# I don't believe in Proto-Romance.



## AzimuthBlast

It makes no sense since some lect differences date to the Vulgar Latin period. Even by the sixth-century there was mutual intelligibility forming, and it's confirmed in the 8th century when an Old English priest speaking British Latin (for all intents and purposes, it can be considered an Oïl lect of Gallo-Roman) didn't understand the Pope's Old Italian.

People also seem to forget "Latin" died. So called Liturgical Latin is just an Italian-inspired pronunciation of Classical Latin texts.

Latin died in the first centuries AD, only dialects of it survived.


----------



## berndf

AzimuthBlast said:


> Even by the sixth-century there was mutual intelligibility forming


Could it be that you mean _unintelligibility_?


----------



## AzimuthBlast

Yes, sorry.


----------



## berndf

There are many languages with mutually unintelligible dialects. I am not convinced that is a compelling argument.


----------



## AzimuthBlast

No. There are many dialects erroneously not called languages.

The accepted meaning of dialect presupposes that it's a language, meaning you just admitted my point was correct.

The differences even by the sixth century are more than lectic ones, but dialectic: they've split and are dialects of each other and Latin, that is to say languages descending from a common language, Latin.


----------



## desi4life

AzimuthBlast said:


> they've split and are dialects of each other and Latin, that is to say languages descending from a common language, Latin.



If they descend from a common language, then that contradicts your argument against Proto-Romance.


----------



## berndf

AzimuthBlast said:


> The differences even by the sixth century are more than lectic ones


I am afraid, "lectic" is not an introduced word of the English language in a sense that could possibly be applicable here. Can you explain what you mean by it?


AzimuthBlast said:


> they've split and are dialects of each other and Latin, that is to say languages descending from a common language, Latin.


Are you equating the terms _daughter-language_ and _dialect_? No, this is not the "accepted meaning" of _dialect_.


----------



## AzimuthBlast

desi4life said:


> If they descend from a common language, then that contradicts your argument against Proto-Romance.



No. Proto-Romance cannot exist.

There is no such thing as an "introduced" word. Dialectic and lectic mean relating to a dialect or a lect, respectively.

The accepted OED definition of a dialect is one related genetically to another one. You're wrong.


----------



## berndf

AzimuthBlast said:


> No. Proto-Romance cannot exist.
> 
> There is no such thing as an "introduced" word. Dialectic and lectic mean relating to a dialect or a lect, respectively.
> 
> The accepted OED definition of a dialect is one related genetically to another one. You're wrong.


You can of course use your own private vocabulary but it makes discussion a wee bit difficult.


----------



## AzimuthBlast

The OED is not private vocabulary. Please don't be sarcastic.

In any case, the development of certain sounds like kw or even r and geminate r disprove any nonsense about them being lects.


----------



## berndf

"Genetically related" is not the definition of dialect, neither in the OED nor anywhere else. Hindi and Icelandic are also genetically related but nobody would call them dialects of each other.


----------



## Delvo

I can't be sure what you mean, trying to navigate through the self-contradiction of languages being related but not having a proto-language, and the made-up non-words "lect/lectic", and the weird belligerence, but, if I'm getting your meaning right...

Your objection concerning Proto-Romance seems to be that you think that that name must refer to some separate language from Latin, which existed after Latin's time was over but before the modern descendants separated from each other...?

If the modern "Romance" languages came directly from Latin, with no distinct other language between them in the timeline, then yes, it is accurate to say that no such intermediate language existed. However, that's not the definition or only possible identification of "Proto-Romance". A proto-language is simply whatever language a family of languages descends from (so a claim that a proto-language doesn't exist is a claim that they didn't all descend from any single past language), no matter when it was spoken, where it was spoken, _or what other names it might also be known by_. So if modern "Romance" languages came directly from Latin, then Latin was "Proto-Romance" and "Proto-Romance" was Latin.


----------



## berndf

Delvo said:


> and the made-up non-words "lect/lectic"


It is not exactly a non-word: The term _lect _is sometimes (stress on "some") used in sociolingustics as an umbrella term for _dialect, sociolect_ and _register_. But his usage here is obviously not that.


----------



## gburtonio

In any case, a proto-language isn't really something you can believe or not believe in. It's a theoretical construct – a hypothetical reconstruction based on similarities between languages. Once you've done the analysis, then voila – you have created a proto-language. You can't disprove it, since the details of the proto-language you come up with are simply the result of your analysis and proto-languages are by nature unattested. What you might do is question the method or outcome of the analysis, or you might question exactly where, when and by whom the proto-language would have been spoken. But those are different questions.

For what it's worth, this is the definition of 'dialect' in the OED (no mention of genetics, unsurprisingly):

"A form or variety of a language which is peculiar to a specific region, esp. one which differs from the standard or literary form of the language in respect of vocabulary, pronunciation, idiom, etc.; (as a mass noun) provincial or rustic speech. Also more generally: a particular language considered in terms of its relationship with the family of languages to which it belongs."


----------



## Dymn

Isn't "Proto-Romance" shorthand for "a stage of Romance languages where commonalities shared by most if not all varieties developed but which we can't explain from Classical Latin written sources"?


----------



## jmx

Dymn said:


> Isn't "Proto-Romance" shorthand for "a stage of Romance languages where commonalities shared by most if not all varieties developed but which we can't explain from Classical Latin written sources"?


That is my understanding.


----------

