[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@hidden.email> wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 12:18 AM, Scotto Hlad > <scott.hlad@hidden.email> wrote: > > Given that there are no Vulgar Latin dictionaries > (that I am aware of anyway), > > I'd like to know how others have obtained all of > their vocabulary. > > There are scattered bits of VL lexica, but clearly > what we need is a > proto-GMP to get from CL to VL. Then romlangs can > be derived in a > completely automatic fashion. :) > -- > Mark J. Reed <markjreed@hidden.email> I've been working on one such GMP recently. Its not *fully* comprehensive, there are a few places where I've had to generalise, and it's occasionally skewed towards a Gallo-Rom/Old North French direction, but it's a start! If you want a copy, I'll be happy to post it here or send it to you off group. Maybe if everybody has a look, we can all make changes and come up with a consensus model - I'm sure I have quite a few mistakes/omissions/over generalisations. The downside of course is the GMP only covers the phonology, it doesn't really tell you about the changed morphology that arose from it (although if you worked all the sound changes through, you'd at least know where some changes would need to be). There were also a lot of CL/VL lexical differences, EQUUS/CABALLU and IGNIS/FOCU being two oft cited examples, and no GMP is going to show that. You'd need to contrast the existing Romance languages to sort that out. Pete