In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:
>>> Except that, in this case, I think there is a lot in a name!
>>
>> The same holds for Romanian and Rheto-Romance. I fail to see any
>> peculiar implication of language label with respect to a supposed
>> special connection with Latin.
>
> I don't think we have any disagreement here. The implications are
> more to do with ethnicity than linguistics.
>
> Are there any good explanations of why the adverb for language
> self-designation switched from 'Latine' to 'Romanice'?
"Romanice loqui" is a Medieval Latin expression, thus not belonging
to vernacular. OTOH, in Classical Latin one has already "Romana
lingua" and "lingua Romana" meaning `Latin (language)`, used along
with "Latine". There was probably no "switch" between designations
of the spoken tongue; probably, adoption of Romance tongue names
derived from "Ro:ma:nus" by ancestors of Romanians, Rheto-Romance
and Dalmatians (according to Constantine Porphyrogenetus) has to
do with granting of Roman citizenship during Caracalla's reign:
people elsewhere in the empire linked themselves merely with Rome
than with Latin language, they were speaking "as Romans do" (of
course, I'm referring to those which spoke their Latin).
Regards,
Marius Iacomi