fbpx
Wikipedia

For obscene or "vulgar" Latin words, see Latin obscenity.
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Vulgar Latin"news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
(October 2012) ()

Vulgar Latin, also known as Popular or Colloquial Latin, is non-literary Latin spoken from the Late Roman Republic onwards. Depending on the time period, its literary counterpart was either Classical Latin or Late Latin.

Vulgar Latin
sermo vulgaris
Pronunciation
Native to
Erac. 1st century B.C. to the 7th century A.D.
Early form
Latin
Language codes
ISO 639-3
lat-vul
Glottologvulg1234
Latin-speaking or otherwise heavily Latin-influenced areas in the Late Roman Empire, highlighted in red.
This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper , you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see .

Contents

During the Classical period, Roman authors referred to the informal, everyday variety of their own language as sermo plebeius or sermo vulgaris, meaning "common speech".

The modern usage of the term Vulgar Latin dates to the Renaissance, when Italian thinkers began to theorize that their own language originated in a sort of "corrupted" Latin that they assumed formed an entity distinct from the literary Classical variety, though opinions differed greatly on the nature of this "vulgar" dialect.

The early 19th-century French linguist Raynouard is often regarded as the father of modern Romance philology. Observing that the Romance languages have many features in common that are not found in Latin, at least not in "proper" or Classical Latin, he concluded that the former must have all had some common ancestor (which he believed most closely resembled Old Occitan) that replaced Latin some time before the year 1000. This he dubbed la langue romane or "the Roman language".

The first truly modern treatise on Romance linguistics, however, and the first to apply the comparative method, was Friedrich Christian Diez's seminal Grammar of the Romance Languages.

Evidence for the features of non-literary Latin comes from the following sources:

  • Recurrent grammatical, syntactic, or orthographic mistakes in Latin epigraphy.
  • The insertion, whether intentional or not, of colloquial terms or constructions into contemporary texts.
  • Explicit mention of certain constructions or pronunciation habits by Roman grammarians.
  • The pronunciation of Roman-era lexical borrowings into neighboring languages such as Basque, Albanian, or Welsh.

By the end of the first century AD the Romans had conquered the entire Mediterranean Basin and established hundreds of colonies in the conquered provinces. Over time this—along with other factors that encouraged linguistic and cultural assimilation, such as political unity, frequent travel and commerce, military service, etc.—made Latin the predominant language throughout the western Mediterranean. Latin itself was subject to the same assimilatory tendencies, such that its varieties had probably become more uniform by the time the Western Empire fell in 476 than they had been before it. That is not to say that the language had been static for all those years, but rather that ongoing changes tended to spread to all regions.

All of these homogenizing factors were disrupted or voided by a long string of calamities. Although Justinian succeeded in reconquering Italy, Africa, and the southern part of Iberia in the period 533–554, the Empire was hit by one of the deadliest plagues in recorded history in 541, one that would recur six more times before 610. Under his successors most of the Italian peninsula was lost to the Lombards by c. 572, most of southern Iberia to the Visigoths by c. 615, and most of the Balkans to the Slavs and Avars by c. 620. All this was possible due to Roman preoccupation with wars against Persia, the last of which lasted nearly three decades and exhausted both empires. Taking advantage of this, the Arabs invaded and occupied Syria and Egypt by 642, greatly weakening the Empire and ending its centuries of domination over the Mediterranean. They went on to take the rest of North Africa by c. 699 and soon invaded the Visigothic Kingdom as well, seizing most of Iberia from it by c. 716.

It is from approximately the seventh century onward that regional differences proliferate in the language of Latin documents, indicating the fragmentation of Latin into the incipient Romance languages. Until then Latin appears to have been remarkably homogenous, as far as can be judged from its written records, although careful statistical analysis reveals regional differences in the treatment of the Latin vowel /ĭ/ and in the progression of betacism by about the fifth century.

Lexical turnover

Over the centuries, spoken Latin lost various lexical items and replaced them with native coinages; with borrowings from neighbouring languages such as Gaulish, Germanic, or Greek; or with other native words that had undergone semantic shift. The literary language generally retained the older words, however.

A textbook example is the general replacement of the suppletive Classical verb ferre, meaning 'carry', with the regular portare. Similarly, the Classical loqui, meaning 'speak', was replaced by a variety of alternatives such as the native fabulari and narrare or the Greek borrowing parabolare.

Classical Latin particles fared especially poorly, with all of the following vanishing from popular speech: an, at, autem, donec, enim, etiam, haud, igitur, ita, nam, postquam, quidem, quin, quoad, quoque, sed, sive, utrum, and vel.

Semantic drift

Many surviving words experienced a shift in meaning. Some notable cases are civitas ('citizenry' 'city', replacing urbs); focus ('hearth' 'fire', replacing ignis); manducare ('chew' 'eat', replacing edere); causa ('subject matter' 'thing', competing with res); mittere ('send' → 'put', competing with ponere); necare ('murder' 'drown', competing with submergere); pacare ('placate' 'pay', competing with solvere), and totus ('whole' 'all, every', competing with omnis).

See also: Appendix Probi

Consonantism

Loss of nasals

  • Word-final /m/ was lost in polysyllabic words. In monosyllables it tended to survive as /n/.
  • /n/ was usually lost before fricatives, resulting in compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (e.g. sponsa ‘fiancée’ > spōsa).

Palatalization

Front vowels in hiatus (after a consonant and before another vowel) became [j], which palatalized preceding consonants.

Fricativization

/w/ (except after /k/) and intervocalic /b/ merge as the bilabial fricative /β/.

Simplification of consonant clusters

  • The cluster /nkt/ reduced to [ŋt].
  • /kw/ delabialized to /k/ before back vowels.
  • /ks/ before or after a consonant, or at the end of a word, reduced to /s/.

Vocalism

Monophthongization

  • /ae̯/ and /oe̯/ monophthongized to [ɛː] and [eː] respectively by around the second century AD.

Loss of vowel quantity

The system of phonemic vowel length collapsed by the fifth century AD, leaving quality differences as the distinguishing factor between vowels; the paradigm thus changed from /ī ĭ ē ĕ ā ă ŏ ō ŭ ū/ to /i ɪ e ɛ a ɔ o ʊ u/. Concurrently, stressed vowels in open syllables lengthened.

Loss of near-close front vowel

Towards the end of the Roman Empire /ɪ/ merged with /e/ in most regions, although not in Africa or a few peripheral areas in Italy.

Romance articles

It is difficult to place the point in which the definite article, absent in Latin but present in all Romance languages, arose, largely because the highly colloquial speech in which it arose was seldom written down until the daughter languages had strongly diverged; most surviving texts in early Romance show the articles fully developed.

Definite articles evolved from demonstrative pronouns or adjectives (an analogous development is found in many Indo-European languages, including Greek, Celtic and Germanic); compare the fate of the Latin demonstrative adjective ille, illa, illud "that", in the Romance languages, becoming French le and la (Old French li, lo, la), Catalan and Spanish el, la and lo, Occitan lo and la, Portuguese o and a (elision of -l- is a common feature of Portuguese) and Italian il, lo and la. Sardinian went its own way here also, forming its article from ipse, ipsa "this" (su, sa); some Catalan and Occitan dialects have articles from the same source. While most of the Romance languages put the article before the noun, Romanian has its own way, by putting the article after the noun, e.g. lupul ("the wolf" – from *lupum illum) and omul ("the man" – *homo illum), possibly a result of being within the Balkan sprachbund.

This demonstrative is used in a number of contexts in some early texts in ways that suggest that the Latin demonstrative was losing its force. The Vetus Latina Bible contains a passage Est tamen ille daemon sodalis peccati ("The devil is a companion of sin"), in a context that suggests that the word meant little more than an article. The need to translate sacred texts that were originally in Koine Greek, which had a definite article, may have given Christian Latin an incentive to choose a substitute. Aetheria uses ipse similarly: per mediam vallem ipsam ("through the middle of the valley"), suggesting that it too was weakening in force.

Another indication of the weakening of the demonstratives can be inferred from the fact that at this time, legal and similar texts begin to swarm with praedictus, supradictus, and so forth (all meaning, essentially, "aforesaid"), which seem to mean little more than "this" or "that". Gregory of Tours writes, Erat autem... beatissimus Anianus in supradicta civitate episcopus ("Blessed Anianus was bishop in that city.") The original Latin demonstrative adjectives were no longer felt to be strong or specific enough.

In less formal speech, reconstructed forms suggest that the inherited Latin demonstratives were made more forceful by being compounded with ecce (originally an interjection: "behold!"), which also spawned Italian ecco through eccum, a contracted form of ecce eum. This is the origin of Old French cil (*ecce ille), cist (*ecce iste) and ici (*ecce hic); Italian questo (*eccum istum), quello (*eccum illum) and (now mainly Tuscan) codesto (*eccum tibi istum), as well as qui (*eccu hic), qua (*eccum hac); Spanish and Occitan aquel and Portuguese aquele (*eccum ille); Spanish acá and Portuguese (*eccum hac); Spanish aquí and Portuguese aqui (*eccum hic); Portuguese acolá (*eccum illac) and aquém (*eccum inde); Romanian acest (*ecce iste) and acela (*ecce ille), and many other forms.

On the other hand, even in the Oaths of Strasbourg, no demonstrative appears even in places where one would clearly be called for in all the later languages (pro christian poblo – "for the Christian people"). Using the demonstratives as articles may have still been considered overly informal for a royal oath in the 9th century. Considerable variation exists in all of the Romance vernaculars as to their actual use: in Romanian, the articles are suffixed to the noun (or an adjective preceding it), as in other languages of the Balkan sprachbund and the North Germanic languages.

The numeral unus, una (one) supplies the indefinite article in all cases (again, this is a common semantic development across Europe). This is anticipated in Classical Latin; Cicero writes cum uno gladiatore nequissimo ("with a most immoral gladiator"). This suggests that unus was beginning to supplant quidam in the meaning of "a certain" or "some" by the 1st century BC.[dubiousdiscuss]

Loss of neuter gender

1st and 2nd adjectival declension paradigm in Classical Latin:
e.g. altus ("tall")
Excludes vocative.
singular plural
masculine neuter feminine masculine neuter feminine
nominative altus altum alta altī alta altae
accusative altum altam altōs alta altās
dative altō altae altīs
ablative altō altā altīs
genitive altī altae altōrum altārum

The three grammatical genders of Classical Latin were replaced by a two-gender system in most Romance languages.

The neuter gender of classical Latin was in most cases identical with the masculine both syntactically and morphologically. The confusion had already started in Pompeian graffiti, e.g. cadaver mortuus for cadaver mortuum ("dead body"), and hoc locum for hunc locum ("this place"). The morphological confusion shows primarily in the adoption of the nominative ending -us ( after -r) in the o-declension.

In Petronius's work, one can find balneus for balneum ("bath"), fatus for fatum ("fate"), caelus for caelum ("heaven"), amphitheater for amphitheatrum ("amphitheatre"), vinus for vinum ("wine"), and conversely, thesaurum for thesaurus ("treasure"). Most of these forms occur in the speech of one man: Trimalchion, an uneducated Greek (i.e. foreign) freedman.

In modern Romance languages, the nominative s-ending has been largely abandoned, and all substantives of the o-declension have an ending derived from -um: -u, -o, or . E.g., masculine murus ("wall"), and neuter caelum ("sky") have evolved to: Italian muro, cielo; Portuguese muro, céu; Spanish muro, cielo, Catalan mur, cel; Romanian mur, cieru>cer; French mur, ciel. However, Old French still had -s in the nominative and in the accusative in both words: murs, ciels [nominative] – mur, ciel [oblique].

For some neuter nouns of the third declension, the oblique stem was productive; for others, the nominative/accusative form, (the two were identical in Classical Latin). Evidence suggests that the neuter gender was under pressure well back into the imperial period. French (le) lait, Catalan (la) llet, Occitan (lo) lach, Spanish (la) leche, Portuguese (o) leite, Italian language (il) latte, Leonese (el) lleche and Romanian lapte(le) ("milk"), all derive from the non-standard but attested Latin nominative/accusative neuter lacte or accusative masculine lactem. In Spanish the word became feminine, while in French, Portuguese and Italian it became masculine (in Romanian it remained neuter, lapte/lăpturi). Other neuter forms, however, were preserved in Romance; Catalan and French nom, Leonese, Portuguese and Italian nome, Romanian nume ("name") all preserve the Latin nominative/accusative nomen, rather than the oblique stem form *nominem (which nevertheless produced Spanish nombre).

Typical Italian endings
Nouns Adjectives and determiners
singular plural singular plural
masculine giardino giardini buono buoni
feminine donna donne buona buone
neuter uovo uova buono buone

Most neuter nouns had plural forms ending in -A or -IA; some of these were reanalysed as feminine singulars, such as gaudium ("joy"), plural gaudia; the plural form lies at the root of the French feminine singular (la) joie, as well as of Catalan and Occitan (la) joia (Italian la gioia is a borrowing from French); the same for lignum ("wood stick"), plural ligna, that originated the Catalan feminine singular noun (la) llenya, Portuguese (a) lenha and Spanish (la) leña. Some Romance languages still have a special form derived from the ancient neuter plural which is treated grammatically as feminine: e.g., BRACCHIUM : BRACCHIA "arm(s)" → Italian (il) braccio : (le) braccia, Romanian braț(ul) : brațe(le). Cf. also Merovingian Latin ipsa animalia aliquas mortas fuerant.

Alternations in Italian heteroclitic nouns such as l'uovo fresco ("the fresh egg") / le uova fresche ("the fresh eggs") are usually analysed as masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural, with an irregular plural in -a. However, it is also consistent with their historical development to say that uovo is simply a regular neuter noun (ovum, plural ova) and that the characteristic ending for words agreeing with these nouns is -o in the singular and -e in the plural. The same alternation in gender exists in certain Romanian nouns, but is considered regular as it is more common than in Italian. Thus, a relict neuter gender can arguably be said to persist in Italian and Romanian.

In Portuguese, traces of the neuter plural can be found in collective formations and words meant to inform a bigger size or sturdiness. Thus, one can use ovo/ovos ("egg/eggs") and ova/ovas ("roe", "a collection of eggs"), bordo/bordos ("section(s) of an edge") and borda/bordas ("edge/edges"), saco/sacos ("bag/bags") and saca/sacas ("sack/sacks"), manto/mantos ("cloak/cloaks") and manta/mantas ("blanket/blankets"). Other times, it resulted in words whose gender may be changed more or less arbitrarily, like fruto/fruta ("fruit"), caldo/calda (broth"), etc.

These formations were especially common when they could be used to avoid irregular forms. In Latin, the names of trees were usually feminine, but many were declined in the second declension paradigm, which was dominated by masculine or neuter nouns. Latin pirus ("pear tree"), a feminine noun with a masculine-looking ending, became masculine in Italian (il) pero and Romanian păr(ul); in French and Spanish it was replaced by the masculine derivations (le) poirier, (el) peral; and in Portuguese and Catalan by the feminine derivations (a) pereira, (la) perera.

As usual, irregularities persisted longest in frequently used forms. From the fourth declension noun manus ("hand"), another feminine noun with the ending -us, Italian and Spanish derived (la) mano, Romanian mânu>mâna pl (reg.)mâini/mâini, Catalan (la) , and Portuguese (a) mão, which preserve the feminine gender along with the masculine appearance.

Except for the Italian and Romanian heteroclitic nouns, other major Romance languages have no trace of neuter nouns, but still have neuter pronouns. French celui-ci / celle-ci / ceci ("this"), Spanish éste / ésta / esto ("this"), Italian: gli / le / ci ("to him" /"to her" / "to it"), Catalan: ho, açò, això, allò ("it" / this / this-that / that over there); Portuguese: todo / toda / tudo ("all of him" / "all of her" / "all of it").

In Spanish, a three-way contrast is also made with the definite articles el, la, and lo. The last is used with nouns denoting abstract categories: lo bueno, literally "that which is good", from bueno: good.

  1. In a few isolated masculine nouns, the s has been either preserved or reinstated in the modern languages, for example FILIUS ("son") > French fils, DEUS ("god") > Spanish dios and Portuguese deus, and particularly in proper names: Spanish Carlos, Marcos, in the conservative orthography of French Jacques, Charles, Jules, etc.

Loss of oblique cases

The Vulgar Latin vowel shifts caused the merger of several case endings in the nominal and adjectival declensions. Some of the causes include: the loss of final m, the merger of ă with ā, and the merger of ŭ with ō (see tables). Thus, by the 5th century, the number of case contrasts had been drastically reduced.

Evolution of a 1st declension noun:
caepa/cēpa ("onion") (feminine singular)
Classical
(c. 1st century)
Vulgar
(c. 5th cent.)
Modern
Romanian
nominative caepa, cēpa *cépa ceapă
accusative caepam, cēpam
ablative caepā, cēpā
dative caepae, cēpae *cépe cepe
genitive
Evolution of a 2nd declension noun:
mūrus ("wall") (masculine singular)
Classical
(c. 1st cent.)
Vulgar
(c. 5th cent.)
Old French
(c. 11th cent.)
nominative mūrus *múros murs
accusative mūrum *múru mur
ablative mūrō *múro
dative
genitive mūrī *múri

There also seems to be a marked tendency to confuse different forms even when they had not become homophonous (like the generally more distinct plurals), which indicates that nominal declension was shaped not only by phonetic mergers, but also by structural factors. As a result of the untenability of the noun case system after these phonetic changes, Vulgar Latin shifted from a markedly synthetic language to a more analytic one.

The genitive case died out around the 3rd century AD, according to Meyer-Lübke, and began to be replaced by "de" + noun (which originally meant "about/concerning", weakened to "of") as early as the 2nd century BC.[citation needed] Exceptions of remaining genitive forms are some pronouns, certain fossilized expressions and some proper names. For example, French jeudi ("Thursday") < Old French juesdi < Vulgar Latin "jovis diēs"; Spanish es menester ("it is necessary") < "est ministeri"; and Italian terremoto ("earthquake") < "terrae motu" as well as names like Paoli, Pieri.

The dative case lasted longer than the genitive, even though Plautus, in the 2nd century BC, already shows some instances of substitution by the construction "ad" + accusative. For example, "ad carnuficem dabo".

The accusative case developed as a prepositional case, displacing many instances of the ablative. Towards the end of the imperial period, the accusative came to be used more and more as a general oblique case.

Despite increasing case mergers, nominative and accusative forms seem to have remained distinct for much longer, since they are rarely confused in inscriptions. Even though Gaulish texts from the 7th century rarely confuse both forms, it is believed that both cases began to merge in Africa by the end of the empire, and a bit later in parts of Italy and Iberia. Nowadays, Romanian maintains a two-case system, while Old French and Old Occitan had a two-case subject-oblique system.

This Old French system was based largely on whether or not the Latin case ending contained an "s" or not, with the "s" being retained but all vowels in the ending being lost (as with veisin below). But since this meant that it was easy to confuse the singular nominative with the plural oblique, and the plural nominative with the singular oblique, this case system ultimately collapsed as well, and Middle French adopted one case (usually the oblique) for all purposes, leaving the Romanian the only one to survive to the present day.

Evolution of a masculine noun
in Old French: veisin ("neighbor").
(definite article in parentheses).
Classical Latin
(1st cent.)
Old French
(11th cent.)
singular nominative "vīcīnus" (li) veisins
accusative "vīcīnum" (le) veisin
genitive "vīcīnī"
dative "vīcīnō"
ablative
plural nominative "vīcīnī" (li) veisin
accusative "vīcīnōs" (les) veisins
genitive "vīcīnōrum"
dative "vīcīnīs"
ablative

Wider use of prepositions

Loss of a productive noun case system meant that the syntactic purposes it formerly served now had to be performed by prepositions and other paraphrases. These particles increased in number, and many new ones were formed by compounding old ones. The descendant Romance languages are full of grammatical particles such as Spanish donde, "where", from Latin de + unde (which in Romanian literally means "from where"/"where from"), or French dès, "since", from de + ex, while the equivalent Spanish and Portuguese desde is de + ex + de. Spanish después and Portuguese depois, "after", represent de + ex + post.

Some of these new compounds appear in literary texts during the late empire; French dehors, Spanish de fuera and Portuguese de fora ("outside") all represent de + foris (Romanian afarăad + foris), and we find Jerome writing stulti, nonne qui fecit, quod de foris est, etiam id, quod de intus est fecit? (Luke 11.40: "ye fools, did not he, that made which is without, make that which is within also?"). In some cases, compounds were created by combining a large number of particles, such as the Romanian adineauri ("just recently") from ad + de + in + illa + hora.

Classical Latin:

Marcus patrī librum dat. "Marcus is giving [his] father [a/the] book."

Vulgar Latin:

*Marcos da libru a patre. "Marcus is giving [a/the] book to [his] father."

Just as in the disappearing dative case, colloquial Latin sometimes replaced the disappearing genitive case with the preposition de followed by the ablative, then eventually the accusative (oblique).

Classical Latin:

Marcus mihi librum patris dat. "Marcus is giving me [his] father's book.

Vulgar Latin:

*Marcos mi da libru de patre. "Marcus is giving me [the] book of [his] father."

Pronouns

Unlike in the nominal and adjectival inflections, pronouns kept great part of the case distinctions. However, many changes happened. For example, the/ɡ/ of ego was lost by the end of the empire, and eo appears in manuscripts from the 6th century.[which?]

Reconstructed pronominal system of Vulgar Latin
1st person 2nd person 3rd person
singular plural singular plural
Nominative *éo *nọs *tu *vọs
Dative *mi *nọ́be(s) *ti, *tẹ́be *vọ́be(s) *si, *sẹ́be
Accusative *mẹ *nọs *tẹ *vọs *sẹ

Adverbs

Classical Latin had a number of different suffixes that made adverbs from adjectives: cārus, "dear", formed cārē, "dearly"; ācriter, "fiercely", from ācer; crēbrō, "often", from crēber. All of these derivational suffixes were lost in Vulgar Latin, where adverbs were invariably formed by a feminine ablative form modifying mente, which was originally the ablative of mēns, and so meant "with a ... mind". So vēlōx ("quick") instead of vēlōciter ("quickly") gave veloci mente (originally "with a quick mind", "quick-mindedly") This explains the widespread rule for forming adverbs in many Romance languages: add the suffix -ment(e) to the feminine form of the adjective. The development illustrates a textbook case of grammaticalization in which an autonomous form, the noun meaning 'mind', while still in free lexical use in e.g. Italian venire in mente 'come to mind', becomes a productive suffix for forming adverbs in Romance such as Italian chiaramente, Spanish claramente 'clearly', with both its source and its meaning opaque in that usage other than as adverb formant.

Verbs

The Cantar de Mio Cid (Song of my Cid) is the earliest Spanish text
Main article: Romance verbs

In general, the verbal system in the Romance languages changed less from Classical Latin than did the nominal system.

The four conjugational classes generally survived. The second and third conjugations already had identical imperfect tense forms in Latin, and also shared a common present participle. Because of the merging of short i with long ē in most of Vulgar Latin, these two conjugations grew even closer together. Several of the most frequently-used forms became indistinguishable, while others became distinguished only by stress placement:

Infinitive 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Imperative
singular
singular plural
Second conjugation (Classical) -ēre -eō -ēs -et -ēmus -ētis -ent
Second conjugation (Vulgar) *-ẹ́re *-(j)o *-es *-e(t) *-ẹ́mos *-ẹ́tes *-en(t) *-e
Third conjugation (Vulgar) *-ere *-o *-emos *-etes *-on(t)
Third conjugation (Classical) -ere -is -it -imus -itis -unt -e

These two conjugations came to be conflated in many of the Romance languages, often by merging them into a single class while taking endings from each of the original two conjugations. Which endings survived was different for each language, although most tended to favour second conjugation endings over the third conjugation. Spanish, for example, mostly eliminated the third conjugation forms in favour of second conjugation forms.

French and Catalan did the same, but tended to generalise the third conjugation infinitive instead. Catalan in particular almost eliminated the second conjugation ending over time, reducing it to a small relic class. In Italian, the two infinitive endings remained separate (but spelled identically), while the conjugations merged in most other respects much as in the other languages. However, the third-conjugation third-person plural present ending survived in favour of the second conjugation version, and was even extended to the fourth conjugation. Romanian also maintained the distinction between the second and third conjugation endings.

In the perfect, many languages generalized the -aui ending most frequently found in the first conjugation. This led to an unusual development; phonetically, the ending was treated as the diphthong/au/ rather than containing a semivowel/awi/, and in other cases the/w/ sound was simply dropped. We know this because it did not participate in the sound shift from/w/ to/β̞/. Thus Latin amaui, amauit ("I loved; he/she loved") in many areas became proto-Romance *amai and *amaut, yielding for example Portuguese amei, amou. This suggests that in the spoken language, these changes in conjugation preceded the loss of/w/.

Another major systemic change was to the future tense, remodelled in Vulgar Latin with auxiliary verbs. A new future was originally formed with the auxiliary verb habere, *amare habeo, literally "to love I have" (cf. English "I have to love", which has shades of a future meaning). This was contracted into a new future suffix in Western Romance forms, which can be seen in the following modern examples of "I will love":

  • French: j'aimerai (je + aimer + ai) ← aimer ["to love"] + ai ["I have"].
  • Portuguese and Galician: amarei (amar + [h]ei) ← amar ["to love"] + hei ["I have"]
  • Spanish and Catalan: amaré (amar + [h]e) ← amar ["to love"] + he ["I have"].
  • Italian: amerò (amar + [h]o) ← amare ["to love"] + ho ["I have"].

A periphrastic construction of the form 'to have to' (late Latin habere ad) used as future is characteristic of Sardinian:

  • Ap'a istàre < apo a istàre 'I will stay'
  • Ap'a nàrrere < apo a nàrrer 'I will say'

An innovative conditional (distinct from the subjunctive) also developed in the same way (infinitive + conjugated form of habere). The fact that the future and conditional endings were originally independent words is still evident in literary Portuguese, which in these tenses allows clitic object pronouns to be incorporated between the root of the verb and its ending: "I will love" (eu) amarei, but "I will love you" amar-te-ei, from amar + te ["you"] + (eu) hei = amar + te + [h]ei = amar-te-ei.

In Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, personal pronouns can still be omitted from verb phrases as in Latin, as the endings are still distinct enough to convey that information: venio > Sp vengo ("I come"). In French, however, all the endings are typically homophonous except the first and second person (and occasionally also third person) plural, so the pronouns are always used (je viens) except in the imperative.

Contrary to the millennia-long continuity of much of the active verb system, which has now survived 6000 years of known evolution, the synthetic passive voice was utterly lost in Romance, being replaced with periphrastic verb forms—composed of the verb "to be" plus a passive participle—or impersonal reflexive forms—composed of a verb and a passivizing pronoun.

Apart from the grammatical and phonetic developments there were many cases of verbs merging as complex subtleties in Latin were reduced to simplified verbs in Romance. A classic example of this are the verbs expressing the concept "to go". Consider three particular verbs in Classical Latin expressing concepts of "going": ire, vadere, and *ambitare. In Spanish and Portuguese ire and vadere merged into the verb ir, which derives some conjugated forms from ire and some from vadere. andar was maintained as a separate verb derived from ambitare.

Italian instead merged vadere and ambitare into the verb andare. At the extreme French merged three Latin verbs with, for example, the present tense deriving from vadere and another verb ambulare (or something like it) and the future tense deriving from ire. Similarly the Romance distinction between the Romance verbs for "to be", essere and stare, was lost in French as these merged into the verb être. In Italian, the verb essere inherited both Romance meanings of "being essentially" and "being temporarily of the quality of", while stare specialized into a verb denoting location or dwelling, or state of health.

Copula

Main article: Romance copula

The copula (that is, the verb signifying "to be") of Classical Latin was esse. This evolved to *essere in Vulgar Latin by attaching the common infinitive suffix -re to the classical infinitive; this produced Italian essere and French être through Proto-Gallo-Romance *essre and Old French estre as well as Spanish and Portuguese ser (Romanian a fi derives from fieri, which means "to become").

In Vulgar Latin a second copula developed utilizing the verb stare, which originally meant (and is cognate with) "to stand", to denote a more temporary meaning. That is, *essere signified the essence, while stare signified the state. Stare evolved to Spanish and Portuguese estar and Old French ester (both through *estare), Romanian "a sta" ("to stand"), using the original form for the noun ("stare"="state"/"starea"="the state"), while Italian retained the original form.

The semantic shift that underlies this evolution is more or less as follows: A speaker of Classical Latin might have said: vir est in foro, meaning "the man is in/at the marketplace". The same sentence in Vulgar Latin could have been *(h)omo stat in foro, "the man stands in/at the marketplace", replacing the est (from esse) with stat (from stare), because "standing" was what was perceived as what the man was actually doing.

The use of stare in this case was still semantically transparent assuming that it meant "to stand", but soon the shift from esse to stare became more widespread. In the Iberian peninsula esse ended up only denoting natural qualities that would not change, while stare was applied to transient qualities and location. In Italian, stare is used mainly for location, transitory state of health (sta male 's/he is ill' but è gracile 's/he is puny') and, as in Spanish, for the eminently transient quality implied in a verb's progressive form, such as sto scrivendo to express 'I am writing'.

The historical development of the stare + gerund progressive in those Romance languages that have it seems to have been a passage from a usage such as sto pensando 'I stand/stay (here) thinking', in which the stare form carries the full semantic load of 'stand, stay' to grammaticalization of the construction as expression of progressive aspect (Similar in concept to the English verbal construction of "I am still thinking"). The process of reanalysis that took place over time bleached the semantics of stare so that when used in combination with the gerund the form became solely a grammatical marker of subject and tense (e.g. sto = subject first person singular, present; stavo = subject first person singular, past), no longer a lexical verb with the semantics of 'stand' (not unlike the auxiliary in compound tenses that once meant 'have, possess', but is now semantically empty: j'ai écrit, ho scritto, he escrito, etc.). Whereas sto scappando would once have been semantically strange at best (?'I stay escaping'), once grammaticalization was achieved, collocation with a verb of inherent mobility was no longer contradictory, and sto scappando could and did become the normal way to express 'I am escaping'. (Although it might be objected that in sentences like Spanish la catedral está en la ciudad, "the cathedral is in the city" this is also unlikely to change, but all locations are expressed through estar in Spanish, as this usage originally conveyed the sense of "the cathedral stands in the city").

Word order typology

Classical Latin in most cases adopted an SOV word order in ordinary prose, although other word orders were employed, such as in poetry, enabled by inflectional marking of the grammatical function of words. However, word order in the modern Romance languages generally adopted a standard SVO word order. Fragments of SOV word order still survive in the placement of clitic object pronouns (e.g. Spanish yo te amo "I love you").

History of specific Romance languages

Citations

  1. (Herman 2000: 7)
  2. Elcock 1960: 20
  3. Eskhult 2018: §6
  4. Posner 1996: 3
  5. Herman 2000: 1
  6. Elcock 1960: 21
  7. Grandgent 1907: 2–3
  8. Wright 2002: 27–28; Pei 1941: 16, 23
  9. Treadgold 1997: 184–217, 276
  10. Treadgold 1997: 221–224, 290, 293. The combined Slavic-Avar invasion proved especially disruptive, as it isolated Latin speakers in the interior of the Balkans from their western counterparts for more than a millennium (Nandris 1951: 15).
  11. Treadgold 1997: 310, 337–339, 371–372
  12. Carlton 1973: 237. According to Pei & Gaeng (1976: 76–81), the decisive moment came with the Islamic conquest of North Africa and Iberia, which was followed by numerous raids on land and by sea. All this had the effect of disrupting connections between the western Romance-speaking regions.
  13. Herman 2000: 117
  14. Adams 2007: 660–670
  15. Alkire & Rosen 2010: 287
  16. Herman 2000: 2
  17. Harrington et al. 1997: 11
  18. Harrington et al. 1997: 7–10
  19. Pope 1934: §156.2
  20. Hall 1976: 180
  21. Allen 1965: 27–29
  22. Gouvert 2015: 83
  23. Pope 1934: §155; Gouvert 2016: 48
  24. Grandgent 1907: §267; Pope 1934: §156.3
  25. Grandgent 1907: §226; Pope 1934: §187.b
  26. Grandgent 1907: §255
  27. Palmer 1988: 157
  28. Leppänen & Alho 2018: 21–22
  29. Adams 2013: 60–1, 67
  30. Adams 2007: 626–9
  31. Vincent (1990).
  32. Harrington et al. (1997).
  33. Menéndez Pidal 1968, p. 208; Survivances du cas sujet.
  34. Herman 2000, p. 52.
  35. Grandgent 1991, p. 82. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGrandgent1991 (help)
  36. Captivi, 1019.
  37. Herman 2000, p. 53.
  38. Romanian Explanatory Dictionary (DEXOnline.ro)
  39. Grandgent 1991, p. 238. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGrandgent1991 (help)

Works consulted

General
  • Adams, J. N. (2007). The Regional Diversification of Latin. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Adams, James Noel (2013). Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Alkire, Ti (2010). Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Allen, W. Sidney (1965). Vox Latina – a Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-37936-9.
  • Boyd-Bowman, Peter (1980). From Latin to Romance in Sound Charts. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Carlton, Charles Merritt. 1973. A linguistic analysis of a collection of Late Latin documents composed in Ravenna between A.D. 445–700. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Diez, Friedrich (1882). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (in German) (5th ed.). Bonn: E. Weber.
  • Elcock, W. D. (1960). The Romance Languages. London: Faber & Faber.
  • Eskhult, Josef (2018). "Vulgar Latin as an emergent concept in the Italian Renaissance (1435–1601): its ancient and medieval prehistory and its emergence and development in Renaissance linguistic thought". Journal of Latin Linguistics. 17 (2): 191–230. doi:10.1515/joll-2018-0006.
  • Grandgent, C. H. (1907). An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: D.C. Heath.
  • Gouvert, Xavier. 2016. Du protoitalique au protoroman: Deux problèmes de reconstruction phonologique. In: Buchi, Éva & Schweickard, Wolfgang (eds.), Dictionnaire étymologique roman 2, 27–51. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • Hall, Robert A., Jr. (1950). "The Reconstruction of Proto-Romance". Language. 26 (1): 6–27. doi:10.2307/410406. JSTOR 410406.
  • Hall, Robert Anderson (1976). Proto-Romance Phonology. New York: Elsevier.
  • Harrington, K. P.; Pucci, J.; Elliott, A. G. (1997). Medieval Latin (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-31712-9.
  • Herman, József (2000). Vulgar Latin. Translated by Wright, Roger. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02001-6.
  • Johnson, Mark J. (1988). "Toward a History of Theoderic's Building Program". Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 42: 73–96. doi:10.2307/1291590. JSTOR 1291590.
  • Leppänen, V., & Alho, T. 2018. On the mergers of Latin close-mid vowels. Transactions of the Philological Society 116. 460–483.
  • Lloyd, Paul M. (1979). "On the Definition of 'Vulgar Latin': The Eternal Return". Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. 80 (2): 110–122. JSTOR 43343254.
  • Meyer, Paul (1906). "Beginnings and Progress of Romance Philology". In Rogers, Howard J. (ed.). Congress of Arts and Sciences: Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904. Vol. III. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. pp. 237–255.
  • Nandris, Grigore. 1951. The development and structure of Rumanian. The Slavonic and East European Review, 30. 7-39.
  • Palmer, L. R. (1988) [1954]. The Latin Language. University of Oklahoma. ISBN 0-8061-2136-X.
  • Pei, Mario. 1941. The Italian language. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Pei, Mario & Gaeng, Paul A. 1976. The story of Latin and the Romance languages. New York: Harker & Row.
  • Pulgram, Ernst (1950). "Spoken and Written Latin". Language. 26 (4): 458–466. doi:10.2307/410397. JSTOR 410397.
  • Posner, Rebecca (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sihler, A. L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-508345-8.
  • Treadgold, Warren. 1997. A history of the Byzantine state and society. Stanford University Press.
  • Tucker, T. G. (1985) [1931]. Etymological Dictionary of Latin. Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-172-0.
  • Väänänen, Veikko (1981). Introduction au latin vulgaire (3rd ed.). Paris: Klincksieck. ISBN 2-252-02360-0.
  • Vincent, Nigel (1990). "Latin". In Harris, M.; Vincent, N. (eds.). The Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-520829-3.
  • von Wartburg, Walther; Chambon, Jean-Pierre (1922–1967). Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes (in German and French). Bonn: F. Klopp.
  • Wright, Roger (1982). Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.
  • Wright, Roger (2002). A Sociophilological Study of Late Latin. Utrecht: Brepols.

Transitions to Romance languages

To Romance in general
  • Banniard, Michel (1997). Du latin aux langues romanes. Paris: Nathan.
  • Bonfante, Giuliano (1999). The origin of the Romance languages: Stages in the development of Latin. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
  • Ledgeway, Adam (2012). From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin, eds. (2016). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Part 1: The Making of the Romance Languages. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam, eds. (2013). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (esp. parts 1 & 2, Latin and the Making of the Romance Languages; The Transition from Latin to the Romance Languages)
  • Wright, Roger (1982). Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.
  • Wright, Roger, ed. (1991). Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle ages. London/New York: Routledge.
To French
  • Ayres-Bennett, Wendy (1995). A History of the French Language through Texts. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Kibler, William W. (1984). An Introduction to Old French. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
  • Lodge, R. Anthony (1993). French: From Dialect to Standard. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Pope, Mildred K. (1934). From Latin to Modern French with Especial Consideration of Anglo-Norman Phonology and Morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  • Price, Glanville (1998). The French language: present and past (Revised ed.). London, England: Grant and Cutler.
To Italian
  • Maiden, Martin (1996). A Linguistic History of Italian. New York: Longman.
  • Vincent, Nigel (2006). "Languages in contact in Medieval Italy". In Lepschy, Anna Laura (ed.). Rethinking Languages in Contact: The Case of Italian. Oxford and New York: LEGENDA (Routledge). pp. 12–27.
To Spanish
  • Lloyd, Paul M. (1987). From Latin to Spanish. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
  • Penny, Ralph (2002). A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pharies, David A. (2007). A Brief History of the Spanish Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Pountain, Christopher J. (2000). A History of the Spanish Language Through Texts. London, England: Routledge.
To Portuguese
  • Castro, Ivo (2004). Introdução à História do Português. Lisbon: Edições Colibri.
  • Emiliano, António (2003). Latim e Romance na segunda metade do século XI. Lisbon: Fundação Gulbenkian.
  • Williams, Edwin B. (1968). From Latin to Portuguese: Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Portuguese Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
To Occitan
  • Paden, William D. (1998). An Introduction to Old Occitan. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
To Sardinian
  • Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo (1984). Storia linguistica della Sardegna. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
  • Adams, James Noel. 1976. The Text and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II). London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies.
  • --. 1977. The Vulgar Latin of the letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press.
  • --. 2013. Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Burghini, Julia, and Javier Uría. 2015. "Some neglected evidence on Vulgar Latin 'glide suppression': Consentius, 27.17.20 N." Glotta; Zeitschrift Für Griechische Und Lateinische Sprache 91: 15–26. JSTOR 24368205.
  • Jensen, Frede. 1972. From Vulgar Latin to Old Provençal. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
  • Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 2006. Vulgar Latin: Comparative Castration (and Comparative Theories of Syntax). Style 40, nos. 1–2: 56–61. JSTOR 10.5325/style.40.1-2.56.
  • Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1970. From Vulgar Latin to Old French: An Introduction to the Study of the Old French Language. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
  • Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor, MI: Beechstave.
  • Zovic, V (2015). "Vulgar Latin in Inscriptions from the Roman Province of Dalmatia". Vjesnik Za Arheologiju I Povijest Dalmatinsku. 108: 157–222.

Vulgar Latin Article Talk Language Watch Edit For obscene or vulgar Latin words see Latin obscenity This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Vulgar Latin news newspapers books scholar JSTOR October 2012 Learn how and when to remove this template message Vulgar Latin also known as Popular or Colloquial Latin is non literary Latin spoken from the Late Roman Republic onwards 1 Depending on the time period its literary counterpart was either Classical Latin or Late Latin Vulgar Latinsermo vulgarisPronunciation ˈsɛrmo bʊlˈɡaːrɪs Native toRoman Empire Various Roman successorsErac 1st century B C to the 7th century A D Language familyIndo European ItalicLatino FaliscanLatinVulgar LatinEarly formOld LatinWriting systemLatinLanguage codesISO 639 3 Linguist List a rel nofollow class external text href http multitree org codes lat vul lat vul a Glottolog a rel nofollow class external text href http glottolog org resource languoid id vulg1234 vulg1234 a Latin speaking or otherwise heavily Latin influenced areas in the Late Roman Empire highlighted in red This article contains IPA phonetic symbols Without proper rendering support you may see question marks boxes or other symbols instead of Unicode characters For an introductory guide on IPA symbols see Help IPA Contents 1 Origin of the term 2 Sources 3 History 4 Vocabulary 4 1 Lexical turnover 4 2 Semantic drift 5 Phonological development 5 1 Consonantism 5 1 1 Loss of nasals 5 1 2 Palatalization 5 1 3 Simplification of consonant clusters 5 2 Vocalism 5 2 1 Monophthongization 5 2 2 Loss of vowel quantity 5 2 3 Loss of near close front vowel 6 Grammar 6 1 Romance articles 6 2 Loss of neuter gender 6 3 Loss of oblique cases 6 4 Wider use of prepositions 6 5 Pronouns 6 6 Adverbs 6 7 Verbs 6 7 1 Copula 6 8 Word order typology 7 See also 7 1 History of specific Romance languages 8 References 8 1 Citations 8 2 Works consulted 8 2 1 Transitions to Romance languages 9 Further reading 10 External linksOrigin of the term EditDuring the Classical period Roman authors referred to the informal everyday variety of their own language as sermo plebeius or sermo vulgaris meaning common speech 2 The modern usage of the term Vulgar Latin dates to the Renaissance when Italian thinkers began to theorize that their own language originated in a sort of corrupted Latin that they assumed formed an entity distinct from the literary Classical variety though opinions differed greatly on the nature of this vulgar dialect 3 The early 19th century French linguist Raynouard is often regarded as the father of modern Romance philology Observing that the Romance languages have many features in common that are not found in Latin at least not in proper or Classical Latin he concluded that the former must have all had some common ancestor which he believed most closely resembled Old Occitan that replaced Latin some time before the year 1000 This he dubbed la langue romane or the Roman language 4 The first truly modern treatise on Romance linguistics however and the first to apply the comparative method was Friedrich Christian Diez s seminal Grammar of the Romance Languages 5 Sources EditEvidence for the features of non literary Latin comes from the following sources 6 Recurrent grammatical syntactic or orthographic mistakes in Latin epigraphy The insertion whether intentional or not of colloquial terms or constructions into contemporary texts Explicit mention of certain constructions or pronunciation habits by Roman grammarians The pronunciation of Roman era lexical borrowings into neighboring languages such as Basque Albanian or Welsh History EditBy the end of the first century AD the Romans had conquered the entire Mediterranean Basin and established hundreds of colonies in the conquered provinces Over time this along with other factors that encouraged linguistic and cultural assimilation such as political unity frequent travel and commerce military service etc made Latin the predominant language throughout the western Mediterranean 7 Latin itself was subject to the same assimilatory tendencies such that its varieties had probably become more uniform by the time the Western Empire fell in 476 than they had been before it That is not to say that the language had been static for all those years but rather that ongoing changes tended to spread to all regions 8 All of these homogenizing factors were disrupted or voided by a long string of calamities Although Justinian succeeded in reconquering Italy Africa and the southern part of Iberia in the period 533 554 the Empire was hit by one of the deadliest plagues in recorded history in 541 one that would recur six more times before 610 9 Under his successors most of the Italian peninsula was lost to the Lombards by c 572 most of southern Iberia to the Visigoths by c 615 and most of the Balkans to the Slavs and Avars by c 620 10 All this was possible due to Roman preoccupation with wars against Persia the last of which lasted nearly three decades and exhausted both empires Taking advantage of this the Arabs invaded and occupied Syria and Egypt by 642 greatly weakening the Empire and ending its centuries of domination over the Mediterranean 11 They went on to take the rest of North Africa by c 699 and soon invaded the Visigothic Kingdom as well seizing most of Iberia from it by c 716 It is from approximately the seventh century onward that regional differences proliferate in the language of Latin documents indicating the fragmentation of Latin into the incipient Romance languages 12 Until then Latin appears to have been remarkably homogenous as far as can be judged from its written records 13 although careful statistical analysis reveals regional differences in the treatment of the Latin vowel ĭ and in the progression of betacism by about the fifth century 14 Vocabulary EditMain article Lexical changes from Classical Latin to Proto Romance Lexical turnover Edit Over the centuries spoken Latin lost various lexical items and replaced them with native coinages with borrowings from neighbouring languages such as Gaulish Germanic or Greek or with other native words that had undergone semantic shift The literary language generally retained the older words however A textbook example is the general replacement of the suppletive Classical verb ferre meaning carry with the regular portare 15 Similarly the Classical loqui meaning speak was replaced by a variety of alternatives such as the native fabulari and narrare or the Greek borrowing parabolare 16 Classical Latin particles fared especially poorly with all of the following vanishing from popular speech an at autem donec enim etiam haud igitur ita nam postquam quidem quin quoad quoque sed sive utrum and vel 17 Semantic drift Edit Many surviving words experienced a shift in meaning Some notable cases are civitas citizenry city replacing urbs focus hearth fire replacing ignis manducare chew eat replacing edere causa subject matter thing competing with res mittere send put competing with ponere necare murder drown competing with submergere pacare placate pay competing with solvere and totus whole all every competing with omnis 18 Phonological development EditMain article Phonological changes from Classical Latin to Proto RomanceSee also Appendix Probi Consonantism Edit See also Romance languages Consonants Loss of nasals Edit Word final m was lost in polysyllabic words 19 In monosyllables it tended to survive as n 20 n was usually lost before fricatives resulting in compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel e g sponsa fiancee gt spōsa 21 Palatalization Edit Front vowels in hiatus after a consonant and before another vowel became j which palatalized preceding consonants 22 Fricativization w except after k and intervocalic b merge as the bilabial fricative b 23 Simplification of consonant clusters Edit The cluster nkt reduced to ŋt 24 kw delabialized to k before back vowels 25 ks before or after a consonant or at the end of a word reduced to s 26 Vocalism Edit See also Romance languages Vowels Monophthongization Edit ae and oe monophthongized to ɛː and eː respectively by around the second century AD 27 Loss of vowel quantity Edit The system of phonemic vowel length collapsed by the fifth century AD leaving quality differences as the distinguishing factor between vowels the paradigm thus changed from i ĭ e ĕ a ă ŏ ō ŭ u to i ɪ e ɛ a ɔ o ʊ u Concurrently stressed vowels in open syllables lengthened 28 Loss of near close front vowel Edit Towards the end of the Roman Empire ɪ merged with e in most regions 29 although not in Africa or a few peripheral areas in Italy 30 Grammar EditRomance articles Edit It is difficult to place the point in which the definite article absent in Latin but present in all Romance languages arose largely because the highly colloquial speech in which it arose was seldom written down until the daughter languages had strongly diverged most surviving texts in early Romance show the articles fully developed Definite articles evolved from demonstrative pronouns or adjectives an analogous development is found in many Indo European languages including Greek Celtic and Germanic compare the fate of the Latin demonstrative adjective ille illa illud that in the Romance languages becoming French le and la Old French li lo la Catalan and Spanish el la and lo Occitan lo and la Portuguese o and a elision of l is a common feature of Portuguese and Italian il lo and la Sardinian went its own way here also forming its article from ipse ipsa this su sa some Catalan and Occitan dialects have articles from the same source While most of the Romance languages put the article before the noun Romanian has its own way by putting the article after the noun e g lupul the wolf from lupum illum and omul the man homo illum 31 possibly a result of being within the Balkan sprachbund This demonstrative is used in a number of contexts in some early texts in ways that suggest that the Latin demonstrative was losing its force The Vetus Latina Bible contains a passage Est tamen ille daemon sodalis peccati The devil is a companion of sin in a context that suggests that the word meant little more than an article The need to translate sacred texts that were originally in Koine Greek which had a definite article may have given Christian Latin an incentive to choose a substitute Aetheria uses ipse similarly per mediam vallem ipsam through the middle of the valley suggesting that it too was weakening in force 32 Another indication of the weakening of the demonstratives can be inferred from the fact that at this time legal and similar texts begin to swarm with praedictus supradictus and so forth all meaning essentially aforesaid which seem to mean little more than this or that Gregory of Tours writes Erat autem beatissimus Anianus in supradicta civitate episcopus Blessed Anianus was bishop in that city The original Latin demonstrative adjectives were no longer felt to be strong or specific enough 32 In less formal speech reconstructed forms suggest that the inherited Latin demonstratives were made more forceful by being compounded with ecce originally an interjection behold which also spawned Italian ecco through eccum a contracted form of ecce eum This is the origin of Old French cil ecce ille cist ecce iste and ici ecce hic Italian questo eccum istum quello eccum illum and now mainly Tuscan codesto eccum tibi istum as well as qui eccu hic qua eccum hac Spanish and Occitan aquel and Portuguese aquele eccum ille Spanish aca and Portuguese ca eccum hac Spanish aqui and Portuguese aqui eccum hic Portuguese acola eccum illac and aquem eccum inde Romanian acest ecce iste and acela ecce ille and many other forms On the other hand even in the Oaths of Strasbourg no demonstrative appears even in places where one would clearly be called for in all the later languages pro christian poblo for the Christian people Using the demonstratives as articles may have still been considered overly informal for a royal oath in the 9th century Considerable variation exists in all of the Romance vernaculars as to their actual use in Romanian the articles are suffixed to the noun or an adjective preceding it as in other languages of the Balkan sprachbund and the North Germanic languages The numeral unus una one supplies the indefinite article in all cases again this is a common semantic development across Europe This is anticipated in Classical Latin Cicero writes cum uno gladiatore nequissimo with a most immoral gladiator This suggests that unus was beginning to supplant quidam in the meaning of a certain or some by the 1st century BC dubious discuss Loss of neuter gender Edit 1st and 2nd adjectival declension paradigm in Classical Latin e g altus tall Excludes vocative singular pluralmasculine neuter feminine masculine neuter femininenominative altus altum alta alti alta altaeaccusative altum altam altōs alta altasdative altō altae altisablative altō alta altisgenitive alti altae altōrum altarum The three grammatical genders of Classical Latin were replaced by a two gender system in most Romance languages The neuter gender of classical Latin was in most cases identical with the masculine both syntactically and morphologically The confusion had already started in Pompeian graffiti e g cadaver mortuus for cadaver mortuum dead body and hoc locum for hunc locum this place The morphological confusion shows primarily in the adoption of the nominative ending us O after r in the o declension In Petronius s work one can find balneus for balneum bath fatus for fatum fate caelus for caelum heaven amphitheater for amphitheatrum amphitheatre vinus for vinum wine and conversely thesaurum for thesaurus treasure Most of these forms occur in the speech of one man Trimalchion an uneducated Greek i e foreign freedman In modern Romance languages the nominative s ending has been largely abandoned and all substantives of the o declension have an ending derived from um u o or O E g masculine murus wall and neuter caelum sky have evolved to Italian muro cielo Portuguese muro ceu Spanish muro cielo Catalan mur cel Romanian mur cieru gt cer French mur ciel However Old French still had s in the nominative and O in the accusative in both words murs ciels nominative mur ciel oblique a For some neuter nouns of the third declension the oblique stem was productive for others the nominative accusative form the two were identical in Classical Latin Evidence suggests that the neuter gender was under pressure well back into the imperial period French le lait Catalan la llet Occitan lo lach Spanish la leche Portuguese o leite Italian language il latte Leonese el lleche and Romanian lapte le milk all derive from the non standard but attested Latin nominative accusative neuter lacte or accusative masculine lactem In Spanish the word became feminine while in French Portuguese and Italian it became masculine in Romanian it remained neuter lapte lăpturi Other neuter forms however were preserved in Romance Catalan and French nom Leonese Portuguese and Italian nome Romanian nume name all preserve the Latin nominative accusative nomen rather than the oblique stem form nominem which nevertheless produced Spanish nombre 31 Typical Italian endings Nouns Adjectives and determinerssingular plural singular pluralmasculine giardino giardini buono buonifeminine donna donne buona buoneneuter uovo uova buono buone Most neuter nouns had plural forms ending in A or IA some of these were reanalysed as feminine singulars such as gaudium joy plural gaudia the plural form lies at the root of the French feminine singular la joie as well as of Catalan and Occitan la joia Italian la gioia is a borrowing from French the same for lignum wood stick plural ligna that originated the Catalan feminine singular noun la llenya Portuguese a lenha and Spanish la lena Some Romance languages still have a special form derived from the ancient neuter plural which is treated grammatically as feminine e g BRACCHIUM BRACCHIA arm s Italian il braccio le braccia Romanian braț ul brațe le Cf also Merovingian Latin ipsa animalia aliquas mortas fuerant Alternations in Italian heteroclitic nouns such as l uovo fresco the fresh egg le uova fresche the fresh eggs are usually analysed as masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural with an irregular plural in a However it is also consistent with their historical development to say that uovo is simply a regular neuter noun ovum plural ova and that the characteristic ending for words agreeing with these nouns is o in the singular and e in the plural The same alternation in gender exists in certain Romanian nouns but is considered regular as it is more common than in Italian Thus a relict neuter gender can arguably be said to persist in Italian and Romanian In Portuguese traces of the neuter plural can be found in collective formations and words meant to inform a bigger size or sturdiness Thus one can use ovo ovos egg eggs and ova ovas roe a collection of eggs bordo bordos section s of an edge and borda bordas edge edges saco sacos bag bags and saca sacas sack sacks manto mantos cloak cloaks and manta mantas blanket blankets Other times it resulted in words whose gender may be changed more or less arbitrarily like fruto fruta fruit caldo calda broth etc These formations were especially common when they could be used to avoid irregular forms In Latin the names of trees were usually feminine but many were declined in the second declension paradigm which was dominated by masculine or neuter nouns Latin pirus pear tree a feminine noun with a masculine looking ending became masculine in Italian il pero and Romanian păr ul in French and Spanish it was replaced by the masculine derivations le poirier el peral and in Portuguese and Catalan by the feminine derivations a pereira la perera As usual irregularities persisted longest in frequently used forms From the fourth declension noun manus hand another feminine noun with the ending us Italian and Spanish derived la mano Romanian manu gt mana pl reg maini maini Catalan la ma and Portuguese a mao which preserve the feminine gender along with the masculine appearance Except for the Italian and Romanian heteroclitic nouns other major Romance languages have no trace of neuter nouns but still have neuter pronouns French celui ci celle ci ceci this Spanish este esta esto this Italian gli le ci to him to her to it Catalan ho aco aixo allo it this this that that over there Portuguese todo toda tudo all of him all of her all of it In Spanish a three way contrast is also made with the definite articles el la and lo The last is used with nouns denoting abstract categories lo bueno literally that which is good from bueno good In a few isolated masculine nouns the s has been either preserved or reinstated in the modern languages for example FILIUS son gt French fils DEUS god gt Spanish dios and Portuguese deus and particularly in proper names Spanish Carlos Marcos in the conservative orthography of French Jacques Charles Jules etc 33 Loss of oblique cases Edit The Vulgar Latin vowel shifts caused the merger of several case endings in the nominal and adjectival declensions 34 Some of the causes include the loss of final m the merger of ă with a and the merger of ŭ with ō see tables 34 Thus by the 5th century the number of case contrasts had been drastically reduced 34 Evolution of a 1st declension noun caepa cepa onion feminine singular Classical c 1st century Vulgar 34 c 5th cent Modern Romaniannominative caepa cepa cepa ceapăaccusative caepam cepamablative caepa cepadative caepae cepae cepe cepegenitiveEvolution of a 2nd declension noun murus wall masculine singular Classical c 1st cent Vulgar 34 c 5th cent Old French c 11th cent nominative murus muros mursaccusative murum muru murablative murō murodativegenitive muri muri There also seems to be a marked tendency to confuse different forms even when they had not become homophonous like the generally more distinct plurals which indicates that nominal declension was shaped not only by phonetic mergers but also by structural factors 34 As a result of the untenability of the noun case system after these phonetic changes Vulgar Latin shifted from a markedly synthetic language to a more analytic one The genitive case died out around the 3rd century AD according to Meyer Lubke and began to be replaced by de noun which originally meant about concerning weakened to of as early as the 2nd century BC citation needed Exceptions of remaining genitive forms are some pronouns certain fossilized expressions and some proper names For example French jeudi Thursday lt Old French juesdi lt Vulgar Latin jovis dies Spanish es menester it is necessary lt est ministeri and Italian terremoto earthquake lt terrae motu as well as names like Paoli Pieri 35 The dative case lasted longer than the genitive even though Plautus in the 2nd century BC already shows some instances of substitution by the construction ad accusative For example ad carnuficem dabo 35 36 The accusative case developed as a prepositional case displacing many instances of the ablative 35 Towards the end of the imperial period the accusative came to be used more and more as a general oblique case 37 Despite increasing case mergers nominative and accusative forms seem to have remained distinct for much longer since they are rarely confused in inscriptions 37 Even though Gaulish texts from the 7th century rarely confuse both forms it is believed that both cases began to merge in Africa by the end of the empire and a bit later in parts of Italy and Iberia 37 Nowadays Romanian maintains a two case system while Old French and Old Occitan had a two case subject oblique system This Old French system was based largely on whether or not the Latin case ending contained an s or not with the s being retained but all vowels in the ending being lost as with veisin below But since this meant that it was easy to confuse the singular nominative with the plural oblique and the plural nominative with the singular oblique this case system ultimately collapsed as well and Middle French adopted one case usually the oblique for all purposes leaving the Romanian the only one to survive to the present day Evolution of a masculine noun in Old French veisin neighbor definite article in parentheses Classical Latin 1st cent Old French 11th cent singular nominative vicinus li veisinsaccusative vicinum le veisingenitive vicini dative vicinō ablativeplural nominative vicini li veisinaccusative vicinōs les veisinsgenitive vicinōrum dative vicinis ablativeWider use of prepositions Edit Loss of a productive noun case system meant that the syntactic purposes it formerly served now had to be performed by prepositions and other paraphrases These particles increased in number and many new ones were formed by compounding old ones The descendant Romance languages are full of grammatical particles such as Spanish donde where from Latin de unde which in Romanian literally means from where where from or French des since from de ex while the equivalent Spanish and Portuguese desde is de ex de Spanish despues and Portuguese depois after represent de ex post Some of these new compounds appear in literary texts during the late empire French dehors Spanish de fuera and Portuguese de fora outside all represent de foris Romanian afară ad foris and we find Jerome writing stulti nonne qui fecit quod de foris est etiam id quod de intus est fecit Luke 11 40 ye fools did not he that made which is without make that which is within also In some cases compounds were created by combining a large number of particles such as the Romanian adineauri just recently from ad de in illa hora 38 Classical Latin Marcus patri librum dat Marcus is giving his father a the book Vulgar Latin Marcos da libru a patre Marcus is giving a the book to his father Just as in the disappearing dative case colloquial Latin sometimes replaced the disappearing genitive case with the preposition de followed by the ablative then eventually the accusative oblique Classical Latin Marcus mihi librum patris dat Marcus is giving me his father s book Vulgar Latin Marcos mi da libru de patre Marcus is giving me the book of his father Pronouns Edit Unlike in the nominal and adjectival inflections pronouns kept great part of the case distinctions However many changes happened For example the ɡ of ego was lost by the end of the empire and eo appears in manuscripts from the 6th century which 39 Reconstructed pronominal system of Vulgar Latin 39 1st person 2nd person 3rd personsingular plural singular pluralNominative eo nọs tu vọsDative mi nọ be s ti tẹ be vọ be s si sẹ beAccusative mẹ nọs tẹ vọs sẹAdverbs Edit Classical Latin had a number of different suffixes that made adverbs from adjectives carus dear formed care dearly acriter fiercely from acer crebrō often from creber All of these derivational suffixes were lost in Vulgar Latin where adverbs were invariably formed by a feminine ablative form modifying mente which was originally the ablative of mens and so meant with a mind So velōx quick instead of velōciter quickly gave veloci mente originally with a quick mind quick mindedly This explains the widespread rule for forming adverbs in many Romance languages add the suffix ment e to the feminine form of the adjective The development illustrates a textbook case of grammaticalization in which an autonomous form the noun meaning mind while still in free lexical use in e g Italian venire in mente come to mind becomes a productive suffix for forming adverbs in Romance such as Italian chiaramente Spanish claramente clearly with both its source and its meaning opaque in that usage other than as adverb formant Verbs Edit The Cantar de Mio Cid Song of my Cid is the earliest Spanish text Main article Romance verbs See also Romance languages Verbal morphology In general the verbal system in the Romance languages changed less from Classical Latin than did the nominal system The four conjugational classes generally survived The second and third conjugations already had identical imperfect tense forms in Latin and also shared a common present participle Because of the merging of short i with long e in most of Vulgar Latin these two conjugations grew even closer together Several of the most frequently used forms became indistinguishable while others became distinguished only by stress placement Infinitive 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Imperative singularsingular pluralSecond conjugation Classical ere eō es et emus etis ent eSecond conjugation Vulgar ẹ re j o es e t ẹ mos ẹ tes en t eThird conjugation Vulgar ere o emos etes on t Third conjugation Classical ere ō is it imus itis unt e These two conjugations came to be conflated in many of the Romance languages often by merging them into a single class while taking endings from each of the original two conjugations Which endings survived was different for each language although most tended to favour second conjugation endings over the third conjugation Spanish for example mostly eliminated the third conjugation forms in favour of second conjugation forms French and Catalan did the same but tended to generalise the third conjugation infinitive instead Catalan in particular almost eliminated the second conjugation ending over time reducing it to a small relic class In Italian the two infinitive endings remained separate but spelled identically while the conjugations merged in most other respects much as in the other languages However the third conjugation third person plural present ending survived in favour of the second conjugation version and was even extended to the fourth conjugation Romanian also maintained the distinction between the second and third conjugation endings In the perfect many languages generalized the aui ending most frequently found in the first conjugation This led to an unusual development phonetically the ending was treated as the diphthong au rather than containing a semivowel awi and in other cases the w sound was simply dropped We know this because it did not participate in the sound shift from w to b Thus Latin amaui amauit I loved he she loved in many areas became proto Romance amai and amaut yielding for example Portuguese amei amou This suggests that in the spoken language these changes in conjugation preceded the loss of w 31 Another major systemic change was to the future tense remodelled in Vulgar Latin with auxiliary verbs A new future was originally formed with the auxiliary verb habere amare habeo literally to love I have cf English I have to love which has shades of a future meaning This was contracted into a new future suffix in Western Romance forms which can be seen in the following modern examples of I will love French j aimerai je aimer ai aimer to love ai I have Portuguese and Galician amarei amar h ei amar to love hei I have Spanish and Catalan amare amar h e amar to love he I have Italian amero amar h o amare to love ho I have A periphrastic construction of the form to have to late Latin habere ad used as future is characteristic of Sardinian Ap a istare lt apo a istare I will stay Ap a narrere lt apo a narrer I will say An innovative conditional distinct from the subjunctive also developed in the same way infinitive conjugated form of habere The fact that the future and conditional endings were originally independent words is still evident in literary Portuguese which in these tenses allows clitic object pronouns to be incorporated between the root of the verb and its ending I will love eu amarei but I will love you amar te ei from amar te you eu hei amar te h ei amar te ei In Spanish Italian and Portuguese personal pronouns can still be omitted from verb phrases as in Latin as the endings are still distinct enough to convey that information venio gt Sp vengo I come In French however all the endings are typically homophonous except the first and second person and occasionally also third person plural so the pronouns are always used je viens except in the imperative Contrary to the millennia long continuity of much of the active verb system which has now survived 6000 years of known evolution the synthetic passive voice was utterly lost in Romance being replaced with periphrastic verb forms composed of the verb to be plus a passive participle or impersonal reflexive forms composed of a verb and a passivizing pronoun Apart from the grammatical and phonetic developments there were many cases of verbs merging as complex subtleties in Latin were reduced to simplified verbs in Romance A classic example of this are the verbs expressing the concept to go Consider three particular verbs in Classical Latin expressing concepts of going ire vadere and ambitare In Spanish and Portuguese ire and vadere merged into the verb ir which derives some conjugated forms from ire and some from vadere andar was maintained as a separate verb derived from ambitare Italian instead merged vadere and ambitare into the verb andare At the extreme French merged three Latin verbs with for example the present tense deriving from vadere and another verb ambulare or something like it and the future tense deriving from ire Similarly the Romance distinction between the Romance verbs for to be essere and stare was lost in French as these merged into the verb etre In Italian the verb essere inherited both Romance meanings of being essentially and being temporarily of the quality of while stare specialized into a verb denoting location or dwelling or state of health Copula Edit Main article Romance copula The copula that is the verb signifying to be of Classical Latin was esse This evolved to essere in Vulgar Latin by attaching the common infinitive suffix re to the classical infinitive this produced Italian essere and French etre through Proto Gallo Romance essre and Old French estre as well as Spanish and Portuguese ser Romanian a fi derives from fieri which means to become In Vulgar Latin a second copula developed utilizing the verb stare which originally meant and is cognate with to stand to denote a more temporary meaning That is essere signified the essence while stare signified the state Stare evolved to Spanish and Portuguese estar and Old French ester both through estare Romanian a sta to stand using the original form for the noun stare state starea the state while Italian retained the original form The semantic shift that underlies this evolution is more or less as follows A speaker of Classical Latin might have said vir est in foro meaning the man is in at the marketplace The same sentence in Vulgar Latin could have been h omo stat in foro the man stands in at the marketplace replacing the est from esse with stat from stare because standing was what was perceived as what the man was actually doing The use of stare in this case was still semantically transparent assuming that it meant to stand but soon the shift from esse to stare became more widespread In the Iberian peninsula esse ended up only denoting natural qualities that would not change while stare was applied to transient qualities and location In Italian stare is used mainly for location transitory state of health sta male s he is ill but e gracile s he is puny and as in Spanish for the eminently transient quality implied in a verb s progressive form such as sto scrivendo to express I am writing The historical development of the stare gerund progressive in those Romance languages that have it seems to have been a passage from a usage such as sto pensando I stand stay here thinking in which the stare form carries the full semantic load of stand stay to grammaticalization of the construction as expression of progressive aspect Similar in concept to the English verbal construction of I am still thinking The process of reanalysis that took place over time bleached the semantics of stare so that when used in combination with the gerund the form became solely a grammatical marker of subject and tense e g sto subject first person singular present stavo subject first person singular past no longer a lexical verb with the semantics of stand not unlike the auxiliary in compound tenses that once meant have possess but is now semantically empty j ai ecrit ho scritto he escrito etc Whereas sto scappando would once have been semantically strange at best I stay escaping once grammaticalization was achieved collocation with a verb of inherent mobility was no longer contradictory and sto scappando could and did become the normal way to express I am escaping Although it might be objected that in sentences like Spanish la catedral esta en la ciudad the cathedral is in the city this is also unlikely to change but all locations are expressed through estar in Spanish as this usage originally conveyed the sense of the cathedral stands in the city Word order typology Edit Classical Latin in most cases adopted an SOV word order in ordinary prose although other word orders were employed such as in poetry enabled by inflectional marking of the grammatical function of words However word order in the modern Romance languages generally adopted a standard SVO word order Fragments of SOV word order still survive in the placement of clitic object pronouns e g Spanish yo te amo I love you See also Edit Language portal Proto Romance Romance copula Romance languages Reichenau Glosses Oaths of Strasbourg Veronese Riddle Glosas Emilianenses Gallo Romance Gallo Italic Ibero Roman Common Romanian Daco Roman Thraco RomanHistory of specific Romance languages Edit Sicilian Catalan phonology History of French History of Italian History of Portuguese History of the Spanish language History of the Romanian language Old FrenchReferences EditCitations Edit Herman 2000 7 Elcock 1960 20 Eskhult 2018 6 Posner 1996 3 Herman 2000 1 Elcock 1960 21 Grandgent 1907 2 3 Wright 2002 27 28 Pei 1941 16 23 Treadgold 1997 184 217 276 Treadgold 1997 221 224 290 293 The combined Slavic Avar invasion proved especially disruptive as it isolated Latin speakers in the interior of the Balkans from their western counterparts for more than a millennium Nandris 1951 15 Treadgold 1997 310 337 339 371 372 Carlton 1973 237 According to Pei amp Gaeng 1976 76 81 the decisive moment came with the Islamic conquest of North Africa and Iberia which was followed by numerous raids on land and by sea All this had the effect of disrupting connections between the western Romance speaking regions Herman 2000 117 Adams 2007 660 670 Alkire amp Rosen 2010 287 Herman 2000 2 Harrington et al 1997 11 Harrington et al 1997 7 10 Pope 1934 156 2 Hall 1976 180 Allen 1965 27 29 Gouvert 2015 83 Pope 1934 155 Gouvert 2016 48 Grandgent 1907 267 Pope 1934 156 3 Grandgent 1907 226 Pope 1934 187 b Grandgent 1907 255 Palmer 1988 157 Leppanen amp Alho 2018 21 22 Adams 2013 60 1 67 Adams 2007 626 9 a b c Vincent 1990 a b Harrington et al 1997 Menendez Pidal 1968 p 208 Survivances du cas sujet a b c d e f Herman 2000 p 52 a b c Grandgent 1991 p 82 sfn error no target CITEREFGrandgent1991 help Captivi 1019 a b c Herman 2000 p 53 Romanian Explanatory Dictionary DEXOnline ro a b Grandgent 1991 p 238 sfn error no target CITEREFGrandgent1991 help Works consulted Edit GeneralAdams J N 2007 The Regional Diversification of Latin New York Cambridge University Press Adams James Noel 2013 Social variation and the Latin language Cambridge Cambridge University Press Alkire Ti 2010 Romance Languages A Historical Introduction New York Cambridge University Press Allen W Sidney 1965 Vox Latina a Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin 2nd ed Cambridge England Cambridge University Press ISBN 0 521 37936 9 Boyd Bowman Peter 1980 From Latin to Romance in Sound Charts Washington DC Georgetown University Press Carlton Charles Merritt 1973 A linguistic analysis of a collection of Late Latin documents composed in Ravenna between A D 445 700 The Hague Mouton Diez Friedrich 1882 Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen in German 5th ed Bonn E Weber Elcock W D 1960 The Romance Languages London Faber amp Faber Eskhult Josef 2018 Vulgar Latin as an emergent concept in the Italian Renaissance 1435 1601 its ancient and medieval prehistory and its emergence and development in Renaissance linguistic thought Journal of Latin Linguistics 17 2 191 230 doi 10 1515 joll 2018 0006 Grandgent C H 1907 An Introduction to Vulgar Latin Boston D C Heath Gouvert Xavier 2016 Du protoitalique au protoroman Deux problemes de reconstruction phonologique In Buchi Eva amp Schweickard Wolfgang eds Dictionnaire etymologique roman 2 27 51 Berlin De Gruyter Hall Robert A Jr 1950 The Reconstruction of Proto Romance Language 26 1 6 27 doi 10 2307 410406 JSTOR 410406 Hall Robert Anderson 1976 Proto Romance Phonology New York Elsevier Harrington K P Pucci J Elliott A G 1997 Medieval Latin 2nd ed University of Chicago Press ISBN 0 226 31712 9 Herman Jozsef 2000 Vulgar Latin Translated by Wright Roger University Park Pennsylvania State University Press ISBN 0 271 02001 6 Johnson Mark J 1988 Toward a History of Theoderic s Building Program Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 73 96 doi 10 2307 1291590 JSTOR 1291590 Leppanen V amp Alho T 2018 On the mergers of Latin close mid vowels Transactions of the Philological Society 116 460 483 Lloyd Paul M 1979 On the Definition of Vulgar Latin The Eternal Return Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 80 2 110 122 JSTOR 43343254 Meyer Paul 1906 Beginnings and Progress of Romance Philology In Rogers Howard J ed Congress of Arts and Sciences Universal Exposition St Louis 1904 Vol III Boston and New York Houghton Mifflin and Company pp 237 255 Nandris Grigore 1951 The development and structure of Rumanian The Slavonic and East European Review 30 7 39 Palmer L R 1988 1954 The Latin Language University of Oklahoma ISBN 0 8061 2136 X Pei Mario 1941 The Italian language New York Columbia University Press Pei Mario amp Gaeng Paul A 1976 The story of Latin and the Romance languages New York Harker amp Row Pulgram Ernst 1950 Spoken and Written Latin Language 26 4 458 466 doi 10 2307 410397 JSTOR 410397 Posner Rebecca 1996 The Romance Languages Cambridge New York Cambridge University Press Sihler A L 1995 New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin Oxford Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 508345 8 Treadgold Warren 1997 A history of the Byzantine state and society Stanford University Press Tucker T G 1985 1931 Etymological Dictionary of Latin Ares Publishers ISBN 0 89005 172 0 Vaananen Veikko 1981 Introduction au latin vulgaire 3rd ed Paris Klincksieck ISBN 2 252 02360 0 Vincent Nigel 1990 Latin In Harris M Vincent N eds The Romance Languages Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 520829 3 von Wartburg Walther Chambon Jean Pierre 1922 1967 Franzosisches etymologisches Worterbuch eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes in German and French Bonn F Klopp Wright Roger 1982 Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France Liverpool Francis Cairns Wright Roger 2002 A Sociophilological Study of Late Latin Utrecht Brepols Transitions to Romance languages Edit To Romance in generalBanniard Michel 1997 Du latin aux langues romanes Paris Nathan Bonfante Giuliano 1999 The origin of the Romance languages Stages in the development of Latin Heidelberg Carl Winter Ledgeway Adam 2012 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Oxford Oxford University Press Ledgeway Adam Maiden Martin eds 2016 The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages Part 1 The Making of the Romance Languages Oxford England Oxford University Press Maiden Martin Smith John Charles Ledgeway Adam eds 2013 The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages Volume II Contexts Cambridge England Cambridge University Press esp parts 1 amp 2 Latin and the Making of the Romance Languages The Transition from Latin to the Romance Languages Wright Roger 1982 Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France Liverpool Francis Cairns Wright Roger ed 1991 Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle ages London New York Routledge To FrenchAyres Bennett Wendy 1995 A History of the French Language through Texts London New York Routledge Kibler William W 1984 An Introduction to Old French New York Modern Language Association of America Lodge R Anthony 1993 French From Dialect to Standard London New York Routledge Pope Mildred K 1934 From Latin to Modern French with Especial Consideration of Anglo Norman Phonology and Morphology Manchester Manchester University Press Price Glanville 1998 The French language present and past Revised ed London England Grant and Cutler To ItalianMaiden Martin 1996 A Linguistic History of Italian New York Longman Vincent Nigel 2006 Languages in contact in Medieval Italy In Lepschy Anna Laura ed Rethinking Languages in Contact The Case of Italian Oxford and New York LEGENDA Routledge pp 12 27 To SpanishLloyd Paul M 1987 From Latin to Spanish Philadelphia American Philosophical Society Penny Ralph 2002 A History of the Spanish Language Cambridge England Cambridge University Press Pharies David A 2007 A Brief History of the Spanish Language Chicago IL University of Chicago Press Pountain Christopher J 2000 A History of the Spanish Language Through Texts London England Routledge To PortugueseCastro Ivo 2004 Introducao a Historia do Portugues Lisbon Edicoes Colibri Emiliano Antonio 2003 Latim e Romance na segunda metade do seculo XI Lisbon Fundacao Gulbenkian Williams Edwin B 1968 From Latin to Portuguese Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Portuguese Language Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press To OccitanPaden William D 1998 An Introduction to Old Occitan New York Modern Language Association of America To SardinianBlasco Ferrer Eduardo 1984 Storia linguistica della Sardegna Tubingen Max Niemeyer Verlag Further reading EditAdams James Noel 1976 The Text and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle Anonymus Valesianus II London University of London Institute of Classical Studies 1977 The Vulgar Latin of the letters of Claudius Terentianus Manchester UK Manchester Univ Press 2013 Social Variation and the Latin Language Cambridge Cambridge University Press Burghini Julia and Javier Uria 2015 Some neglected evidence on Vulgar Latin glide suppression Consentius 27 17 20 N Glotta Zeitschrift Fur Griechische Und Lateinische Sprache 91 15 26 JSTOR 24368205 Jensen Frede 1972 From Vulgar Latin to Old Provencal Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press Lakoff Robin Tolmach 2006 Vulgar Latin Comparative Castration and Comparative Theories of Syntax Style 40 nos 1 2 56 61 JSTOR 10 5325 style 40 1 2 56 Rohlfs Gerhard 1970 From Vulgar Latin to Old French An Introduction to the Study of the Old French Language Detroit Wayne State University Press Weiss Michael 2009 Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin Ann Arbor MI Beechstave Zovic V 2015 Vulgar Latin in Inscriptions from the Roman Province of Dalmatia Vjesnik Za Arheologiju I Povijest Dalmatinsku 108 157 222 External links EditBatzarov Zdravko 2000 Orbis Latinus Archived from the original on 25 December 2018 Retrieved 19 September 2009 Norberg Dag Johnson R H Translator 2009 1980 Latin at the End of the Imperial Age Manuel pratique de latin medieval New York Columbia University Press Orbis Latinus a href wiki Template Cite book title Template Cite book cite book a first2 has generic name help Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum Paris Laboratoire d Histoire des theories linguistiques 2008 Archived from the original on 7 January 2013 Retrieved 19 September 2009 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Vulgar Latin amp oldid 1093394389, wikipedia, wiki, book,

books

, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.