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

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

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 06:58:25 -0700 (PDT), george
> knysh
> <gknysh@...> 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?
>
>(Miguel) Yes. Vulgar Latin and Proto-Romance are

virtually

> the same. One may
> distinguish them for a particular purpose (e.g.
> actually attested
> forms = VL, reconstructed forms = PR). The "which
> century" question
> is more difficult to answer, as is the "where"
> question. In a sense,
> the modern Romance languages started to diverge from
> spoken Latin as
> soon as Latin started to be spoken in the provinces.
> That is why
> Sardinian seems to be derived from quite a different
> stage of
> Vulgar/spoken Latin than the other languages. In
> another sense, the
> influence of spoken Latin throughout the Empire kept
> the Romances more
> or less together until such influence stopped (with
> the breakdown of
> unified administration), and even then, written
> Latin continued (and
> continues) to have a certain influence on the
> Romance languages.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

And Peter commented thus on my original query:

"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."

******GK: Indeed. I understand Miguel's clarification
entirely. I wonder why you felt the need to add the
above Peter? What does it add to Miguel's
explanation?******

>

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