Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!sarima
From: sarima@netcom.com (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: original Nostratic word challenge
Message-ID: <sarimaD6FI0C.7Ip@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <fgao-0103950030100001@nb-dyna107.interaccess.com> <aldersonD66InG.F2p@netcom.com> <3lcpuj$2cm@epx.cis.umn.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 22:19:24 GMT
Lines: 22
Sender: sarima@netcom10.netcom.com

In article <3lcpuj$2cm@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
William E Meuse <meus0001@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> The dissimilarity of "Proto-Romance" to actual Latin is an excellent 
>argumant showing the fallibility of these proto languages.

Careful here - there is ample evidence that Classical Latin is a
highly affectational, upper-class dialect, with a variety of
hyper-corrections and neologisms.  Even some classical sources
allude to this in one way or another (check out the speech of slaves
and other lower-class characters in clasical comedies).

When one uses various independent means to determine the "common"
dialects of Latin, the result is much more similar to Proto-Romance
than the classical language - and the later Vulgar Latin forms
are even closer yet to Proto-Romance (in fact it can be argued
that Proto-Romance *is* Late Vulgar Latin).
-- 
NAMES: sarima@netcom.com swf@ElSegundoCA.attgis.com

May the peace of God be with you.

