Re: kitchen

--- Carl Hult <Carl.Hult@...> wrote:

> It's me again...
>
> Elof Hellquist says:
>
> "kök, jfr fsv. kökia f., 1500-t. o. ofta
> på 1600-t.: köke n., motsv. no. kjok, da.
> kvkken, från mlty. koke, kokene = fhty.
> kachina (ty. kliché), ägs. cycene (eng.
> kitchen); från mlat. cucina (;> fra.
> cui-sine), av lat. coqulna, till coquo (se
> koka)."
>
> Etymonline.com says:
>
> "O.E. cycene, from W.Gmc. *kocina (cf. M.Du. cökene,
> O.H.G. chuhhina,
> Ger. Küche, Dan. kjøkken), probably borrowed from
> V.L. *cocina (cf.
> Fr. cuisine, Sp. cocina), variant of L. coquina
> "kitchen," from fem.
> of coquinus "of cooks," from coquus "cook," from
> coquere "to
> cook" (see cook (n.))."
>
> I want to know whether Hellquist considers medieval
> latin to be the
> same as vulgar latin or a continuation of vulgar
> latin.
>
> Carl Hult

I don't know what Helquist says but my understanding
is that Medieval Latin is essentially Classical Latin
pronounced as Italian with loanwords to make it up to
date, i.e. Church Latin.
BUT he may be talking about Late Latin, spoken after
the fall of the Roman Empire until the time when
Romance languages separated out, which I understand to
be a more or less a form that attempted to adhere to
Classical Latin but was actually strongly affected by
spoken Vulgar Latin.
It depends on when Medieval times begin --at the fall
of the Roman Empire or at the end of the Dark Ages.
But Latinists may have a standard definition all their
own.