[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
> 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 I can tell you, my inexperience has brought alot of speakers from whence I came here in this forum group thingy. I've learned more about languages here than in the other groups, and at school! Of course, from just learning about the differentiation of languages in India will take some memory, but if I want to be proficient at this field, I have to keep learning! > difference is sort of like the English found on > the street (the Vulgar) and that found in > doctoral dissertations and prayer books (the > Classical). Ok, ok. So the colloquial language versus 'formal' language. So Vulgar latin diverged into these dialects, while Classical remained with little change? > By the by, I think your idea for a wandering > vagabond Romance language is a great idea! Keep > us updated! Thank you! My introduction for the conlang faded away when I became mesmerised on what knowledge I lacked. It was mainly the distinct slight differentiation of the languages that poked me. But the more I learn, the more I'll be (hopefully) expertise. I will post up the phonology, but I do like some constructed critisism; I get easily swayed since I sometimes can be a slight perfectionist.