[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Raven Silverwings
<atlantean_ice_crystal@hidden.email> wrote:
> > Romance is descended from the Latin of the
> soldiers and other
> commoners. Latin in its role as inter-language
> of the literate did
> not diverge much - that function depended on
> its fixity.
>
> So this is why languages seem to become simpler
> in grammar?
No. They aren't simpler - just different! Latin
was inflected, Romance tends not to be. It tends
to go more for periphrasis. Like: "he dormido" in
stead of "dorm�"; "dederam Marco librum" in stead
of "hube dado el libro a Marcos".
> They
> aren't exact descendants, but they are related
> in word stock, then
> that's why they are 'daughter' descendants and
> not 'sister'
> descendants... I think...
I guess you might think on Romance languages as
nieces of Classical Latin, as both CL and Vulgar
Latin descend from a more archaic Latin. The
difference is sort of like the English found on
the street (the Vulgar) and that found in
doctoral dissertations and prayer books (the
Classical).
By the by, I think your idea for a wandering
vagabond Romance language is a great idea! Keep
us updated!
Padraic.
=====
Itenem me per enfibl�s tramper l' ystrada mezissiv qu' onte ys itenes y mew
senpazeor: agoueniont-me y h-or tedi�s, tang que la noxthes long.
-- Roberto map Gouelliame Duv, 1767-1850
--
Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>
Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>
.