Sabellian and some more, but first Vulgar Latin

No, "Language Divorce" is Not my Amateur Term for Divergent Evolution! · Proto-Languages - How Are they Reconstructed? · Sabellian and some more, but first Vulgar Latin · Indo-European and Romance are Very Different as to Diachronic Linguistics · More on Language : Latin to Romance · More on Latin to Romance and Middle English to English · More on language in general

Debates, or, if you prefer, quarrels.

With a man who has, very mistakenly, given his convictions, chosen the moniker "Civitas Dei Contra Paganos" - it's more like "Civitas Hominis contra Christianos" in some ways.

Q, own answer

What is the most common dialect of Vulgar Latin, and how does it compare to Classical Latin?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-common-dialect-of-Vulgar-Latin-and-how-does-it-compare-to-Classical-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

16.VII.2023

Often now, linguists have given up the term “Vulgar Latin” - what it most basically meant would be better rendered “colloquial” or “informal” Latin.

It compares to Classical Latin like informal colloquial English compares to The King’s English.

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

19.VII.2023

No, they have no given up on the term. I have never seen colloquial or informal Latin being used on papers. And please don’t compare Latin to English, that is foul.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

A year ago, someone active in Latin teaching was saying the opposite:

Why “Vulgar Latin” isn’t used by linguists anymore
polýMATHY, 20 Aug. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgRxuPzdInI

I do not know in exactly what way you imagine that the comparison to English is misleading.

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

19.VII.2023

Bald man on Youtube is not a specialist in Latin.

And he does not teach Latin, he is not a scholar, he is a Youtuber. Your evidence for “linguists have given up on the term” being a youtube movie is simply funny.

And stop going on my answers to reply to them with semantic nitpicks, it is sad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

“Bald man on Youtube is not a specialist in Latin.”

When he’s commenting on the series Romulus?

“And he does not teach Latin,”

When he offers an online course in it?

“he is not a scholar, he is a Youtuber.”

What would the connexion be between BEING a youtuber and NOT being a scholar?

Oh, was that a semantic nitpick?

Get some thick skin!

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

20.VII.2023

“When he’s commenting on the series Romulus?”

Commenting on a Netflix series makes you a specialist in Latin? Again, I think that you are one of Ranieri’s shills spreading his barbarity against Latin.

“When he offers an online course in it?”

I did not know selling courses online to make money required knowledge and qualifications! The internet really has come a long way.

“What would the connexion be between BEING a youtuber and NOT being a scholar?”

Usually actual (successful) scholars are too busy producing scholarship and teaching and carrying on with their lives to make Youtube content. But I understand you are not really part of that sphere, despite your Quora “qualifications”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.VII.2023

"Commenting on a Netflix series makes you a specialist in Latin?"

He's commenting on the Latin of it.

"you are one of Ranieri’s shills"

I'm one of St. Augustine's too ... spreading his barabarophilia against Pagan romanolatria.

"I did not know selling courses online to make money required knowledge and qualifications!"

If your course is not based on knowledge, how is it making you money?

"Usually actual (successful) scholars are too busy producing scholarship and teaching and carrying on with their lives to make Youtube content."

If he was the second or third most successful at his university, that would mean, given how small Latin departments are, he found youtubes a quicker and safer way to make money from his competence than waiting another five years to get a PhD.

The idea of "producing scholarship" is only part of what it means to be a professor, that is called research. They do quite a lot of teaching too.

And I am also NOT saying he doesn’t have qualifications on the level you have. Your own “studied Latin” - for how long was that?

"despite your Quora “qualifications”."

Indeed, I found the Swedish University environment too secularist, too claustrophobo-triggering for an outspoken Catholic, to actually be a part of it any more.

Left Latin / Greek departments in 1993, made a brief return to university (but social situation even less good) in 2003. Not in Latin or Greek.

Q, his answer

What is the most common dialect of Vulgar Latin, and how does it compare to Classical Latin?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-common-dialect-of-Vulgar-Latin-and-how-does-it-compare-to-Classical-Latin/answer/Civitas-Dei-Contra-Paganos

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

Studied Latin (language)

Tue, 18.VII.2023

The common modern dialect of Vulgar Latin is Spanish, spoken by almost half a billion people. Spanish itself has several different dialects, and even “dialects” such as Mexican and Argentine Spanish are themselves a collection of dialects.

Spanish is a very innovative dialect of Latin, like French, so it is undoubtedly Latin, but the twists and turns it took through history may make it look different from the language of Augustine and Seneca (never mind Cicero and Caesar), compared to Sardinian, Italian, and even Portuguese.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

If your point is Spanish is a dialect of Latin, granted.

If your point is Spanish does some Vulgaris eloquentia, as defined by Dante, granted.

From there to making Spanish “a dialect of Vulgar Latin” … not so granted. When linguists were using the term, they tended to use it about - informal usages in - an era like 1st C BC to 4th / 5th C AD, after which one tends to speak of Proto-Romance, which is prior to Spanish.

In 350 - 400, the formal “iunctim” for “together” was no longer used. St. Jerome hailing from Stridon used “insimul” or “simul” instead (and knew “simul” was not outright a barbarism), St. Augustine didn’t, but arguably used instead “iuncti, iunctae, iuncta” like Spanish uses “juntos, juntas” …

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

19.VII.2023

Proto-Romance is a hypothetical construct just like Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Italic, it is not an actual language, hence ‘Proto-’.

How can you say that Spanish is a dialect of Latin and then say that it is not a dialect of Vulgar Latin? Vulgar Latin is included within the notion of Latin. Unless you are confusing Classical Latin with Latin, the former of which was an artificial language.

Spanish, like Portuguese to Romanian, comes from the spoken Latin of the people, Vulgar Latin, not from Ciceronian prose or from some construct.

And how does the specific use of a word at different times have to do with your terminology nitpick?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

Classical Latin was no more an articifical language than formal Spanish is.

“Vulgar Latin is included within the notion of Latin.”

When used, which Luke Ranieri adviced against, as a chrono- and sociolect.

When it ceases to be “vulgar” or “informal” to say “insimul” it ceases to be a sociolect which includes it in the lexicon.

“And how does the specific use of a word at different times have to do with your terminology nitpick?”

Well, it shows that the difference in St Augustine’s time and St Jerome’s time between their own educated speech and that of the people was precisely on the level of “informal” vs “formal” English, and of avoiding words that sound too posh.

It’s on the level of avoiding “victuals” in favour of “grub” …

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

20.VII.2023

“Classical Latin was no more an articifical language than formal Spanish is.”

It is not, Ciceronian prose was considered rigid and was abandoned by post-Classical Latin. Cicero himself says that he is going back to old customs when language was spoken better (in his belief), he was already archaic for his period. And while Old Latin used more prepositions, Classical Latin saw rigid declension usage as more accurate. It is an artificial language just like Sanskrit.

“When used, which Luke Ranieri adviced against, as a chrono- and sociolect.”

I recommend you go back to his discord server.

“Well, it shows that the difference in St Augustine’s time and St Jerome’s time between their own educated speech and that of the people was precisely on the level of “informal” vs “formal” English, and of avoiding words that sound too posh.”

It is nowhere in the same level of English. Stop comparing Latin, a sublime language, with this horrendous Franco-Frisian creole.

Augustine himself was hypercorrecting the pronunciation of ‘h’ which in the Classical period itself was already not pronounced by many people. If you think that two registries can go from mutually understandable to unintelligible in 100 years only, you have no common sense, in addition to not having any knowledge of Latin or historical linguistics of Europe, as you have demonstrated, among other things, by saying Lemnian and “Sabellic” were languages spoken in the Roman Empire in another one of my replies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.VII.2023

"It is not, Ciceronian prose was considered rigid and was abandoned by post-Classical Latin."

Not sure what characteristic of it you are talking about. 6 cases of nouns, adjectives and pronouns was not it.

The abandonment of 6 cases came when the ten vowels became seven (long / short * a, e, i, o, u => halflong a, i, u, and open / closed e and o). By then -um and -o were impossible to distinguish phonetically. Nothing to do with “considered rigid” …

"And while Old Latin used more prepositions,"

I don't recall Old Latin using more prepositions ... can you document a text? Sei quis uelitod Bacchanal habuisse (from the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus) sounds fairly close to Classical.

"Classical Latin saw rigid declension usage as more accurate. It is an artificial language just like Sanskrit."

Or correct Spanish, but not because of declinsions.

"Cicero himself says that he is going back to old customs when language was spoken better (in his belief), he was already archaic for his period."

Sure you are not confusing with Sallustius? But if you aren't, a citation of when and where would be welcome.

"I recommend you go back to his discord server."

I have access to his youtubes, not his discord. What I say he advices against is using it at all, what I say about its normal usage is what I knew before consulting him.

"It is nowhere in the same level of English."

With your Anglo-Phobia (perhaps not totally unmerited historically, but you are taking it out on the language), it's difficult to tell whether you are more concerned my comparison is incorrect or more concerned a comparison with English has to be incorrect.

"Augustine himself was hypercorrecting the pronunciation of ‘h’ which in the Classical period itself was already not pronounced by many people."

Well, in London, you have the same situation. Cockney doesn't pronounce English letter H. Hedgehog is pronounced edge-ogg.

"If you think that two registries can go from mutually understandable to unintelligible in 100 years only"

I am far from saying the popular register was unintelligible in the time of St. Gregory of Tours. Plus it's more like 200 years - a little less than the distance about between last Anglo-Saxon (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, last entry 1166, 100 years after the Norman Conquest) and first English proper (Chaucer).

I am also not saying the two registers ever became unintelligible, as two registers. The Latin proper, as read in the Mass became unintelligible at exactly one go - when they changed the pronunciation. When "Credo in unum Deum" ceased to be pronounced "kreithe in ün Deoo" and started to be pronounced "cray-daw in oo-noom Day-oom" which happened in Tours in 800, after which a council in 813 decided to add an explanation to the effect of saying the same things as the Gospel with explanations, but in the popular pronunciation.

Latin very abruptly became an artificial language in Tours in 800 - in Spain and Italy, this happened about 200 years later. Like when “ultreya” ceased to be Latin and they noted “ulterior” is also not the correct version of “ultra” - since ultra in itself already has comparative meaning. When a Latinist in Spain would have started saying “ultra et sursum” for “ultreya e suseya” …

"in addition to not having any knowledge of Latin or historical linguistics of Europe,"

Nullam scientiam latinae linguae, nec Europae linguarum historiae peritiam ... gratias ago pro floribus!

Seriously, Lemnian was not spoken any longer at the time when Lemnos was integrated into the Roman sphere of power, but Rhaetic was. And Sabine, while Osco-Umbrian, is only tentatively classified as a dialect of Umbrian. It is Sabellian. It is not Oscan. It is maybe not Umbrian. It was spoken to 1st C BC, when Varro recorded parts of it.

Q, his answer

Do we have proof of what the 'vulgar' Latin looked like written in Rome throughout history, e.g., in 100 BC, 100 AD, 500 AD, 800 AD, 1100 AD, & 1500 AD?
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-proof-of-what-the-vulgar-Latin-looked-like-written-in-Rome-throughout-history-e-g-in-100-BC-100-AD-500-AD-800-AD-1100-AD-1500-AD

Answer requested by

Riccardo Costanza

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

Studied Latin (language)

Jul 4

Besides what other answers have already said, it is important to keep in mind that most of the Roman population was not literate, and whatever graffiti, epigraphy, etc we can find from the years 200BC–400AD would come from the literate, and therefore educated, classes of society. Even the most “vulgar” graffito we can find would then be more like Classical Latin than what the poor people were speaking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

“most of the Roman population was not literate, and whatever graffiti, epigraphy, etc we can find from the years 200BC–400AD would come from the literate, and therefore educated, classes of society.”

I am sorry, but this is “m…da de toros” - someone who went to plagosus Orbilius certainly was not at that point in his life a very typical representative of educated classes. But that is exactly how Horace learned to read and write. Therefore this was achieved also by very uneducated people.

If you think there was a “Vulgar Latin” back in 100 BC that was closer to Spanish or French than to Cicero’s Latin, you are way out on a limb.

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

19.VII.2023

“If you think there was a “Vulgar Latin” back in 100 BC that was closer to Spanish or French than to Cicero’s Latin, you are way out on a limb.”

I have never said that. I simply stated the obvious observation that most people were not literate. Writing therefore would come from educated men who spoke more in the manner of rich people than in the manner of rural hilly billies. In every literate society there is a spectrum in which the language lies, this spectrum can then turn into a diglossia, as it did in the Early Middle Ages when the Latin dialects are no longer mutually intelligible with Church’s Latin — you should read Kevin Richard Roth’s Masters’ dissertation. The same thing can be seen in Demotic/Katharevousa Greek, Classical and Dialectal Arabic, and so on.

Don’t you have anything better to do than strawman and semantically nitpick my answers, barbarsen?

Answered twice

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

“most people were not literate. Writing therefore would come from educated men”

Most people who were free at all went to a ludimagister. Famous example, since later his fortunes were better : the poet Horace. That did not count as being lettered, but did involve being able to write and read.

In order to be “educated” you had to go to a rhetor. It was a kind of mentorship.

// Now, I, upon assuming the toga virilis, 1 had been introduced by my father to Scaevola with the understanding that, so far as I could and he would permit, I should never leave the old man's side. And so it came to pass that, in my desire to gain greater profit from his legal skill, I made it a practice to commit to memory many of his learned opinions and many, too, of his brief and pointed sayings. After his death I betook myself to the pontiff, Scaevola, who, both in intellect and in integrity, was, I venture to assert, quite the most distinguished man of our State. But of him I shall speak at another time; now I return to the augur. //

Laelius on friendship

So, no, the people who wrote graffiti were not educated. The prevalence of a verb equivalent to j**er in the graffiti shows that too.

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

20.VII.2023

“The stage of diglossia was arguably reached in the time of Gregory of Tours.NOT yet in the time of Sts Jerome and Augustine.”

Ok? Whatever, it is not clear cut in any case, the difference between the people provided is of only 100 years, and you likely pulled this information out of Youtube (bald yankee!) as well.

Until you can provide me a source (you won’t because you can’t) that proves definitely that more than 20% of the Republican Roman population was literate (much lower bar than my original claim of 50%), I will not waste my time with you and your ramblings.

Nightmares and neck pain upon you, cheers!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.VII.2023

"it is not clear cut in any case"

It is. Sts Augustine and Jerome were not aware of major differences between what everyone could understood and how they as upperclass people talked, except St. Jerome had to keep the syntax simple and avoid posh words.

St. Gregory of Tours wrote a Latin, approximating the vernacular, which didn't uphold the Latin case system, had a different vowel system, confused B and V, is near incomprehensible to a Latinist.

Very clear cut.

"the difference between the people provided is of only 100 years,"

Checking the dates on the wiki:

Gregory of Tours
30 November c. 538 – 17 November 594 AD
Augustine of Hippo
13 November 354 – 28 August 430 AD
Jerome
c. 342–347 – 30 September 420

538 - 354 = 184 years
594 - 430 = 164 years

538 - 347 = 191 years
594 - 420 = 174 years

"and you likely pulled this information out of Youtube (bald yankee!) as well."

Not really, I knew it beforehand. Wonder if Mr. Ranieri appreciates being called a Yankee, he would probably reply "eheu, recte diciste, Americanus et barbarus sum, sed patres aliqui Itali erunt"

"that proves definitely that more than 20% of the Republican Roman population was literate (much lower bar than my original claim of 50%),"

The word "literate" is not a univocal word. We have already different options on how many were slaves as to how many were free. A man who scribbles three word sentences with a verb equivalent to j**er on a wall is not upper class or educated. His Latin is really the Latin of the people, and not that of a highly hypothetic "20 % upper class."

You waste your time where you want, you seem to spend a lot of time making incompetent replies on quora.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

The stage of diglossia was arguably reached in the time of Gregory of Tours.

NOT yet in the time of Sts Jerome and Augustine.

Q, his answer

What language was spoken in the Roman Empire before Latin became the dominant language?
https://www.quora.com/What-language-was-spoken-in-the-Roman-Empire-before-Latin-became-the-dominant-language/answer/Civitas-Dei-Contra-Paganos

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

Studied Latin (language)

Jun 16

Latin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

And Oscan. And Umbrian. And Sabellian. And Greek. And Etruscan and Lemnian. And Phrygian. And Lydian. And Siculic. And Gaulish. And Celtiberic. And Aquitanian or Vasconic. And Liguric.

Just to round off the completion of your answer just a little bit.

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

19.VII.2023

Thanks, Hans. But if you have not noticed, this is either a bot question or a point farming question.

Anyway, by the time of the Roman Empire (that is what the answer says) came about, Oscan, Umbrian, and Etruscan were most likely going extinct already.

I am not sure what you are referring to as “Sabellian”, since that is often used as another name for Oscan-Umbrian. But whatever other language you are talking about is most likely going extinct at that point too.

Also, Lemnian? Are you sure what you are talking about here? I suggest you read books instead of learning about Rome (my ancestors, who considered your ancestors to be undermen) from a bald youtube barbar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2023

“Roman Empire” = command of Rome outside city and Latium
“Oscan, Umbrian, and Etruscan” all of them lived into 1st C BC, well after the Punic wars.

“But whatever other language you are talking about is most likely going extinct at that point too.”

Antiochus IV Epiphanes ruled over modern Turkey and Syria, as a vassal of the Roman Senate = in the Roman Empire.

Languages of Asia Minor I mentioned lived on past that date.

GAULISH lived on way past Caesar into the time of St Jerome, who actually learned Gaulish.

“Lemnian” - you have a point, it was another Tyrsenic language, Rhaetic I meant.

“instead of learning about Rome (my ancestors, who considered your ancestors to be undermen) from a bald youtube barbar.”

Luke Ranieri sounds like he has Italian roots. As Roman as your own, perhaps a bit more.

Apart from that I am reminded of a man I met in prison, a South American with a not very well liked Spanish father. He assured me, despite what I had read, that “vosotros” was European Spanish for “nosotros” … I (the Swede, on your view Barbarian), said “vosotros” was more like what he might call “ustedes” … he claimed the language was his, not mine.

Your name on quora is “Civitas Dei” - have you considered that St. Augustine of Hippo Regia would have excommunicated you for considering Barbarians as Untermenschen?

Intellectually you are a fraud.

“I am not sure what you are referring to as “Sabellian”, since that is often used as another name for Oscan-Umbrian.”

Citing wiki, that Oscan and Umbrian are only two of the family, I should have said “other Sabellian”:

Osco-Umbrian languages - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osco-Umbrian_languages

Oscan † Umbrian † Volscian †
Sabine † South Picene † Marsian †
Paeligni † Hernican † Marrucinian † Pre-Samnite †

After above exchange, he resorted to dishonesty.

Civitas Dei Contra Paganos

20.VII.2023

Why did you erase your reply, Hans? You have lots of time to be saying gibberish about other peoples’ culture on the internet then erasing them when proven wrong. Is it the lack of children?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.VII.2023

I have erased nothing.

You have erased, but fortunately not before I had already saved it to my blog.

Sabellian and some more, but first Vulgar Latin
[link to this post]

I think the other two notifications from him will be left unanswered. Even if it is somewhat sad he pretends to use appendix Probi to prove a general difference between formal Latin and informal Latin amounting to the latter being "closer to Italian or Spanish" ... it is about pronunciations.* Not about the overall shape of the language. Even if he imagines the testimony of Sts Jerome and Augustine is useless since they were "theologians, not linguists" ... as if theologians could simply ignore linguistic realities. Plus it reveals his overreliance on a very modern overspecialisation of competence. Totally alien to those old times. It is perhaps even sadder he claims to have "studied Latin" ever since he was born ... by now, though Spanish is "a dialect of Latin" it is also a separate language from it, more so than Homeric from Attic. In Sweden, I met a man who actually was raised with Latin as his first language by his father. As in Classical Latin.

As to lack of children, my full-time online writing activity (both essays and dialogues) could already be earning me the money to have a wife and children and an apartment, if it were not for ultra dishonest people like himself who poison the well about what I write. Blog to book** is a thing, but some guys who normally could have been interested in a Catholic essay or dialogue prefer a "Catholic" Nationalist prejudice against blogging or US Americans.

* masculus non masclus, uetulus non ueclus, alium non aleum ... masclus and ueclus are pretty far from macho and viejo, and aleum doesn't even go the same direction as ajo.

a treatise named after (but probably not written by) the first-century grammarian Marcus Valerius Probus.The Appendix was likely composed in Rome around the first half of the fourth century AD.

** Feel like tl;dr about my blogs?
New blog on the kid, 14.III.2016
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/feel-like-tldr-about-my-blogs.html