I just wanted to know when latin end in Spain and in Italy.
Thanks!:)
Thanks!:)
The end of Latin
Sorry, does anyone know the time periods that ppl stop speaking latin in Spain, Italy, France, or any where eles for that matter?
I think he means - when did it become Italian, Spanish, etc and no longer jsut another dialect of Latin (or Vulgar Latin in this case)
hay.....how'd you know I'm dude? Any way your right that is what I meant Tiff,thanks, but Brrennus did answer the quistion. But is any one awear of how the process accord? It just sames strang that ppl who have been speaking the langauge since the begenning of their civilization, lets it change like they did.
Brennus : je pense que les dates que tu proposes sont trop précoces. La phase charnière entre orolatin tardif et ororoman archaïque (ou encore oroprotoroman) se situe entre les VIIe & IXe siècles. Dans cette période, la métamorphose semble la plus rapide et la plus profonde entre 650 et 750.
Mais bien sûr le sujet est toujours (très vivement) controversé. Certains pensent que l'orolatinité a disparu dès le IVe s. et d'autre sont d'avis que l'ororomanité ne saurait commencer avant le IXe s.
Mais quand tu affirmes que « la plupart des romanistes pensent cependant que le protoroman (une forme d'orolatin mêlé de celtique continental et de germanique) était déjà bien formé au cours du Ve s. », là je suis pas d'accord du tout. Ce n'est pas l'avis de la majorité des romanistes, en tout cas pas à ma connaissance.
Certains pensent que la communication verticale d'un message religieux en orolatin lu à un public d'illettrés est devenue impossible à partir des intervalles suivants pour les espaces romanophones énumérés ci-dessous :
Oïl & Afrique archaïques : 750—800
Oc archaïque : 800—850
Arpitanie archaïque : entre Oïl et Oc archaïques
Espagne mozarabe archaïque : 850—900
Padanie et Italie centrale archaïques : 900-950.
Mais bien sûr le sujet est toujours (très vivement) controversé. Certains pensent que l'orolatinité a disparu dès le IVe s. et d'autre sont d'avis que l'ororomanité ne saurait commencer avant le IXe s.
Mais quand tu affirmes que « la plupart des romanistes pensent cependant que le protoroman (une forme d'orolatin mêlé de celtique continental et de germanique) était déjà bien formé au cours du Ve s. », là je suis pas d'accord du tout. Ce n'est pas l'avis de la majorité des romanistes, en tout cas pas à ma connaissance.
Certains pensent que la communication verticale d'un message religieux en orolatin lu à un public d'illettrés est devenue impossible à partir des intervalles suivants pour les espaces romanophones énumérés ci-dessous :
Oïl & Afrique archaïques : 750—800
Oc archaïque : 800—850
Arpitanie archaïque : entre Oïl et Oc archaïques
Espagne mozarabe archaïque : 850—900
Padanie et Italie centrale archaïques : 900-950.
ADDENDUM : Certains pensent que la communication verticale d'un message religieux en orolatin *TARDIF* lu à un public d'illettrés est devenue impossible (...).
Brennus : je préfère me référer à des sources francophones, italophones ou hispanophones. Mais merci du tuyau : je verrai si je trouve le bouquin.
Brennus:
[It broke up into distinct Spanish, French and Italian languages about a century later.]
In the six century, in which region of Spain did the spanish languuage
broke up?
[It broke up into distinct Spanish, French and Italian languages about a century later.]
In the six century, in which region of Spain did the spanish languuage
broke up?
Brennus:
[The Vulgar Latin of Spain was probably breaking up into separate Galcian-Portuguese, Asturian-Castilian, Tarragonian (Aragonese & Catalan), and Andalusian varieties even before the fall of the Roman Empire.]
Thank you for the good explanation. I got confused but now I understand that it is not the region of Spain you are talking about, you are talking of Hispania. I never translate Hispania as Spain because it gets very confusing. Don't you think that, even during the Roman rule of Hispania, the native people never spoke the same variety of Latin but each people with its native language, that constituted a substratum, gave its own characteristics to the language and created their local version of Latin? There were must have been many hispanic Latin varieties at that time, so there was never a real breaking up.
"To substitute Spanish for Iberian or for Hispanicus is anachronistic and misleading, since Iberia and Hispania refer not just to modern Spain but to the whole peninsula; Hispania can also rarely include the western part of Roman Mauretania in what is now Morocco and the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla" source Wikipedia
[The Vulgar Latin of Spain was probably breaking up into separate Galcian-Portuguese, Asturian-Castilian, Tarragonian (Aragonese & Catalan), and Andalusian varieties even before the fall of the Roman Empire.]
Thank you for the good explanation. I got confused but now I understand that it is not the region of Spain you are talking about, you are talking of Hispania. I never translate Hispania as Spain because it gets very confusing. Don't you think that, even during the Roman rule of Hispania, the native people never spoke the same variety of Latin but each people with its native language, that constituted a substratum, gave its own characteristics to the language and created their local version of Latin? There were must have been many hispanic Latin varieties at that time, so there was never a real breaking up.
"To substitute Spanish for Iberian or for Hispanicus is anachronistic and misleading, since Iberia and Hispania refer not just to modern Spain but to the whole peninsula; Hispania can also rarely include the western part of Roman Mauretania in what is now Morocco and the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla" source Wikipedia
I)talian language definitely broke from vulgar latin into 900 A.D, the veronese riddel is a testimoniance of that, but in itali C.Latin was the official language of culture and litterate till 1600
It really is hard to tell because latin remained the language of the elite and the language of books and other important texts, well over a thousand years after the fall of Rome. The common language could have continued to be called Vulgar Latin or Archaic Spanish (or French, Italian, etc.) until even as late as the 1000s, since there is no real line dividing the two. Since the languages were not regulated until somewhat recently (in the grand scheme of things), there's no real way to know for sure, its really anybody's guess within the timeline. Perhaps you should read some archaic spanish/italian/french texts and see when you stop understanding them, or when they seem more like latin than spanish.
JR : « there is no real line dividing the two »
Le Serment de Strasbourg (842) et la Cantilène de sainte Eulalie (~ 878) sont clairement du scriptofrançais archaïque et pas du scriptolatin tardif.
Le Serment de Strasbourg (842) et la Cantilène de sainte Eulalie (~ 878) sont clairement du scriptofrançais archaïque et pas du scriptolatin tardif.
JR :
[The common language could have continued to be called Vulgar Latin or Archaic Spanish (or French, Italian, etc.) until even as late as the 1000s, since there is no real line dividing the two.]
Hugh? Common language called Archaic Spanish? Isn’t archaic Spanish old Castilian? If Spanish is the name of the Castilian language and not of the other Iberian languages it can not be the name of a common language.
It says every where that a Castilian dialect appeared in the 9th century. You can not get anything older than this when you refer to Castilian or Spanish.
In 711 there was the Moor's invasion, the “common language” changed. The Moors used vulgar Latin?
Why so much confusion?
[The common language could have continued to be called Vulgar Latin or Archaic Spanish (or French, Italian, etc.) until even as late as the 1000s, since there is no real line dividing the two.]
Hugh? Common language called Archaic Spanish? Isn’t archaic Spanish old Castilian? If Spanish is the name of the Castilian language and not of the other Iberian languages it can not be the name of a common language.
It says every where that a Castilian dialect appeared in the 9th century. You can not get anything older than this when you refer to Castilian or Spanish.
In 711 there was the Moor's invasion, the “common language” changed. The Moors used vulgar Latin?
Why so much confusion?