[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- On Tue, 10/18/11, Adam Walker <carraxan@hidden.email> wrote: > And if you were using only the modern > Romlangs, even French would be of no > help. Well, Romanian would throw a wrench in the works. It still has some case distinctions. It would also cause some upset with its suffixed articles and neuter gender. Padraic > Adam > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@hidden.email> > wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > There has been some discussion of this over on Conlang > of late. It is > > indeed VL that is reconstructed, or something quite > close to it. I don't > > see how one could pull full blown Ciceronean CL out of > caseless Romance > > languages. > > > > The reconstructionist would know, with reasonable > certainty, that Latin > > should have cases, but I don't think he could get all > the declensions > > and cases from just the Romanian and OFr evidence. > Though I could be > > wrong there. > > > > Padraic > > > > --- On Tue, 10/18/11, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@hidden.email> > wrote: > > > > > From: Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@hidden.email> > > > Subject: Re: [romconlang] Reconstructed Latin > > > To: romconlang@yahoogroups.com > > > Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 6:18 PM > > > > > On 18 Oct 2011, at 14:27 , thomasruhm > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I heard about Latin could be reconstructed > from > > > romance languages. I only knew about > reconstructed late > > > Vulgar Latin, which already had a very reduced > case system. > > > > Would a reconstruction come close to > documented > > > Latin? > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking about Hall's reconstructed > > > Proto-Romance? It comes "reassuringly > close" to Latin > > > -- though perhaps a late, Vulgar Latin. For > example, > > > Hall was able to determine Latin had contrasting > vowel sets, > > > though could not determine that the contrasting > feature was > > > length (though, of course, we know that from > records of > > > classical Latin). I think reconstructing > something > > > exactly like written classical Latin as it is > preserved > > > would be quite unlikely; after all, written > classical Latin > > > as it is preserved represents only part of what > was a more > > > complicated linguistic environment. Likewise, a > > > reconstruction from later Romance can only > represent a > > > portion of what was originally a more complicated > linguistic > > > environment. In the case of Latin, we are > lucky to be > > > able to do both (i.e. see preserved written > Latin, and > > > reconstruct from a range of daughter languages), > but in any > > > event we are of necessity approximating. We > can > > > postulate with some confidence that there were > features of > > > "Roman Latin" that were neither recorded at the > time nor > > > reflected in later Romance. Likewise, our records > of later > > > Romance are necessarily partial, and we cannot > know what > > > what features might have been preserved (or > innovated) in > > > some variety of Romance that disappeared without > > > trace. So how could we hope to construct a > > > doppelgänger for written classical Latin as it > is > > > preserved? That's an "unrealistic" or > partial thing in > > > any case … > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Carl > > > > > > -- > > > Carl Edlund Anderson > > > http://www.carlaz.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > > romconlang-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > romconlang-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > romconlang-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > romconlang-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > >