancing:)))

Alex