From: Jan van Steenbergen (ijzeren_jan@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 01:50:09 EST
--- James Campbell skrzypszy:
> I heard recently (on TV I think) that Sardinian is considered 'closest to'
> Vulgar Latin. Can you tell me if that statement was right?
I have heard this opinion, too. I don't know much about Sardinian; all I can
tell you is that Sardinian is a very archaic language that split off from Latin
in a relatively early stage (1st century?). Undoubtedly others can give you
more useful information.
> I once met an old chap who would read Romanian publications. He said he
> could easily understand it because it was so similar to the VL he'd learnt
> (for religious reasons, liturgies or something, I don't recall).
Well, I'm not an expert on Romanian either, but based on what I have seen and
heard from Romanian, I don't think that can be true. Romanian is definitely the
least "Romance" from all Romance languages. It spent many centuries under
foreign domination, and both Romanian grammar and vocabulary have been
thoroughly influenced by Slavic, Greek, and Turkish.
But again, I'm not an expert, and I'm sure others can give you more valuable
information.
> Is this making any sort of sense?
Of course. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, this is your first message to this group.
Welcome, James!
Jan
=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:46 EST