[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Eric Christopherson wrote: > > > > > I think _all_ Romance languages are derived from VL. > > > > 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. AFAICT, "Vulgar Latin" is (erroneously or not) often used as a synonym for "Late Latin" > > 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. That's true. My source distinguishes between Vulgar Latin or Late Latin on the one hand, and East Latin or Balkan Romance on the other. 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