Re: [lojban] Re: No Italy

["komfo,amonan" <komfoamonan@gmail.com>]

On 8/19/06, Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu> wrote:

Actually, neither is a dialect of the other. Italian, French,
Portugese, Spanish, and the other Romance languages are more like
siblings than dialects of eachother. In the beginning, there was
Classical Latin -- the 'proper' or 'formal' Latin of the Roman
conquerors, from which came Vernacular Latin (also called Vulgar
Latin) -- the Latin of the common people. As it mixed with the local

dying languages, it formed dialects which became less and less like
eachother over time. Spanish got a heavy dallop of Arabic mixed in,
which the others missed, from being occupied by the Moors.

Allow me to nitpick here. Before there was Classical Latin, there was Archaic Latin. Writings in Archaic Latin were not readily readable to one familiar with Classical (even during the Classical period). Spoken Archaic Latin evolved into Vulgar Latin. Classical Latin was an inentionally highly-structured, somewhat florid version of the language used for official texts, literature, and public speeches. It is thought to have arisen early in the Vulgar Latin period, say around 250 BCE. A good modern analog would be the distinction between Modern Standard Arabic, a kind of formalized, Qur'an-based language used in official contexts across the Arab world; and Vernacular Arabic, which varies widely from country to country and from the standard. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan