From: Eric Christopherson (rakko@charter.net)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 15:33:45 EST
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- Christophe Grandsire
> <christophe.grandsire@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > > I think _all_ Romance languages are derived from
> > > VL.
> > > But VL itself evolved over time and in different
> > > places, so the VL that gave rise to Spanish and
> > > Sard
> > > would necessarily be different.
> > >
> >
> > I've read that Sardinian separated from Common Latin
> > around the 2nd century BC.
> > Wouldn't that be a bit too early to talk about
> > Vulgar Latin?
>
> As I understand it, VL is simply the spoken Latin as
> opposed to the literary standard we study in school.
> Regardless of time or place: I suppose one could
> differentiate 1st century British VL from 1st century
> AC southern Gaulish VL.
Same as my understanding. VL existed all throughout Latin's existence,
even before CL existed.
>
> By definition, all Romance languages would be
> descended from some kind of VL, whether that's the VL
> of the ii century AC or the i century AD.
Curious -- what does "AC" stand for?
> As for Romanian and Dalmatian not deriving from VL (as
> previously mentioned), I'd not heard that. I'm not
> sure what else they'd come from, though if not some
> spoken form of Latin.
It sounds like kind of an arbitrary issue of terminology to me.
-- Furrfu! r a k k o at c h a r t e r dot n e t
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:45 EST