[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Padraic Brown wrote: > > Also, here's an idea: rather than classifying > > the languages on geography or > > substrate, why don't we do it by genetic > > similarity (as is becoming common > > in*here's* romance linguistics)? > > Sounds good. > > > ARCHAIC LATIN > > > > -CLASSICAL LATIN > > We might insert "-VULGAR LATIN" rather than CL, > as none of the real Romance languages and perhaps > only a couple devised ones are derived from CL. See just under that, using "-PROTO-ROMANCE", rather than "Vulgar Latin", which can mean far too many things! My "diagram" was meant to show that Classical Latin, Proto-Romance and Proto-Sardinian are all common descendents of Archaic Latin. > > --British Romance > > Thus a full listing of the dialects would be: > > --British Romance > ----Northern Romance > -----Breathanach > ----Central Romance > -----Brithenig > ------Paysan > ------Corno le Prowence > ------Kemran New Where's that spoken? <snip> > It is somewhat discomfiting that one of the more > elderly parts of IB, Breathanach, turns out to be > still little more than a blank spot on the mental > map with a sign reading "here be dragons". :o( Dan