The vulgar Latin or low-Latin (in Latin, sermo uulgaris , “the popular speech”) is a term which includes the Dialecte S vernacular S of the Latin which existed for the majority in the Western province S of the Roman Empire, until these dialects, deviating more and more from/to each other, were transformed progressively into Romance Langues primitive. It is considered that the change, started about the 2nd century with traces of former changes, finished around the 9th century.

This spoken Latin differed from the literary language as was the traditional Latin , as well in its Prononciation and its Vocabulaire that in its Grammaire. Certain aspects of the vulgar Latin appeared only at the end of the Empire, while it is probable that others existed in spoken Latin, at least in the shapes Basilecte S of Latin, much earlier.

In the majority of the definitions, the “vulgar Latin” seems a primarily spoken and seldom written language, because written Latin remained closer to traditional Latin. There are good reasons to think that spoken Latin burst in divergent dialects for this period. Because nobody transcribed the daily speeches of the latinophones during the period of which it is question, those which study the vulgar Latin must do it while making use of indirect methods.

Our knowledge of the vulgar Latin comes from three primary sources. First of all, the contrastive Linguistique can be used to rebuild its subjacent forms starting from the attested Romance languages, for then noting how they differ from traditional Latin.

Then, several texts of normative grammar dating from the period of late Latin condemn linguistic errors that the latinophones tended to make. These texts are thus of rich person sources on the way in which the latinophones spoke really their language.

Lastly, the non-classiques Solécisme S and uses that one occasionally detects in certain late Latin texts clarify the way in which their authors spoke.

What the vulgar Latin?

The “vulgar” name wants to only say “common”: it comes from the Latin word uulgaris , which means “common” or “what is of the people”. The expression of “vulgar Latin”, inspired by the expression sermo uulgaris employed by Cicéron, and taking again the vulgar direction of in the modern languages, appeared in the years 1870. For the Latinists, “vulgar Latin” has several directions.

1. It designates Latin spoken about the Roman Empire. Traditional Latin was always a rather artificial literary language; Latin that the Roman soldiers, tradesmen and craftsmen with the Gaulle brought, with the Ibérie or in Dacie was not necessarily that of Cicéron. According to this definition, the vulgar Latin was a spoken language, while one wrote in “late” Latin (from which the style was a little different from the “traditional” standards, i.e. the Latin texts of the 1st century).

2. It designates the hypothetical ancestor of the Romance Langues. It is a language which one cannot know directly, besides some inscriptions (Graffiti S); it is Latin who underwent good number of important changes, including sound, that one can rebuild with the compared Linguistique by looking at the changes which are obvious in its descendants, the Romance vernacular languages. Sometimes
3. In a direction even more circumscribed, one calls “vulgar Latin” the proto-Romance hypothetical language of the Western Romance languages: the vernacular ones that one finds in the north and the west of a line Spezia - Rimini, in France, and in the Iberian peninsula; and Romance languages of Africa of the North-East of which it remains only little of traces. According to this point of view, the Italian of the south-east of the Italy, the Rumanian , and the Dalmate would have developed separately.
4. One employs sometimes “vulgar Latin” to describe the grammatical innovations which one finds in certain texts written in late Latin, such as the Peregrinatio Aetheriae of the 4th century, an account that a nun at the time of a stay in Palestine wrote and with the Mont the Sinai, or many works of Gregoire de Tours. Since the written documentation of the shapes of the vulgar Latin is rare, these works are very useful for the philologists, especially because they contain sometimes “errors” which give us an outline of the speeches in force during the period when they were written.

Certain literary works written in registers familiar and dating from the time of traditional Latin also enable us to foresee the world of the vulgar Latin. Works of Plaute, like those of Terence, of the comedies filled characters who are slaves preserve the certain primitive shapes basilectes of Latin, just like the dialog of freed in the Cena Trimalchionis from Pétrone.

The vulgar Latin developed in a way different in the various provinces from the Roman Empire, and these processes had like result the gradual formation of the French, of the Italian , the Spanish , the Portuguese, the Rumanian , the Occitan, the Catalan and the Romanche. Although the Official language remained Latin, the vulgar Latin was the popular language, and that until these new localized forms did not deviate from/to each other to form news languages standards. Obviously, it is considered that the vulgar Latin lost himself since the local dialects started to acquire enough particular characteristics to form distinct languages. These languages (proto-Romance) were transformed progressively into Romance languages, and one can say that this transformation was completed when one could distinguish an independent value in each one of them (for example, the word for “yes”: Oïl , Oc or if ).

It is considered that during the 3rd century, the vocabulary of the vulgar Latin, just like its variations, changed in an important way. (e.g., equus was replaced by caballus , which changed later, in French, in Cheval ). Recent studies (which it would perhaps be necessary to continue thoroughly), seem to indicate that the pronunciations, they also, started as of then diverging to approach the current pronunciations. According to these studies, the most spectacular example of these changes took place around Naples. However, these changes did not produirent uniform manner in the territory of the Empire, and thus, the largest differences were perhaps among the various shapes of the vulgar Latin in multiple areas (and that due also to the acquisition of newer local roots). However it should be noted that this theory is pressed for the majority on the rebuilding A posteriori , rather than, obviously, on texts.

During a few centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, the vulgar Latin and late Latin writing existed at the same time, because when the educated people who spoke one about the vernacular novels tried to write while making use of the good grammar and the good orthography, the result was a language influenced by the standards of traditional Latin.

However, with the third council of Turns in 813, the priests are transfered to order to give their preachings in the local vernacular languages so that those were comprehensible - i.e. or in rustica lingua romanica , a vulgar Latin then definitely distinct from solidified ecclesiastical Latin, or in one of the German dialects. It was one important moment in the evolution of the vulgar Latin. Less than thirty years after the council of Turns, in 842, the Oaths of Strasbourg recording an agreement between two of the heirs to Charlemagne, were lent in a Romance language and not in Latin:

Extract of the text: Pro Deo amur and pro Christian poblo and nostro commun run salvament, of STI di in front, as Deus to savir and podir to me dunat, if will salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo and in ajudha and cadhuna cosa, if cum om per dreit its fradra salvar dift, in O quid it me altresi fazet, and ab null Ludher plaid numquam prindrai, which, meon flight, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.

Translation: For the love of god and the Christian people and our common safety, from aujourd' today, and as long as God will give me knowledge and capacity, I helped this mien Charles brother by my assistance and in any thing, as one must help his brother, according to equity, provided that it makes in the same way for me, and I will never hold with Lothaire any plaid which, of my will, can be detrimental with my Charles. brother

Late Latin, always based in Rome, probably included/understood these acquisitions, recording the changes which were carried out in Latin in a closer area - vaguely identical to Italy. Constant Latin was then “cold”, on the one hand by the codings of the Roman law undertaken by Justinien, and on the other hand by the Church; both were finally unified by medieval copyists, thus separating them in a final way of the vulgar Romance idioms which had been already established like independent. The written language continued to exist as a Latin medieval. The vernacular novels were then identified like distinct languages, and they started Consequently to develop local standards like their clean Orthographe S., it is not necessary more to speak about “vulgar Latin”, the spoken language usually not being more of Latin but one of the incipient Romance languages.

Between the 8th century and the 10th century, Latin ceases being included/understood like language of current communication. Mr. Banniard, being based on work of Sociolinguistique retrospective, advances the following dates:

The vulgar Latin is thus a collective term which one employs to describe a group of dialects having local characteristics (without to be necessarily common) but which are not a “language” in the traditional direction of the term. One could describe the vulgar Latin as being only one fuzzy matter “magmatic” which slowly and locally crystallized in various primitive forms of each Romance language, which have, they, like ultimate source traditional Latin. The vulgar Latin was thus an intermediate point in the evolution of Latin towards the Romance languages, not their source.

The concept of “vulgar Latin” is called today into question to the profit of other expressions. Certain linguists rather prefer “popular” Latin speech than of vulgar Latin. To insist on the oral character of these Latin shapes, others employ the Latin expression “spoken” by adding the qualification sometimes about “late” from where LPT (“Latin spoken late”). The expression “Latin late” is sometimes presented like a synonym of “vulgar Latin”.

Phonology

Vowels

Among the changes which traditional Latin underwent so that it is transformed into vulgar Latin, then in proto-Romance languages, deepest were the reorganization of its vocalic system . Latin had before ten distinct vowels: long and short versions of has, E, I, O, and U, like three Diphtongue S: AE, OE and WITH. (According to some, it appeared in it also UI). There were also long and short versions of Y, borrowed from the Greek . Separately the Sardinian , one can summarize the vocalic transformations which traditional Latin in the table underwent on the right.

Diphthongs AE and OE changed much. The deterioration of WITH in /o/ is attested as of Ier century before J.C., for the example of Claudius Pulcher, which adopted the name of Clodius , to follow the popular pronunciation. TO will be reduced in many languages to /o/ after them /o/ and /o ː/ original other changes had undergone. (Portuguese changed only into /ou/ , before these changes do not become, rather recently, more deep. The occitan and Rumanian preserve it /au/ traditional.)

Therefore, the system of ten vowels that traditional Latin had (without counting the diphthongs and Y of Greek origin), who had besides recourse to a system of Voyelle S phonemic, transformed itself into a system where the lengths of the vowels did not have any more a phonemic value, but where deteriorations of vocal quality acquired a phonemic value. Because one was not obliged any more to stress certain vowels, making them longer than of others, one could stress syllables, accentuating some of them, which was done much less in traditional Latin. However to stress the stressed syllables also had as result which the inaccentuées syllables had tendency to become less distinct. Just as certain changes took place on the sounds of the stressed syllables. All these changes led to a new system of vowels: there were seven of them which was accentuated (six in novel, five in Sardinian) like five not-accentuated vocalic phonemes.

The vowels to which gave birth the collapse of O and the E short revealed unstable in the languages girls and tended to be transformed into diphthongs. X-ray (of which the accusative is focum ) (hearth) became the general word in protoroman for " feu" , thus substitute ignis , but its “O” short was transformed into diphthong; different diphthongs appeared in several of the languages resulting from the protoroman (rebuilt language):

• French: fire (what is not any more one diphthong, but rather /f ø/ )

• the Italian : fuoco
• the Spanish : fuego

In French and Italian, these changes were carried out only in the “open” syllables. Spanish, however, diphtongua in all the circumstances, creating a simple vowel system, consistent in five vowels for the stressed syllables and not-accentuated. In Portuguese, this process of diphthongization did not even take place ( fogo /'fogu/).

Into Rumanian, the E in short of the vulgar Latin was transformed into diphthong in (cf to trust of Latin ferrum ), but l' O in short did not know the same fate ( jib ). The Catalan did not know, him, that a weak diphthongization ( jib ). The Portuguese avoided a little vocalic instability by retaining the Latin distinction between the long and short vowels up to a certain point in its system of closed vowels and opened. The E and O long of Latin in general became closed vowels in Portuguese (written E and O when they are accentuated). The pronunciation of these vowels is the same one as that which one finds in the table of vowels of the vulgar Latin on the right. A certain vocalic instability however could be observed, especially that of l' O weak, which changes into /u/ , like that of l' E weak, which changes, him, in /i/ or /ə/ .

Consonants

The Palatalization of Latin /k/ , /t/ , and often /g/ was almost universal in vulgar Latin; the only Romance dialects which did not know the effects of them were certain varieties of the Sarde. Therefore, Latin caelum , marked /kaelu (m)/ (note the first consonant) /k/ ) became sky /sj ɛl/ while it became céu /'sɛu/ in Portuguese: both start with /s/ . Old the half Latin vowels: V , marked /w/ , ex vinum ) like I (delivery /j/ , as in iocunda , ended up changing into /v/ and /d ʒ/ , respectively. In the same way, when sounds /b/ , /w/ and /v/ were between vowels, they often amalgamated themselves in a its intermediary: /β/ .

In the Latin alphabet, the letters U and V , on the one hand, and the letters I and J on the other hand, did not represent various sounds.

In the Western part of the areas of the Roman languages, a epenthetic vowel was inserted into the beginning of the words which started with a S and another consonant: Latin spatha (sword) thus became espada in Spanish and Portuguese. On the other hand, the Eastern Romance languages kept the rules of Euphonie by adding the épenthèse to the preceding article when it was needed. Italian thus keeps the article the in front of spada , but transforms the article it into lo in front of spaghetto .

The kind of Latin was renewed in the languages girls when those lost the final consonants. In traditional Latin, the terminations - custom and - um were used to make the distinction between the male and neutral substantives in the second variation; once - S and - m drawn aside, the neutrals amalgamated with the masculines, a process which was completed completely in the Romance languages. On the other hand, certain neutral plurals such as gaudia (joys) were réanalysés as female singular. The loss of the - m final was a process which very early seems to have started. Thus, in the epitaph of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, died around 150 av. J. - C., can one read TAVRASIA CISAVNA SAMNIO CEPIT, which one had written in the following way in traditional Latin: Taurāsiam, Cisaunam, Samnium cēpit . However, the - m final was always written in the literary language, though often treated like dumb man for the Scansion in Poésie.

Certificate of the changes

One can find evidence for these changes in l' Appendix Probi , a collection of gloses dating from the 3rd century which prescribe the correct shapes of traditional Latin for certain vulgar forms. These gloses describes:

• a process of Syncope, the loss of the inaccentuées vowels, (MASCVLVS NOT MASCLVS);
• the reduction of /e/ and /i/, formerly syllabic with /j/ (VINEA NOT VINIA);
• a levelling of the distinction between /o/ and /u/ (COLVBER NOT COLOBER) and /e/ and /i/ (DIMIDIVS NOT DEMEDIVS);
• regularization of the irregular forms (GLIS NOT GLIRIS);
• regularization and stressing of the sexuées forms PAVPER MVLIER NOT PAVPERA MVLIER);
• levelling of the distinction between /b/ and /v/ between vowels (BRAVIVM NOT BRABIVM);
• the substitution of diminutives for not-marked words (AVRIS NOT ORICLA, NEPTIS NOT NEPTICLA);
• the loss of nasal which is in the final syllable (MENSA NOT MESA) or the inappropriate insertion of nasal in form of Hypercorrection (FORMOSVS NOT FORMVNSVS).

Many forms that the authors of the Appendix Probi criticized revealed prolific in the Romance languages; oricla not auris , the traditional form, is the source of “French ear”, d' orella as a Catalan, d' oreja in Spanish, d' orecchio in Italian, d' ureche in novel, and d' orelha in Portuguese.

The vocabulary

Certain words coming from traditional Latin were isolated lexicon of the vulgar Latin. Equus , traditional, was seen constantly replaced by caballus (dead loss) (but it is necessary to note iapă in Rumanian, èbba in Sardinian, yegua in Spanish, egua as a Catalan and égua in Portuguese who means all mare , and who derives themselves from equa in traditional Latin). In the same way, aequor (sea) yielded everywhere to pond . One will find on the right a list nonexhaustive of words which were exclusively in the traditional lexicon, confronted to those which were productive in the Romance languages.

Some of these words, forsaken in the Romance languages, were réempruntés with traditional Latin as erudite words. The lexical changes affected even the basic grammatical particles of Latin; much disappeared without leaving of trace in the Romance languages, such as year, At, autem, donec, enim, ergo, etiam, haud, igitur, ita, nam, postquam, quidem, quin, quod, quoque, sed, utrum, and vel .

On the other hand, since the vulgar Latin and clean Latin were, during years, various registers of the same language rather than of the languages various, certain languages Romance preserve Latin words that the majority of them lost. For example, ogni in Italian (each) preserves omnes . Other languages make use of Cognats of totus ( totum with the accusative) to express the same direction; thus one sees tutto in Italian, tudo in Portuguese, todo Spanish, early as a Catalan, occitan and in Rumanian, and of course, all French .

Often Latin words borrowed again from a higher register of the language côtoient more advanced forms. The phonetic developments waited (or their absence) are an indication until one of the forms was borrowed. In Spanish, for example, fungus , accusative fungum in vulgar Latin (mushroom, fongus) became fungo in Italian, fong as a Catalan, fongo in Portuguese and hongo in Spanish, the F > H being normal in Spanish (cf filius > hijo (wire) or facere > hacer (to make). But hongo division of semantic space with fungo , which watch from its lack of vocalic change that it was again borrowed from the highest register of Latin.

Sometimes, a traditional Latin word is kept just like its equivalent of the vulgar Latin. In vulgar Latin, caput yielded its place to tested (head) (which meant origin pot , current metaphor through the Western Europe - cf cup in English with German Kopf in ) in certain Western Romance languages, including French and Italian. However Italian, French, the occitan, the Catalan kept caput in the forms of capo , chief and course respectively, and these words retain many metaphorical directions of head , including owner . The Latin word is preserved with its original direction in novel course , which, just like ţeastă , wants to say head in an anatomical direction. In the same way, of the southernmost dialects of Italian preserve capo like the usual word for head . Spanish and Portuguese have cabeza / cabeça , derived from * capetia , a modified form of caput , while tested was kept in Portuguese to speak about the face .

As a whole, that shows a common model, observed in many circumstances - the peripheral dialects tend to being more preserving than the central dialects.

The verbs which had prefixed prepositions frequently supplanted simple forms. The number of words formed by suffixes such as - bilis , - arius , - itare and - icare increased much. These changes often took place to avoid the irregular forms or to regularize the kind.

For including/understanding well the lexical changes of the late vulgar Latin in France, it is advisable to look at the Glose S of Reichenau , written in the margins of a specimen of the Vulgate, which explain words in this translation (made at the 4th century) which were hardly any more included/understood at the 8th century, the era when it is considered that the gloses were written. These gloses is probably of French origin; certain aspects of the vocabulary are specifically French.

These gloses shows the lexical replacement:

• FEMVR > coxa (Portuguese and old Spanish coxa , French thigh , Italian coscia , Catalan cuixa , occitan cueissa , Rumanian coapsă )

• ARENA > sabulo (Spanish arena , Portuguese areia , French sand , occitan sanded , Italian sabbia .)
• CANERE > cantare (Portuguese/Spanish/occitan/Catalan cantar , French to sing , Italian cantare , Rumanian cânta .)

Grammatical changes:

• OPTIMUS (the best) MELIORES (better) > meliores (" optimum" survived in Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan and French like optimo, ótimo, òptim, ottimo and optimal/optimum respectively, which means best the , while mejor and melhor wants to say better ; Portuguese melhores , Spanish mejores , Catalan millors , Italian migliori (the best)

• SANIORE > more sano (French healthier , Italian più sano , Rumanian May sănătos , occitan May san , Catalan my its , Spanish más sano , Portuguese but são .

Words borrowed from the Germanic languages:

• TVRBAS > fulcos (Spanish turbia , Catalan turba , French crowd , occitan fòga , italian folla .)

• CEMENTARIIS > mationibus (French masons )
• NON PERPERCIT > not sparniavit (French to save )
• GALEA > helme (French heaume , Italian elmo , Catalan elm , Spanish yelmo )

and of the words whose direction changed:

• IN ORE > in bucca (Portuguese/Spanish/occitan/Catalan boca , French stops , Italian bocca )

• ROSTRVM > beccus (Spanish/Galician " rostro" , and Portuguese " rosto" survived but acquired the direction of " visage". French nozzle , Italian becco , occitan nozzle , Catalan nozzle , Spanish " pico" , and Portuguese bico is the descendants of " beccus")
• ISSET > ambulasset (French went ; Catalan anarchist , " aller")
• LIBEROS > infantes (French children )
• MILITES > servientes (French sergeants )

Grammar

The disappearance of the case system

The sound changes which took place in vulgar Latin weakened the case system of traditional Latin and ended up getting rid completely of the Latin system of the variations. Following the intenability of the case system after these sound changes, the vulgar Latin transformed of a synthetic Langue into a analytical Langue. In this last, the word order is an element necessary of syntax. Let us consider what involved the loss vocalic phonemic length and sound change of AE /ae/ to E /ɛ/ with regard to a typical substantive of the first group (see table).

The complete elimination of the case was done gradually. The Former French still kept a distinction between the Nominatif and the oblique (which was called “case-subject/case-mode”); it disappeared during the XII {{E}} and XIII {{E}} century S, according to the dialect in question. The Vieil occitan maintained a distinction similar, just like many languages Rhéto-roman are until a few centuries ago. The Rumanian guard always a case Genitive/Dative, as well as vestiges of a Vocative.

The distinction between the Singular and plural was marked in two different ways in the Romance languages. In the north and the west of the Line Spezia-Rimini, which divides Italy in a horizontal way and which is in the north of this country, the singular was different from plural by having recourse to one - S final which was present in old plurals Accusatif S of the male and female substantives of all the variations. In the south and the east of the line Spezia-Rimini, the distinction between singular and plural was marked by changes of the final vowels, as in standard Italian and Rumanian. What preserves and generalizes the distinctions which were marked on personal plurals of 1st and 2nd groups.

Articles in the Romance languages

It is difficult to establish at which point the Definite article, absent in Latin but present in a form or another in any Roman language, was constituted. Especially because the very familiar speech where it emerges wrote little before the languages girls had not emerged from/to each other; the majority of the texts written in the early Romance languages which are available for us show the fully developed articles.

The definite articles were before Pronom S conclusive or Adjectif S; one can compare the fate of the Demonstrative adjective Latin “ille, illa, (illud)” in the Romance languages: they became “it” and “” in French, “el” and “” as a Catalan and Spanish, and “it” and “” in Italian. The Portuguese articles “O” and “has” come in last analysis from the same source. On this point, it Sardinian still another way followed, by forming its article of the base of “ipsu (m), “ipsa” (known, its); certain dialects of the Catalan and the occitan have articles coming from the same source. While the majority of the Romance languages put the article before the substantive, Rumanian, it, differ from them insofar as it puts it afterwards; therefore, one says “lupul” (the wolf) and “omul” (the man) - (of “lupum illum” and “*homo illum”.

This pronoun is employed in good number of contexts, in certain early texts in a way which tends to suggest that conclusive Latin lost his force. The Bible known as Vetus latina contains a passage “Is tamen ille demon sodalis peccati” (the devil is a companion of the sin) in a context which suggests that “ille” had only the direction of a simple article. The fact that it was necessary to translate crowned texts which were initially written in Greek which had, him, a definite article perhaps encouraged Christian Latin to choose a word to replace it. Égérie employs “ipse” in a similar way: “per mediam vallem ipsam” (“by the medium of the valley), which tends to show that “ipse” also weakened him at this period.

One can find another testimony of this weakening when one considers that at the time, of the legal texts and some others started to contain a great number of words like “praedictus”, “supradictus”, etc (which all can be translated by “aforesaid”) and which seems to mean only “this one” or “that one”. Gregoire de Tours writes for example: “Erat autem… beatissimus Anianus in supradicta ciuitate episcopus” (happy Aniane was bishop in this city). The Latin demonstrative adjectives were perceived like not being rather precise. In a less constant language, reconstituted forms tend to suggest that conclusive inherited Latin had been reinforced by combining with “ecce” (of origin a Interjection: (“here! ”) or “*eccu”, of traditional Latin “eccum” “looks at that! ”). It is the origin of “lash” (* “ecce ille”), “cist” (* “ecce ist”) and “here” (* “ecce difficulty”) as former French; of “aqueste” and “aquel” in occitan, of “aquel” in Spanish and “Portuguese aquele” (* “eccu ille”); “questo” (* “eccu istum”), “quello” (* “eccu illum”) and “codesto” -- from now on uncommon - (* “eccu tibi istum” in Italian; “acá/cá” (* “eccu hac”), “acolá” (* “eccu illac”), and “acquém” (*eccu India”) in Portuguese; and many other forms.

On the other hand, in the Oaths of Strasbourg , no conclusive appears; not even where the Romance languages which will develop would have employed them. (“Pro Deo amur” - “for the love of god”. To employ the conclusive ones as articles could perhaps have seemed too slang for a royal oath in the 9th century. As one saw higher, there is a rather great margin of variation in all the vernacular novels as for the way in which one really employs them: in Rumanian, the articles are suffixent with the substantive, just like it is the case for other members of the Balkan linguistic Union and the Scandinavian Langues.

“Unus, una” (one, one) provides the Indefinite article everywhere. One sees the beginnings in traditional Latin of them; Cicéron written “cum uno gladiatore nequissimo” (with a rather immoral gladiator). That suggests that “unus” started to supplant “quidam” to mean “some” or “some” as of the first century before J. - C.

The kind: disappearance of the neutral

The three grammatical kinds of traditional Latin were replaced by a system of two kinds in the Romance languages (in general; to see below). In Latin, the kind is partly a question of agreement, i.e. certain substantives take certain forms of adjectives and first names, and partly a business of Inflection, i.e. there is different Paradigme S associated with the female masculine/on the one hand and with the neutral on the other hand.

The neutral of traditional Latin was normally absorbed in a syntactic and morphological way by the masculine. Syntactic confusion started even in the graffiti pompéiens; one thus sees “cadaver mortuus” instead of “cadaver mortuum” (dead corpse) like “hoc locum” instead of “hunc locum” (this place). Morphological confusion is seen mainly in the adoption of the termination “- custom” (“- Ø” after “- R”) in the variation known as “O”: at Pétrone one finds “balneus” for “balneum” (bath), “fatus” for “destiny” (fate), “caelus” for “caelum” (sky), “amphiteater” for “amphitheatrum” (amphitheater), and conversely, “thesaurum” for “thesaurus” (treasure).

In the modern Romance languages, the personal termination “- S” was given up and all the substantives of the variation “- O” finish in -UM > “- U”/“- O”/“- Ø”: MURUM > “muro” in Italian and Spanish, “wall” as a Catalan and French and “CAELUM > “cielo” in Italian and Spanish, “sky” in French, “concealment” as a Catalan and “concealment” in occitan. Former French kept to it “- S” with personal and “- Ø” with the accusative in the two original kinds (i.e. “walls”, “ciels”).

As for certain neutral substantives of the 3rd group, the radical obliques was the productive form in the Romance languages; in other cases, it was the personal/accusative, identical shape in traditional Latin, who survived. There are good reasons to say that the neutral kind underwent pressure as of the Roman Empire. Let us take the example of “milk”. “(it) milk” (French), “(it) llet” (Catalan), “(lo) milk/lach” in occitan, “(it) licks” (Spanish), “(O) leite” (Portuguese), “(it) slat” (Italian) and “lapte (it)” (Romance) derives all from Latin name. /acc. “lacteous” neutral or acc. masc. “lactem”, of the forms not-standards but attested; the personal and accusative shape standard in traditional Latin was “lake”. Also let us note that Spanish gave him the female kind, while French, the occitan, Portuguese, Italian and Rumanian made it male. However, other neutral forms were preserved in the Romance languages; “name” as a Catalan, occitan and French, “names” in Portuguese and Italian preserves all “nomen” (Latin personal/accusative), rather than the radical form obliques * “nominem” which is the source of “number” in Spanish.

The majority of the neutral substantives had plural forms which finished in -A or -IA; some of those were réanalysés like female singular such as “gaudium”, plural “gaudia” (the joy (S)) ; the plural form is the root of “joy” (in the singular!) in French - the same applies as regards “the joia” as a Catalan and occitan (“the Italian gioia” is a loan with French); it is the same thing for “lignum”, plural “made lines” (wood (which one collects)) who is at the origin of “the llenya” as a Catalan, “the lenha” in occitan, or “the Spanish leña”. Certain Romance languages always have the special plural shape of the old neutrals which they treat like female with the level of the syntactic one: for example, BRACCHIUM: BRACCHIA “(le/les) arm” > “(it) braccio”: “(it) braccia” in Italian, “braţ (ul)”: “braţe (it)” in Rumanian. To also compare fuerant Latin mérovingien “ipsa animalia aliquas mortas”.

Forms such as “the uovo fresco” (the fresh egg)/“the uova fresche” (fresh eggs) in Italian is the subject often of justifications according to which they would have an irregular plural in “- has” (heteroclisis). However it is quite as correct to say that “uovo” is quite simply a regular neutral substantive (< ovum , plural ova ) and that the characteristic terminations for words granting with these substantives is “O” in the singular and “E” in the plural. Thus can one argue that the neutral substantives perdurent in Italian and Rumanian. These formations were especially current when one could make use of it to avoid irregular forms. In Latin, the names of Arbre S were often female but much of them declined themselves according to the paradigm of the 2nd group, which was, him, dominated by the male and neutral substantives. “Pirus” (pear tree), a female substantive whose termination with the male air, became male in Italian (“(it) pero”) and in Rumanian (“păr (ul)”); in French and Spanish it was replaced by male derivations “(it) pear tree” and “(el) peral” respectively, while in Portuguese and a Catalan those were female “(A) pereria”, “(it) will perera”). “Fagus” (Beech), another female substantive covered out of female clothes is preserved in certain dialects as a masculine, like Rumanian “fag (ul)”, the occitan “fau” or the Catalan “(el) faig”; other dialects replaced it with the adjectival forms “fageus” or “fagea” (made of wood of beech), from where Italian “(it) faggio”, Spanish “(el) haya”, and Portuguese “(A) faia”.

As usual, the irregularities persisted longest in the terms most frequently employed. 4th variation “manus” (the hand), here another female substantive with a male termination. “Manus” gave “(it) mano” in Italian, “(it) mà” as a Catalan, “(A) mão” in Portuguese, whose this last preserves its female kind although there remains apparently male.

Separately the Rumanian and Italian substantives “heteroclitic”, the other major Romance languages do not have any trace of neutral substantives, but all have neutral pronouns. French: “this one, this one, this, that, that”; Spanish: “éste, ésta, esto (all meaning “that”; Italian: “gli, it, Ci” (“with him, it, with that (or, “him”)) ; Catalan: “Ho”, “açò”, “això”, “allò” (“that”, “that”, “this/that”); occitan “O”, “Ba”, “aquò”, “aiçò”; Portuguese: “todo, toda, tudo” (“all”, “all”, “any thing”).

Certain varieties of the Asturien maintain terminations for the three kinds as for “good” (bonu, bona, bono).

(Note: Spanish has a neutral in a certain manner in “lo”, the neutral article, employed usually with substantives indicating of the abstract categories: “lo bueno”, (the good), “lo important” (the important one). “Does Sabes LO DELAY which are? ”, literally “do you Know late that it is? ” In a translation more idiomatic, “do you Know at which point it is late? ”. As for the pronouns, Spanish has also a singular neutral “ello”, with share the “él, ella” quoted well.)

Multiplication of the pronouns

The loss of the productive case system was significant. Indeed, this system was the base of the Syntaxe of traditional Latin, and its disappearance required the installation of a new base. This one will be constituted around the Préposition S and other paraphrases. These particles increased of number, and good number of them were formed by combining other already existing particles. The Romance languages present many grammatical particles such as “donde”, in Spanish, (where), coming from Latin “dē” + “unde”, or, “as of”, in French, coming from “dē” + “ex”. “In”, him, comes from “dē intus” (of the interior), while the Spanish and Portuguese equivalent (desde) comes from “dē” + “ex” + “of”. “Después”, in Spanish, and “Portuguese depois” (afterwards) come from “dē” + “ex” + “post”. Some of these new combinations appear in literary texts as of the late empire; “Outside, (French), “of will fuera” (Spanish) and “of drilled” (Portuguese) account for all the three “dē” + “foris” (outside) while Rumanian has “will afara” (“AD” + “foris”. Thus it at holy Jerome is found “if quis dē foris venerit” (if somebody leaves; if somebody goes outwards).

Samples:

As Latin lost his system of case, of the prepositions started to fill this lack. In familiar Latin, preposition “AD” followed by the accusative got busy sometimes like a substitution of the dative.

• Latin traditional:

• Iacōbus patrī librum dat. - “Jacques gives un/le delivers to his father”

• Vulgar Latin:

• ´Jacọmọs ´lẹvrọ has ´ppatre ´dọnat. - “Jacques gives un/le delivers to his father”

(Note that the assimilation of “D” of “AD” in “´ppatre” is hardly surprising, because “D” and the “P” are both of the Occlusives.)

Just like it was the case for the dative which disappeared then, familiar Latin replaced sometimes the genitive of the preposition “of” followed ablative.

• Latin traditional:

• Iacōbus mihi librum patris dat. - “Jacques gives me un/le delivers (its) father”.

• Vulgar Latin:

• ´Jacọmọs mẹ ´lẹvrọ dẹ ´patre ´dọnat. - “Jacques gives me un/livre (which belongs to) (its) father”.

or,

• Vulgar Latin:

• ´Jacọmọs ´lẹvrọ dẹ ´patre has ´mmẹ ´dọnat. - “Jacques gives the book of (which belongs to) (its) father with me. ”

Adverbs

Traditional Latin has good number of different suffixes which are used to transform Adjectif S into Adverbe S: “carus” (expensive), “care” (dearly), “acer” (sharp, hard, acute, bitter), “acriter” (hard), “creber” (often, adj.), “crebo” (often, adv.). All these suffixes dérivationnels were lost in vulgar Latin, where the adverbs were formed systematically by suffixation of a female Ablatif, “- lies” - which in the beginning the ablative of “was lied” - meaning “of spirit”. Therefore, the adverb formed starting from “velox” (quickly) became “swift lies”, and either “velociter”. (“Swift lies” wanted initially to say only “fast spirit”, before being reinterpreted in “quickly”). That explains the fact that almost always, in the Romance languages, the regular adverbs add the suffix “- lies (E)” at the end of the female form of the adjective. Thus “lied” became a simple suffix. This change continued even during Ier front century J. - C., and this construction appears on several occasions at Catulle, the most known occurrence being in Poésies , VIII:

Nunc iam illa not vult; you, quoque, impotens, noli Nec quae fugit sectare, nec miser lives,
Sed obstinata lies perfer, will obdura.

Translation: But now she (you) does not want; yourself, weak heart,
Cess of (it) wanting neither pursues it, nor unhappy screw;
Mais perdure obstinately (of a stubborn spirit), hardened.

The verb

The forms which the Verbe S took were much affected by the phonetic losses which eroded the systems of nominal case; in fact, an active verb in Spanish strongly resembles its Latin ancestor: why? Among the reasons the fact is that the tonic Accent extremely of the vulgar Latin (that of traditional Latin were weak) frequently made so that various syllables were accentuated in the various combined forms of a verb. Therefore, although the forms of the words continued to evolve/move phonetically, the distinctions among the combined forms of only one verb did not wear (too much).

For example, to say in Latin “I like” and “we like” one said respectively āmo and amāmus . Since accentuated in Latin diphtonguait itself in certain cases when the vulgar Latin transformed himself into former French, this one had (I) have me for the first and (us) has Mons for the last. Although several phonemes were lost in each case, the various diagrams of accent helped to preserve the distinctions between them, even if the verb became thus irregular. Influences which tended to regularize the verbs are opposed for this purpose in certain cases (thus we have “like” now) but certain modern verbs preserved the irregularity, such as I v' ie' NS and us v' e' let us nons .

Another series of changes continued as of the 1st century, it was the loss of the final consonants. One can read in a Graffiti with quisque Pompéi “ama valia” (in traditional Latin one had written “quisquis amat valeat” -- “that which likes is well”). With the perfect , much of Romance languages generalized the termination - aui , especially in the first group. What led to an interesting development; from a phonetic point of view, the termination was treated like the /au/ diphthong rather than to contain a half /awi/ vowel, and its /w/ was often removed, thus not taking part in the displacement of sound of /w/ with /v/. Therefore, the Latin words amaui and amauit became in many incipient Romance languages * amai and * amaut . Thus we have heart , amó (Spanish) and amei , amou (Portuguese). What makes believe that in the spoken language, these changes of conjugation preceded the loss by /w/.

Contrary to the continuity of more than thousand years which knew the active verbal system, the Passive voice was entirely lost in the Romance languages, and it was necessary thus that it was replaced by auxiliary verbs - forms “to be” more one passive participle, or by reflexive verbs impersonal.

Another great systemic change, it was the development of new a future time, based on auxiliary verbs. It may be that the replacement of Latin future time was caused by the phonetic fusion of /b/ and intervocalic /v/. Indeed, such a fusion had made so that forms of the future such as amabit became identical to certain forms of the perfect , such as amauit . What had been too ambiguous. At the beginning, a new future was formed at the base of the auxiliary verb habere , * amare habeo , literally “I have to like”. This construction was contracted in a new suffix future in the Romance languages:

• French: “ I will like” ( I + to like + have )
• Portuguese: “ amarei” ( amar + I.E.(internal excitation) ) < amar + hei * Spanish and Catalan: “ amaré” ( amar + E ) < amar + He .
• Italian: “ amerò” ( amar + O ) < amare + Ho .

One can note that the future suffix of the Romance languages was in the beginning an independent word especially when Portuguese is examined; indeed, this one adds sometimes direct and indirect first names as the infix ones in future time: I will like (A) amarei , but I will love you amar-you-I.E.(internal excitation) , of amar + you + (A) hei = amar+te+ei = amar-you-I.E.(internal excitation) . (The same applied as old Spanish).

Random links:

Marie-Francoise Desmeuzes | Meilleraie-Tillay | BC Place Stadium | Personal details of the palates of Nice | Brunner (crater)