[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Peter Collier <petecollier@hidden.email> wrote: > > --- "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), Muller's "Chrestomathy of VL" has a little glossary at the back. Souter's "Glossary of Later Latin" (Oxford) might come in handy, as it is pretty large. There's no Engl-Latin, so you kind of have to knoew what it is you're looking for before you really know what you're looking for. On the other hand, it has lots of neat surprises in it, like for example, hendecachordus, something that has eleven strings. Perhaps a kind of zither of harp? Grandgent did a nice grammar of VL, but unfortunately there's no glossary. Speaking of which, if anyone is interested, I have an extra (photocopy) of Grandgent for the asking. Just drop me a line! > > > 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. :) Problem there, as I understand it, is that VL isn't a descendant of CL. From what I recall, both are daughters of Old Latin, the latter simply becoming the "refined and literary" form, sort of frozen in time, while the latter continued to develop normally. Padraic > > -- > > 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 > > -- qua-trevi, quafiri londinno muntu ogronu. Of plants, for Man's health mint is best! [Mentolatian phrase] -- Ill Bethisad -- <http://www.bethisad.com> Come visit The World! -- <http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/> .