From Latin to Romance (was: Thracian...)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

>> Alex, why not look at what happened in French, Spanish, Italian
>> etc. If you date your "proto-Romanian" to about 600 AD, what is
>> going on with the western Romance languages at that time?
>>
>> And guess what you discover? Charlemagne has to ban the
>> pronunciation /Santer/ (roughly like modern French) and insist
>> on /kantare/ for the "Latin" word cantare. The situation you
>> find unbelievable is close to what we see in the West.
>>
>> You know that Latin is itself constantly changing, and the Romance
>> languages derive from the spoken form, not the classical form.
>> The roots of these languages go back to some time BC - so it's
>> more time than you seem to think.
>
> I think I will be advocatus Alexi here: There are two types of
> events in the history of any Romance language:
>
> 1) a pidginisation and creolisation phase, in which an adult
> population learns the new language Latin

Some population learned (vernacular) Latin not pidgin. You got the
wrong picture. There is no difference between "wrong" Latin from
Italian inscriptions and "wrong" Latin from anywhere else, up to
the IVth century, there was just spoken Latin. See also my post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21403

> 2) a phase of continuous and regular development after that (mostly)
>
> Most accounts of Romance languages stress only type 2 developments.

Since there are no linguistical arguments to point for a type 1
phase for any Romance language.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi