So you still believe in a massively bilingual population in late antiquity? And since proto-Romance was a real language and not a vernacular or dialect, masses must have been really bilingual according to your hypothesis. But ok, everything is possible....
Yves Cortez
Tout d'abord l'adjectif substantivé <vernaculaire>, en linguistique et en français, est un raccourci pour <langue vernaculaire>. Donc un vernaculaire est une langue : il n'y a aucune opposition entre ces deux termes. De la même façon, opposer <langue> à <dialecte> n'a aucun sens linguistique. Non pas qu'une langue L ne puisse admettre des variantes géographiques G1, G2 etc, ou sociales S1, S2 etc ; mais les systèmes de signes linguistiques utilisés par les locuteurs de G1, G2, (...), S1, S2, (...) ont ceci en commun qu'ils sont doublement articulés (monèmes et phonèmes).
D'autre part le bilinguisme grécolatin des élites romaines (alphabétisées) est un fait établi depuis longtemps. C'est d'ailleurs un phénomène d'une extraordinaire complexité qui a été longuement étudié, et ce d'autant plus "facilement" que le grec et le latin étaient aussi deux scriptolangues avec rang officiel, enrichies d'une littérature abondante.
L'hypothèse de Cortez est qu'au bilinguisme grécolatin des élites alphabétisées répondait un bilinguisme romanolatin des masses populaires, largement illettrées. Si cette hypothèse devait se vérifier, ce ne sera pas par l'étude de la production littéraire romane antique car le roman n'était pas une scriptolangue : le roman n'était qu'ororoman.
latin : orolatin ↔ scriptolatin
grec : orogrec ↔ scriptogrec
roman : ororoman ↔ scriptolatin + scriptogrec (pas de scriptoroman)
Pour reprendre l'exemple de l'Algérie actuelle cité par Cortez :
arabe classique : arabe classique parlé ↔ arabe classique écrit
français : orofrançais ↔ scriptofrançais
arabe vernaculaire : arabe vernaculaire parlé ↔ arabe classique écrit + scriptofrançais
berbère : oroberbère ↔ scriptoberbère + arabe classique écrit + scriptofrançais
La conjecture d'un bilinguisme romanolatin chez la plèbe antique n'est pas si difficile à concevoir dans la mesure où même dans les couches populaires immigrées à Rome on trouve des hellénophones maternels sachant parler latin (esclaves, marchands...). Si on suit Cortez, on peut se demander si ces hellénophones ne parlaient pas également roman par nécessité.
D'autre part le bilinguisme grécolatin des élites romaines (alphabétisées) est un fait établi depuis longtemps. C'est d'ailleurs un phénomène d'une extraordinaire complexité qui a été longuement étudié, et ce d'autant plus "facilement" que le grec et le latin étaient aussi deux scriptolangues avec rang officiel, enrichies d'une littérature abondante.
L'hypothèse de Cortez est qu'au bilinguisme grécolatin des élites alphabétisées répondait un bilinguisme romanolatin des masses populaires, largement illettrées. Si cette hypothèse devait se vérifier, ce ne sera pas par l'étude de la production littéraire romane antique car le roman n'était pas une scriptolangue : le roman n'était qu'ororoman.
latin : orolatin ↔ scriptolatin
grec : orogrec ↔ scriptogrec
roman : ororoman ↔ scriptolatin + scriptogrec (pas de scriptoroman)
Pour reprendre l'exemple de l'Algérie actuelle cité par Cortez :
arabe classique : arabe classique parlé ↔ arabe classique écrit
français : orofrançais ↔ scriptofrançais
arabe vernaculaire : arabe vernaculaire parlé ↔ arabe classique écrit + scriptofrançais
berbère : oroberbère ↔ scriptoberbère + arabe classique écrit + scriptofrançais
La conjecture d'un bilinguisme romanolatin chez la plèbe antique n'est pas si difficile à concevoir dans la mesure où même dans les couches populaires immigrées à Rome on trouve des hellénophones maternels sachant parler latin (esclaves, marchands...). Si on suit Cortez, on peut se demander si ces hellénophones ne parlaient pas également roman par nécessité.
In his blog http://yvescortez.canalblog.com/ Mr. Cortez analyses the Indovinello veronese.
This Veronese Riddle is a riddle, apparently half-Italian, half-Latin, written on the margin of a parchment, probably in the early 9th century, by a Catholic monk from Verona, a city in the Veneto region, in Northern Italy. Actually, it was a very popular riddle in the Middle Ages and has survived into dialects to date. Discovered by Schiapparelli in 1924 it was considered for a long time the first document ever written in the Italian language.
The original lines are:
Se pareba boves
alba pratalia araba
albo versorio teneba
negro semen seminaba
which translate more or less like this:
In front of him (he) led oxen
White fields (he) plowed
A white plow (he) held
A black seed (he) sowed
The big question until today is: is it already Romance Italian or still Latin.
Yves Cortes´suggestion is the following:
"Ma proposition
Je considère que le texte de l’Indovinello Veronese a été écrit par une personne qui a essayé d’écrire en latin, et qui a réussi sur le plan du vocabulaire pour l’essentiel, mais qui, par contre, a fait de grosses fautes de grammaire."
which translate more or less like this:
"My proposal
I believe that the text of the Indovinello Veronese was written by someone who has tried to write in Latin, which has succeeded in terms of vocabulary for the most part, but which, by contrast, has made big mistakes in grammar."
This conclusion fits 100% to the theory that Romance was created in a process of Creolization by the mixed Germanic-Roman population during the migration period. The Germanic invaders had learned Latin as a second language and everybody knows how difficult it is to learn Latin as a foreign language. The writer of the Indovinello Veronese was simply not a native speaker and by this a typical representant of the population in Northern Italy of the 9th century.
This Veronese Riddle is a riddle, apparently half-Italian, half-Latin, written on the margin of a parchment, probably in the early 9th century, by a Catholic monk from Verona, a city in the Veneto region, in Northern Italy. Actually, it was a very popular riddle in the Middle Ages and has survived into dialects to date. Discovered by Schiapparelli in 1924 it was considered for a long time the first document ever written in the Italian language.
The original lines are:
Se pareba boves
alba pratalia araba
albo versorio teneba
negro semen seminaba
which translate more or less like this:
In front of him (he) led oxen
White fields (he) plowed
A white plow (he) held
A black seed (he) sowed
The big question until today is: is it already Romance Italian or still Latin.
Yves Cortes´suggestion is the following:
"Ma proposition
Je considère que le texte de l’Indovinello Veronese a été écrit par une personne qui a essayé d’écrire en latin, et qui a réussi sur le plan du vocabulaire pour l’essentiel, mais qui, par contre, a fait de grosses fautes de grammaire."
which translate more or less like this:
"My proposal
I believe that the text of the Indovinello Veronese was written by someone who has tried to write in Latin, which has succeeded in terms of vocabulary for the most part, but which, by contrast, has made big mistakes in grammar."
This conclusion fits 100% to the theory that Romance was created in a process of Creolization by the mixed Germanic-Roman population during the migration period. The Germanic invaders had learned Latin as a second language and everybody knows how difficult it is to learn Latin as a foreign language. The writer of the Indovinello Veronese was simply not a native speaker and by this a typical representant of the population in Northern Italy of the 9th century.
Y.Cortez: "Je considère que le texte de l’Indovinello Veronese a été écrit par une personne qui a essayé d’écrire en latin, et qui a réussi sur le plan du vocabulaire pour l’essentiel, mais qui, par contre, a fait de grosses fautes de grammaire."
-- Correct. The same can be said of the "Cartularios de Valpuesta" which, rather than a testimony of early Spanish, sounds like a clumsy attempt to compose a Latin text. (An example: "et omnes que sunt nominatos de Elzeto, senites et iubines, viriis atque feminis, posuimus inter nos fuero que nos fratres poniamus custodiero de Sancta Maria de Valle Conpossita...")
<<This conclusion fits 100% to the theory that Romance was created in a process of Creolization by the mixed Germanic-Roman population during the migration period. The Germanic invaders had learned Latin as a second language and everybody knows how difficult it is to learn Latin as a foreign language.>>
-- Preposterous. This would make sense only if the Germanic part of the population was overwhelmingly predominant and consequently able to impose its own creolized version of Latin.
And this doesn't explain why Romance languages with largely similar grammatical structures emerge at the same time whatever the Germanic input in the population: low (Northern Italy), extremely low (Spain), absent (Southern Italy, see for instance the famous text called 'Placito di Capua'), or near majority (French Flanders, Hainaut and Artois, half of Wallonia).
-- Correct. The same can be said of the "Cartularios de Valpuesta" which, rather than a testimony of early Spanish, sounds like a clumsy attempt to compose a Latin text. (An example: "et omnes que sunt nominatos de Elzeto, senites et iubines, viriis atque feminis, posuimus inter nos fuero que nos fratres poniamus custodiero de Sancta Maria de Valle Conpossita...")
<<This conclusion fits 100% to the theory that Romance was created in a process of Creolization by the mixed Germanic-Roman population during the migration period. The Germanic invaders had learned Latin as a second language and everybody knows how difficult it is to learn Latin as a foreign language.>>
-- Preposterous. This would make sense only if the Germanic part of the population was overwhelmingly predominant and consequently able to impose its own creolized version of Latin.
And this doesn't explain why Romance languages with largely similar grammatical structures emerge at the same time whatever the Germanic input in the population: low (Northern Italy), extremely low (Spain), absent (Southern Italy, see for instance the famous text called 'Placito di Capua'), or near majority (French Flanders, Hainaut and Artois, half of Wallonia).
"This would make sense only if the Germanic part of the population was overwhelmingly predominant and consequently able to impose its own creolized version of Latin. "
That´s true, propably the Germanic part of the population in medieval Europe was predominant. At least the Germanic part was able to dominate with it´s nobility and the Clerus the states of Europe for centuries until the French revolution.
It seems that you have found some knowledge about the amplitude of Germanic
"input in the population: low (Northern Italy), extremely low (Spain), absent (Southern Italy, see for instance the famous text called 'Placito di Capua'), or near majority (French Flanders, Hainaut and Artois, half of Wallonia). "
1) are these hard facts? Where are you getting these information from?
2) How do you explain that, in the case of Spain, an "extremely low" Germanic (Visigothic) population input dominates for centuries the hispanic peninsula, together with the Sueves?
3) Why do you think that Ostrogoths, Lombards and Franks in Northern Italy generated only a "low" imput?
I think that many things make "sense only if the Germanic part of the population was overwhelmingly predominant and consequently able to impose its own creolized version of Latin. "
That´s true, propably the Germanic part of the population in medieval Europe was predominant. At least the Germanic part was able to dominate with it´s nobility and the Clerus the states of Europe for centuries until the French revolution.
It seems that you have found some knowledge about the amplitude of Germanic
"input in the population: low (Northern Italy), extremely low (Spain), absent (Southern Italy, see for instance the famous text called 'Placito di Capua'), or near majority (French Flanders, Hainaut and Artois, half of Wallonia). "
1) are these hard facts? Where are you getting these information from?
2) How do you explain that, in the case of Spain, an "extremely low" Germanic (Visigothic) population input dominates for centuries the hispanic peninsula, together with the Sueves?
3) Why do you think that Ostrogoths, Lombards and Franks in Northern Italy generated only a "low" imput?
I think that many things make "sense only if the Germanic part of the population was overwhelmingly predominant and consequently able to impose its own creolized version of Latin. "
<<2) How do you explain that, in the case of Spain, an "extremely low" Germanic (Visigothic) population input dominates for centuries the hispanic peninsula, together with the Sueves? >>
-- très simple: si ces peuples avaient été culturellement à ce point influents, ils auraient imposé leur langue germanique au lieu d'un latin bâtard! Cela a-t-il eu lieu?...
-- très simple: si ces peuples avaient été culturellement à ce point influents, ils auraient imposé leur langue germanique au lieu d'un latin bâtard! Cela a-t-il eu lieu?...
'Guest' : « This conclusion fits 100% to the theory that Romance was created in a process of Creolization by the mixed Germanic-Roman population during the migration period. »
De quelle théorie parles-tu ? Et de quels exemples de germanismes qui auraient façonné le roman peux-tu te prévaloir pour échafauder une telle hypothèse ?
'Guest' : « The Germanic invaders had learned Latin as a second language and everybody knows how difficult it is to learn Latin as a foreign language. »
Primo : non, tout le monde ne sait pas si le latin est difficile à maîtriser pour un non-latinophone car pratiquement plus personne n'apprend le latin.
Deuxio : je ne vois pas le rapport entre l'acquisition du latin et l'apprentissage du roman → il s'agit de deux langues distinctes. Pour le dire autrement, et en **supposant** que l'auteur du texte cité soit un germanophone maternel, il se peut fort bien qu'il soit aussi bilingue en roman et très peu adroit en latin, ce qui ruine ta conclusion.
De quelle théorie parles-tu ? Et de quels exemples de germanismes qui auraient façonné le roman peux-tu te prévaloir pour échafauder une telle hypothèse ?
'Guest' : « The Germanic invaders had learned Latin as a second language and everybody knows how difficult it is to learn Latin as a foreign language. »
Primo : non, tout le monde ne sait pas si le latin est difficile à maîtriser pour un non-latinophone car pratiquement plus personne n'apprend le latin.
Deuxio : je ne vois pas le rapport entre l'acquisition du latin et l'apprentissage du roman → il s'agit de deux langues distinctes. Pour le dire autrement, et en **supposant** que l'auteur du texte cité soit un germanophone maternel, il se peut fort bien qu'il soit aussi bilingue en roman et très peu adroit en latin, ce qui ruine ta conclusion.
"
Deuxio : je ne vois pas le rapport entre l'acquisition du latin et l'apprentissage du roman → il s'agit de deux langues distinctes. Pour le dire autrement, et en **supposant** que l'auteur du texte cité soit un germanophone maternel, il se peut fort bien qu'il soit aussi bilingue en roman et très peu adroit en latin, ce qui ruine ta conclusion.
"
Now we assume trilinguality in middle ages, what about a fourth language for everybody, some dialects perhaps?
The real point is that it is a unclear until today whether the Veronese Riddle is half-Italian or half-Latin. If it is bad Latin, written by a barbar, like YC analyses, and if this bad Latin resembles to a language in the middle between Latin and Italian, then we have a clear written indication that Romance was generated by barbaric people who have tried to write in Latin, which has succeeded in terms of vocabulary for the most part, but which, by contrast, has made big mistakes in grammar
Deuxio : je ne vois pas le rapport entre l'acquisition du latin et l'apprentissage du roman → il s'agit de deux langues distinctes. Pour le dire autrement, et en **supposant** que l'auteur du texte cité soit un germanophone maternel, il se peut fort bien qu'il soit aussi bilingue en roman et très peu adroit en latin, ce qui ruine ta conclusion.
"
Now we assume trilinguality in middle ages, what about a fourth language for everybody, some dialects perhaps?
The real point is that it is a unclear until today whether the Veronese Riddle is half-Italian or half-Latin. If it is bad Latin, written by a barbar, like YC analyses, and if this bad Latin resembles to a language in the middle between Latin and Italian, then we have a clear written indication that Romance was generated by barbaric people who have tried to write in Latin, which has succeeded in terms of vocabulary for the most part, but which, by contrast, has made big mistakes in grammar
<<we have a clear written indication that Romance was generated by barbaric people who have tried to write in Latin>>
-- Or, more simply, by normal Italian people who had ony been speaking their normal Italian vernacular for centuries (according to Mr Cortez) and who had, in this time of general illiteracy, a poor practice of written Latin.
-- Or, more simply, by normal Italian people who had ony been speaking their normal Italian vernacular for centuries (according to Mr Cortez) and who had, in this time of general illiteracy, a poor practice of written Latin.
>>-- Or, more simply, by normal Italian people who had ony been speaking their normal Italian vernacular for centuries (according to Mr Cortez) and who had, in this time of general illiteracy, a poor practice of written Latin.<<
I myself would be far more inclined to regard this as so rather than any idea of Romance being some kind of creole or like. Early Romance is still *far* too inflected to be easily classifiable as a creole (which should be obvious if one looks at Romance verbal morphology, especially historically, and if one notes the fact that Old French, Old Occitan, and Romanian retain(ed) nominal case marking, which should have been completely lost were Romance a creole).
I myself would be far more inclined to regard this as so rather than any idea of Romance being some kind of creole or like. Early Romance is still *far* too inflected to be easily classifiable as a creole (which should be obvious if one looks at Romance verbal morphology, especially historically, and if one notes the fact that Old French, Old Occitan, and Romanian retain(ed) nominal case marking, which should have been completely lost were Romance a creole).
<<"The only other instance I know of where Latin v- becomes g- is in French gaine"
-- Il y en a d'autres, par ex.:
. lat 'vespa' (='wasp') --> fr. 'guèpe'
. lat 'vadum' (='ford') --> fr. 'gué'
. lat. 'viscum' (='mistletoe') --> fr. 'gui'
>>
gui is a blending of Latn. viscum and Frank. wihsila
-- Il y en a d'autres, par ex.:
. lat 'vespa' (='wasp') --> fr. 'guèpe'
. lat 'vadum' (='ford') --> fr. 'gué'
. lat. 'viscum' (='mistletoe') --> fr. 'gui'
>>
gui is a blending of Latn. viscum and Frank. wihsila
<<I myself would be far more inclined to regard this as so rather than any idea of Romance being some kind of creole or like. Early Romance is still *far* too inflected to be easily classifiable as a creole (which should be obvious if one looks at Romance verbal morphology, especially historically, and if one notes the fact that Old French, Old Occitan, and Romanian retain(ed) nominal case marking, which should have been completely lost were Romance a creole). >>
The loss of morphology here needs to be looked at *relative* to where Romance is coming from, it's coming from Latin, a highly if not ultra-inflected language. The 'is-it-creaolization-due-to-retaining-some-complexity' standard above cannot therefore adequately determine this. Compared to Latin, Romance *is* creole.
And if we count the number of verbal tenses that are lost going from Latin to Romance, we're sure to agree. Only present and imperfect are retained from Latin if I'm not mistaken (?) regardless of whether conjugations still remain intact [--not impressed--], and all other tenses were re-constructed later on a wholly new basis [suggesting that the need for such tenses exists, yet a *break* was introduced which had interfered with its continuity into Romance].
The loss of morphology here needs to be looked at *relative* to where Romance is coming from, it's coming from Latin, a highly if not ultra-inflected language. The 'is-it-creaolization-due-to-retaining-some-complexity' standard above cannot therefore adequately determine this. Compared to Latin, Romance *is* creole.
And if we count the number of verbal tenses that are lost going from Latin to Romance, we're sure to agree. Only present and imperfect are retained from Latin if I'm not mistaken (?) regardless of whether conjugations still remain intact [--not impressed--], and all other tenses were re-constructed later on a wholly new basis [suggesting that the need for such tenses exists, yet a *break* was introduced which had interfered with its continuity into Romance].
guest, the formation of creoles does not simply wear down the existing inflectional structure but rather involves the complete restructuring of grammar, and are generally highly analytic and if not purely analytic generally include a mixture of analytic or agglutinative features unless later decreolization takes place. It is clear from looking at Romance, especially older Romance, that such restructuring never really happened, and what rather happened is much more akin to the slow wearing down of inflectional morphology and development of analytic that happened in, say, most of the Germanic languages. The change from classical Latin circa 1 CE and Romance circa 1000 CE is far more like the change from later Old English circa 1000 CE and New English circa 2000 CE than the changes involved in creolization, in that no sudden, rapid restructuring took place but rather a gradual wearing down of inflectional morphology combined with the gradual development of new analytic morphology where the original Latin inflectional morphology was never really completely eliminated.
"
<<we have a clear written indication that Romance was generated by barbaric people who have tried to write in Latin>>
-- Or, more simply, by normal Italian people who had ony been speaking their normal Italian vernacular for centuries (according to Mr Cortez) and who had, in this time of general illiteracy, a poor practice of written Latin.
"
The point is that the Veronese Riddle is a written text, something real, while we are still waiting for any text written in "normal Italian vernacular "....
<<we have a clear written indication that Romance was generated by barbaric people who have tried to write in Latin>>
-- Or, more simply, by normal Italian people who had ony been speaking their normal Italian vernacular for centuries (according to Mr Cortez) and who had, in this time of general illiteracy, a poor practice of written Latin.
"
The point is that the Veronese Riddle is a written text, something real, while we are still waiting for any text written in "normal Italian vernacular "....
>>The point is that the Veronese Riddle is a written text, something real, while we are still waiting for any text written in "normal Italian vernacular "....<<
This is because the people who spoke such would have either been illiterate or literate in the lingua franca of the day, Latin, which they probably would have written instead. It should be recognized that many literate people at that time wrote in Latin even if it was not their first language, and were very often actually largely illiterate in their local vernacular even if they were literate in Latin. In the case of the Veronese Riddle, it is quite likely that it simply was written by someone who was able to write but not really fluent in Latin, so hence the Latin they did write was simply bad Latin, with some degree of Romance influence, rather than some kind of Latin creole. The view that such is actually due to creolization needs a serious amount of unambiguous evidence to be anywhere near substantiated, moreso than just supposing such was due to Germanic influence.
This is because the people who spoke such would have either been illiterate or literate in the lingua franca of the day, Latin, which they probably would have written instead. It should be recognized that many literate people at that time wrote in Latin even if it was not their first language, and were very often actually largely illiterate in their local vernacular even if they were literate in Latin. In the case of the Veronese Riddle, it is quite likely that it simply was written by someone who was able to write but not really fluent in Latin, so hence the Latin they did write was simply bad Latin, with some degree of Romance influence, rather than some kind of Latin creole. The view that such is actually due to creolization needs a serious amount of unambiguous evidence to be anywhere near substantiated, moreso than just supposing such was due to Germanic influence.