[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote: > --- Christophe Grandsire > <christophe.grandsire@hidden.email> 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