[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- 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