Finitoultero

Vulgar Latin

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I would love to read your project (in the original French) and discuss it with you.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• What language exactly is this project about? Vulgar Latin is defined as the proto-language of French, Sardinian, Italian, Romanian etc. - ie. Proto-Romance; Proto-Western Romance (ancestor of French, Spanish and Italian) and Proto-Gallo-Iberian Romance (ancestor of French and Spanish) are not called Vulgar Latin.

-From what I’ve found Vulgar Latin (as known as Proto-Italo-Western Romance) is defined as the protolanguage of Proto-Italo-Romance and Proto-Western Romance. The project presents two transformation stages of the declinations towards Proto-Western Romance. In the second stage many of the plural endings change from “i/is” (2nd Declination Datif - ịs) to “os/es” ((2nd Declination - os), this being a piece of evidence, among others, which separates the two daughter protolanguages of Proto-Italo-Western Romance from each other. “Latin parlé Tardif 1” et “Latin parlé Tardif II” c’est-à-dire durant le IIIe – VIIIe siècles de notre ère. Donc on peut dire que le projet ne traite pas exactement de latin vulgaire, parce qu’il n’était jamais une langue en tant que telle. Le latin vulgaire se traite des méthodes du comparatisme rétrospectif. C’est pour cela que j’ai mis au-dessous du titre, « Proto-Italo-Roman Occidental Vers Proto-Roman Occidental. » Je pourrais l’appeler, Latin parlé tardif, Latin parlé populaire, Latin parlé transitoire, Latin familier, Latin Évolutif, Latin Dialectalisé ou Latin Non Normé + vers Proto-Roman Occidental – j’avais choisi Latin Vulgaire.

• Remember that Vulgar Latin is a reconstructed language; put * before all reconstructed forms. We're not entirely sure of how Vulgar Latin was spoken; this is just our best guess.

-I will add the * thank you for that observation

• "La liste suivante est construite des adjectifs communs en espagnol. Après les avoir traduit en anglais, je les ai traduit en latin classique... cela nous donne une idée des adjectifs utilisés en latin vulgaire." I don't understand the point of this list, and the method used to create it seems rather unprofessional.

-The point of the adjective list is a simple one – this is a morphosyntactic reconstruction, therefore I felt the need to portray adjectives for the use in sentence structure and translation purposes. It also shows adjectives which may have existed during this transitory stage and how the phonetic/phonological rules applied to them. However, you are right; I should implement the use of an etymology dictionary for a more professional feel. The reason I translated them to English, is because English is not a romance language, therefore, (at the time) I felt it would give a more neutral translation i.e., one that does not favour French or Spanish. However at the end of the day they turn out to be almost the same once translated. Sp. Caro, Cara – CL. karus, kara; Fr. cher, chère – CL karus, kara; En. Expensive – CL Karus, Kara.

• http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2129-0.htm is a forum post and is not a reliable source.

• http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2444/splatin.html is a blog and not a reliable source (it says that English is a Romance language!!)

• Wikipedia is a compendium of sources, not a source itself (if it was, it would be an extremely unreliable one, since anyone can edit it)

• Filia domini tui omne nocte temptat facere librum plenum statuarum cum decem capitibus, Jacọmọs ´lẹvrọ a ´patre ´dọnat etc. - that's plagiarism

-The two sources (along with wiki) you have attested as being unreliable - thank you I will search for their references, or delete them from the project. • As for, Filia domini tui omne nocte temptat facere librum plenum statuarum cum decem capitibus, Jacọmọs ´lẹvrọ a ´patre ´dọnat being plagiarism, how is this possible if I have stated the Websites above them from which they were copied from? Should I add La site web -----, de ------ soutient que «… » (The web page---- from----- asserts, “…”?

• what are the Oaths of Strasbourg, a French text, doing here?

-The Oaths of Strasbourg, is not a French Text. It is written in a variety of Gallo-Romance showing the last stages of Vulgar Latin or the transition from Late Spoken Latin to a Romance language (Gallo-Romance). In addition, since the texts were written in 842, this coinsides perfectly with my transitory time frame; the III – VIII centuries CE.

• There's no such thing as "Written Vulgar Latin", since the language is, by definition, unattested - the Vulgate, despite its name, is definitely NOT "Written Vulgar Latin"; it's Medieval Latin, a language that was purely artificial and had no native speakers. Vulgar Latin was never written.

-Vulgar Latin was never written. I agree with you and I will reevaluate this statement, however the Vulgate was written and adapted from Classical Latin scripture for the common populous, thus indicating a major change in the language. Not to mention, it was the advent of Christianity that provoked an important revolution in sentence structure and the use of articles from the influents of Greek translations of the Bible, therefore it's reference warnants recognition.

• Filie baisáront filíi. filíi a ora contenti. (La fille baisa les garçons. Maintenant les garçons sont contents.) The girl fucked the boys, now the boys are happy? I have a feeling that's not what you meant to say.

-In Québec (where I am from) we still say ‘baiser’ to kiss.

• Probably the biggest problem is the failure to include contemporary (ie. Latin) sources on Vulgar Latin. The Romans were acutely aware that their language was changing, and wrote much about it, much of which survives.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions, I'm just naming the main problems now; I'll scrutinise the project in more detail when you've improved it (how about adding some images? that would give it some life). My primary area of expertise is the Romance languages and ancient languages of Italy (Oscan, Etruscan, Latin etc.).--Yolgnu (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to argue over semantics, but what you've been quoting isn't the Oaths of Strasbourg! Have a look at the Wiki article; what you've been quoting is a Classical Latin translation of the Oaths. How a linguistics major writing a dissertation on Vulgar Latin could think a Classical Latin text was representative of the spoken language of 9th century France - keeping in mind that French is the least conservative Romance language - is quite beyond me.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)--Yolgnu

-So that future readers know - Yolgnu has not responded to my argument on his comment left on 22 July 2008, and has chosen to be arrogant and disrespectful in his discussions (several which I have removed from here) - The following rebuttal can be found as well on Yolgnu's talk page:

I think I got ahead of myself. Before you completely discredit me, I wasn’t quoting the Classical Latin translation; I was quoting the Vulgar Latin translation of the Oaths of Strasbourg. Found here: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Strasbourg-Oaths And when you look at my section on the Oaths of Strasbourg you’ll see an oral (hence the APA characters) representation of the Oaths of Strasbourg in Latin parlé Tardif:

• Pro Dei amore e pro Christiano poblo e nostro communi salvamento, de esta die in aßante, in quanto Deos saßere e podire me donat, si salvaro

ego ecčisto meo fradro Karlo, e in adjuto ero in cata una cosa si quomodo homo per derecto suo fradre salvare deßet, in hoc que ille me altero si fačeret; e a Lothario nullo plačido nunquan prendero quo meo volle ecčisti meo fradri Karlo in damno sit.

MF	OF	CL	VL	LPT
avant	avant	abante	*ab ante	*aßante
Charles	Karlo	Karlum	*Carolum	*Karlo
frère	fradre	fratrem	*fratrem	*fradre
nul	numquam	numquam	*nunquam	*nunquan
ce	Hoc	hoc	*hoc	*hoc
sont	son	suum	*suum	*son

Please compare the orginal below, with mine from above.

Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.

When looked at in Latin Parlé Tarif, it has an astounding resemblance to the Old French version. So allow me to clarify: When I said, there are many more examples which make the Oaths of Strasbourg more like Latin parlé Tardif II than Romance, it is this comparison in which I am basing my information. Finitoultero (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I will take a look at it when I have more time. FilipeS (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)