Greek and Spanish comparison

"Parce que l'espagnol ne vient pas du latin"
Exactly! Most of the population in the Iberian peninsula did not speak Latin under the romans although eventually the language become a mixture that included latin. Latin was spoken by the elite that had to control the territory for the romans. Of course that varies with the areas, for example the Basques were never romanized.

OïL :<<<Les prétendues langues romanes descendent d'un langage jamais écrit, improprement nommé 'latin vulgaire', qui était en fait une sorte de proto-italien vaguement apparenté au latin. >>>

So you mean that the Romance languages stem from "Proto-Italian" (tautologic!) or "vulgar Latin" (was it Latin or not?), which was different from written Latin. You will admit that this is an assumption, a hypothesis and unproven theory.
1) I think it's suspicious that not one single coherent written "vulgar Latin" text or graffiti has ever been discovered. So many documents, signs etc. have survived all over the world, Romans were massively literate, many could write and read, the production and reproduction of texts was important - but always in Latin, even on tomb stones, never in hypothetic "vulgar Latin"
2) Any language has a written "elegant" form and a spoken "vulgar" version. This is very common. But the difference between these two versions is never so big that the complete grammar and structure of the written language is so different from the spoken "vulgar" version that it is mutually unintelligible

Josh Lalonde
<<<People didn't stop speaking Latin one day and start speaking Spanish, so there are no steps "in between" PIE and Spanish.>>>

There were at least three steps or discontinuities that make Spanish different from Greek: Spain was first a PIE Ibero-Celtic country, which was invaded by the Latin speaking Roman army and subsequently by the East-Germanic speaking Gothic army and finally by the Arabic speaking Sarazens. Add all the Basque and Jewish influences and you will admitt that Spain has been historically and thereby linguistically a big melting pot. Perhaps this is the reason why Spanish has become the most simplified of all Romance languages, which all underwent more or less the same operation. For France and Italy there was no Sarazen or Hunnic domination thanks to the sometimes joined Roman and Germanic armies, but by this a much stronger Germanic influence, especially in France and northern Italy.

"Spain was first a PIE Ibero-Celtic country, which was invaded by the Latin speaking Roman army and subsequently by the East-Germanic speaking Gothic army and finally by the Arabic speaking Sarazens."

Generally speaking this is fine, although is somehow an oversimplification.

The Visigoths were already "latinized" when they invaded Spain in 411 so they already spoke some sort of romance language.

The Northwest and Northern Portugal were invaded by the Suebians (coming from the Baltic) and apparently they were not as 'latinized" as the Visigoths. Maybe, just maybe, this explains why Galician-Portuguese developed along different lines than Castilian.

The Arabs did not conquer the whole Spain and the languages developed in the North free from the Arab conquerors. Eventually these languages (Galician - Portuguese, Castilian and Catalan) were brought North to South with the reconquest. So the Arabs left plenty of words in the Spanish languages (and brought the Greek civilization with them) but did not influence the languages themselves.

Jewish influence in the Spanish languages is probably very small. Yes there were Hebrew/Arab/Christian academic studies in Toledo but I doubt that there is any Jewish influence in the Spanish languages.

Most of the Spanish population ended up speaking Latin under the Roman rule, not to say the South of Spain which was heavily Romanized even before the Romans arrived (they probably learned Latin through commercial exchanges with the Romans). The fact that no prerroman languages survived ( excepting Basque) proves this. It is true that the Latin which these people learnt was not the Classical Latin (only the elites had knowledge of it), but the Latin spoken by the Roman soldiers AND many settlers which arrived to the rich valleys of the south. Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin were not so different . It is important to note that nobody spoke Classic Latin, it was only a type of Latin intended for literary purposes On the other hand I don't understand what are those "discontinuities" of Latin in Spain , since Latin and the derived romance languages were always spoken in Spain from Roman times to nowadays. A discontinuity implies that one language dissapears and later it is introduced again, but the Spanish language was born in the northernmost part of Spain . In those areas Latin was always spoken since it was introduced by the Romans, and no invasion stopped that at any point of the Spanish history. Even Greece was she all under the rule of the Otoman Empire and Greek kept on being spoken, while Northern Spain remained always quite independent both from the Gothic kings and the Muslim Caliphate. In those circumstances Spanish was born, and as long as the Chirstian Kingdomns of the North reconquered the South to the Sarracens, many words of Arab or Jew origin were added. It is funny to state that the Gothic invasion supposed a disruption in the evolution of the Latin spoken in Spain, since the the Visigoths were the most latinized German tribe and they no longer spoke Gothic when they arrived to Spain.. Spanish has more words from Prehispanic American languages than from Gothic.

"Spanish has more words from Prehispanic American languages than from Gothic."
True but silly statement because it depends on the century you are talking about and the area of the world. Apart from patata and few other words I don´t many Prehipanic American words being used in the Spanish town where I live.

"Most of the Spanish population ended up speaking Latin under the Roman rule... The fact that no prerroman languages survived ( excepting Basque) proves this"

This is a very risky statement, please provide some sources of such a general and strong statement. "The fact that no prerroman languages survived" is an incomplete statement. Do you mean today? Without a time attached to this sentence this is again silly.

The point some people are making here - and I agree - is that Castilian, Catalan and Galician are a mix of several languages not just Latin. All those pre-roman languages just turn into the languages of this peninsula not just Latin.

Even English is not a mixture of Latin,French and AngloSaxon, how come Spanish is ,on the other hand, a creole of several languages when it preserves better its vocabulary of Latin root? Languages don't change their DNA so easily! They just pick up some words of different origin here and there, but the core remains unaltered.

Spaniard
<<<Visigoths were the most latinized German tribe and they no longer spoke Gothic when they arrived to Spain>>>

Perhaps Visgoths spoke the often cited but hypothetical "vulgar Latin" as being a very simplified version creole of Latin easy to be learned by Germanic Goths? On the other hand, ther is plenty of Germanic vocabulary in Spanish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spanish_words_of_Germanic_origin

Adolfo
<<<Even English is not a mixture of Latin,French and AngloSaxon, how come Spanish is ,on the other hand, a creole of several languages when it preserves better its vocabulary of Latin root? Languages don't change their DNA so easily! They just pick up some words of different origin here and there, but the core remains unaltered. >>>

How can the core DNA of Spanish be Caesar's Latin if the grammar and syntax, morphology and pronunciation are so completely different?

What's wrong with the term "saracens", Josh? Is it politically incorrect in Canada? I don't mean that with sarcasm at all.

Y vinieron los sarracenos
y nos molieron a palos.
Que Dios protege a los malos
cuando son más que los buenos.

Esto era cuando nos(a los españoles) 'daban de palos' en aquellos remotos tiempos. Bueno , y ahora también.

No hay nada de malo en decirlo, hombre.
BTW: In spain we never say it. Ya no se usa.

De que estan hablando preguntome yo??

Creo que están comparando Greek y Spanish pero no estoy muy seguro.
Esperemos a ver que dice Franco.

"I don't think it's a Canadian thing, but it brings up images of the Crusades, the Reconquista, East vs. West"

The reconquista is the best thing ever happened to Spain and to Europe. Moors do NOT belong in Europe. If Europe enjoys religious freedom it's because Spain stopped the Moors and send them back to Northern Africa.

Josh you are truly stupid. Can you imagine how Europe and even Canada would look like today with the Muslims in charge? I don't thing you do. You own part of your freedom to SPAIN and the RECONQUISTA.

Let's be tolerant but let's not be STUPID.

Josh is a sensible and prudent man. But it is better to speak about the difference between Romance languages and Latin. I think that is more interesting.

Which is the theory about the enormous differences between Spanish, French, Italian and Latin? The reason was a different Vulgar Latin in each country?

Some Guest:
"So you mean that the Romance languages stem from "Proto-Italian" (tautologic!) or "vulgar Latin" (was it Latin or not?), which was different from written Latin. You will admit that this is an assumption, a hypothesis and unproven theory.
I think it's suspicious that not one single coherent written "vulgar Latin" text or graffiti has ever been discovered. So many documents, signs etc. have survived all over the world, Romans were massively literate, many could write and read, the production and reproduction of texts was important - but always in Latin, even on tomb stones, never in hypothetic "vulgar Latin"

— Oui, mais comment se peut-il que le latin soit si vite mort, malgré le support de l'admistration impériale romaine puis celui de l'Eglise romaine? Alors que le grec, qui n'avait pas ces avantages, est resté la même langue?

Ma thèse est que:
— Le latin, dès l'époque de César, était déjà seulement un code écrit et cérémoniel ("mandarinal", en quelque sorte), alors que la langue parlée était absolument différente.
— On prétend que des mots germaniques (comme <guerre>/<guerra>/<war>) sont entrés dans les langues romanes après la chute de l'empire romain. Mais on les trouve dans TOUS les dialectes italiens et ibériques, même là où les Germains ne sont jamais passés! Conclusion: ces mots faisaient partie depuis déjà des siècles de la langue parlée dans tout l'Empire.
— Certains faits morphologiques étrangers au latin (par ex. la formation du futur des verbes) se trouvent dans toutes les langues romanes. Convergence inexplicable! Si ces langues s'étaient formées seulement après la chute de l'Empire, elle auraient divergé dans toutes les directions.
— L'italien de Dante Alighieri (13e siècle) est déjà celui du 21e. Mais entre le 5e et le 12e siècle, le latin se serait transformé au point de donner naissance à une langue complètement distincte? malgré le soutien de l'Eglise? Impossible!