[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

Classically-Based RomLang?

• From: "Gregory H. Bontrager" <GregBont@hidden.email>
• Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:53:55 -0000
• Subject: Classically-Based RomLang?
• To: romconlang@yahoogroups.com

I am just now becoming aware of how distinct Vulgar Latin and 
Classical Latin probably were, and this has made me curious about 
something.  Since all Romance natlangs are based on Vulgar Latin, 
are there any Romance conlangs that are based on Classical Latin?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [romconlang] Classically-Based RomLang?
    • From: "Muke Tever" <muke@hidden.email>
  • Re: Classically-Based RomLang?
    • From: "jsjonesmiami" <jsjonesmiami@hidden.email>

• Prev by Date: Re: [romconlang] Re: Anglo-Spanish: Beginning Sketches
• Next by Date: Re: [romconlang] Classically-Based RomLang?
• Previous by thread: Re: [romconlang] Re: Anglo-Spanish: Beginning Sketches
• Next by thread: Re: [romconlang] Classically-Based RomLang?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread