[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- pituxalina <pituxalina@hidden.email> wrote: > > While Andrew hasn't necessarily reconstructed > > 6th > > century British Romance as a full fledged > > language, his work is based on such an > > historical speculation. > > I can just read his reconstructed british > romance. Try this one too: <http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad/kerno_texts.htm> It's not supposed to be "historically correct" like Brithenig, mind. > The thing is that > Latin was used to the total exclusion of the > romance languages between > Julius Caesar's time and Charlemagne's time > and later. Quite true. Until quite late! > There is > some evidence that the Latin written might have > been the written mode > of Proto-Italian, Proto-Spanish, > Proto-provencal, Proto-french and > other proto languages...at least up to the > early 9th century prior to > Alcuin's/Charlemagnes Latin reform. > > Still, It would be interesting to see what > Italian, Spanish, > Provencal, Friulian and other romance > proto-languages would have > sounded like between 300-800 A.D. Your best bet would be to look into books, like C.H. Grandgent's "An Introduction to Vulgar Latin"; M�ller and Taylor's "A Chrestomathy of Vulgar Latin"; Palmer's "The Latin Language". I don't have anything specific on Italian or British Romance, but you can certainly send an email to Andrew Smith and ask him what his sources for British Vulgar Latin were; because I know his conlang is intended to be a careful reconstruction of what mighta / should oughta been. Padraic. AGFAC FGAAF GAFFC FGACF --Glastein Quarters -- Ill Bethisad -- <http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad> Come visit The World! -- <http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/> .