Re: [tied] Re: substratum

Davius Sanctex wrote:

> [m_iacomi] One can suppose very well that a part of X speakers became
> Romanized while another part tenaciously resisted. Are there any
> linguistical or historical arguments pointing towards complete
> Romanization of X speakers and tenacious resistence
> opposed by X' speakers (> Basque)?!
> -----
>
> [davius] I think the evidence support that Roman State was not
> specially interested in any sort of "linguistical planning".

so far we know the Latin never did a policy of spreading their language.

> It was
> precisely the interest of the indigenous elites of Italy, Spain and
> Gaul the main impulse for the adoption of Latin.

I guess there is none to deny that. But too we know of indigenous
individuums becoming even cesars and not knowing Latin or badly speaking
it.

> People in rural
> areas maitained for more time the language, and was not particularly
> interested in learn Latin if this do not reported any economical
> income.

True. Even later these people did not learned Greek or Turkish or
Hungarian or what ever. The loans have been mostly made from the people
who belonged to the same social level as themselves.

> Modern states, and most recent Empires have been interested in
> "linguistical planning",

again true.

> but the simple projection of the
> "linguistical behavior" of modern states to ancient states can be
> simply misleading.

I gues this is not the only reason. The only documented languages in the
Old Europa is Latin and Greek. The case of the Roman Empire is the only
one explanation for the linguistic assumption due the fact the other
languages are not documented. Thus one assume that not being documented
we can ignore them lingusitcialy in most points, we can explain trough
Latin/Greek the linguistic aspects, and there where soemthing does not
fit, then we can remind about the unknown languages which can play the
role of the joker now.

alex