Latin to Romance... when?

SnakI Survived the Great Vowel Shift

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

Latin to Romance... when?

Dette emne er markeret som "i hvile"—det seneste indlæg er mere end 90 dage gammel. Du kan vække emnet til live ved at poste et indlæg.

1timspalding
jan 8, 2013, 12:20pm

A simple, dumb, but important Q. from a Christianity discussion(1):

What is a good approximate date for regular, illiterate people in different parts of the Latin-Romance world having real difficulties understanding Jerome's Latin, read aloud?

Obviously I know this is a hard question, as comprehension is always partial. Even today, Spanish and Italian are to some degree mutually intelligible—more in one direction than the other, I gather—and so forth. But ballpark it for me, will ya?


1. http://www.librarything.com/topic/147893#3818869

2MarthaJeanne
jan 8, 2013, 1:00pm

I seem to recall the Charlemagne insisted that sermons be held in the language of the people. In part of his realm that would have been Germanic dialects, but in others, romance dialects. That would be 8th century. The Wikipedia article on Old French http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French indicates that we have documents from the 9th century in Old French, but that the date was earlier there than in Italy.

3MyopicBookworm
jan 8, 2013, 3:41pm

Any relevant sources in our collection are, as usual, unlocatable, but Mrs Bookworm points out that, given the sound changes already apparent in texts such as the Pompeii graffiti, there is no guarantee that even regular illiterate people of Jerome's own period would have readily understood his high-class literary Latin, read aloud.

4timspalding
jan 8, 2013, 3:49pm

No, I don't buy that. His Latin isn't high class.

5MyopicBookworm
jan 8, 2013, 3:53pm

OK: I'm prepared to accept that. Illiterate Cockneys can more or less make out the King James Version.

6MyopicBookworm
jan 8, 2013, 4:02pm

Judging from a perusal of Philippe Wolff's Western Languages AD 100-1500 (1971), a date of around 800 may not be unreasonable.

"In about 300, and still in about 500, the language that was spoken everywhere deserves a unique name, it was still Latin (even if some linguists prefer to call it proto-Roman); in about 800, in northern France (and later on elsewhere) the opposition between Latin and the spoken language was recognised even by contemporaries." (Wolff (1971), ch. iii, pp. 85-6)

7krolik
jan 9, 2013, 3:48am

Maybe this deserves a thread of its own, but when did silent reading become common?

8MarthaJeanne
jan 9, 2013, 3:52am

These things are always a continuum. Take English:
Fiction from the middle of the Twentieth Century I can read easily. Nonfiction tends to be harder, because I keep getting held up by the non-inclusive language.

16th-17th (Shakespeare, etc.) I can read, but there is a lot of room for misunderstandings and I love the annotated texts my kids used in school.

14th Well, I keep Chaucer with the regular fiction (annotated text), but The Green Knight is with the medieval German stuff.

In German, 1500 is considered the cut off point for FNHD - Early modern German. 16th century things are quite difficult to read. Luther's bible was part of a movement to a standard German, and by the middle of the 17th century most things are recognizably German, With fonts giving at least as much trouble as the text.

Without a major invasion, that indicates that 500-600 years is a limit even with considerable literacy and printing. Without that, and with invaders messing up the language, you would expect the time to be shorter.

However, the upper classes were taught proper Latin, and probably the bulk of the population spoke a 'strong dialect' long before 800. I have trouble understanding a lot of what is said in Northern England if people aren't trying to speak standard English. The same goes for most areas of Germany, although I do better with most Austrian dialects. The kids I help with in school often have to have 'German' words explained to them.

It sounds like in France this became a problem for the upper classes about 800. They were balancing Frankish (Germanic) and Latin and the local dialects (Romance). Or it was only then that the upper classes started to care whether the lower classes understood the 'standard'.

9MarthaJeanne
jan 13, 2013, 11:54am

I found the quote:

At a Provincial synod in Tours in 813 the bishops decided that ...

easdem omelias {sc. Homilias} quisque aperte transferre studeat in rusticam romanam linguam aut thiotiscam, qui facilius cunti possint intellegere quae dicuntur.

10ed.pendragon
Redigeret: jan 13, 2013, 12:53pm

>9 MarthaJeanne:
I get the gist, but my schoolboy Latin is a bit rusty rather than rustic. Possible is it that this one might translate?

11timspalding
Redigeret: jan 13, 2013, 2:35pm

"Let each take care to openly translate these same homilies into the rustic Roman or German language, so that everybody might be able to understand what's spoken." (Thiotiscam was a real head-scratcher, but that's it. It's apparently related to what Italians still say, tedesco.)

12anglemark
jan 13, 2013, 3:16pm

Proto-Germanic thioda - people. Cf. Old English þēod. As in Svíþjóð, Icelandic for Sweden, the people of the Svíar. The -ísc ending is interesting. The German language is still called tyska in Swedish, the same word as thiodisc.

13MyopicBookworm
jan 13, 2013, 3:23pm

Exactly: not a headscratcher to a true Tolkien fan; it's obviously "Theodish", the language of the Theod (people). It's still called that by the people who speak the eastern variety (Deutsch), though in English it is used as the name of the western variety (Dutch).

14timspalding
Redigeret: jan 13, 2013, 3:33pm

Ha. Fair enough. As far as I'm concerned, however, these are northern barbarians rubbing butter in their hair.

15ed.pendragon
jan 13, 2013, 4:40pm

Is this not related to Irish Tuatha 'people, tribe' and the Gaulish tribal god Teutates (as in "By Toutatis!")?
Perhaps in contradistinction to all those outsider names like Welsh, Walloon, Wallachian?

16anglemark
jan 13, 2013, 4:44pm

According to Wikipedia, the presumed reconstructed PIE word is *tewtéh₂. So, yes.

Tim, what's wrong with butter in your hair? Latin snob!

17timspalding
jan 13, 2013, 4:53pm

We all know the right way to do it is… olive oil!

18andejons
jan 14, 2013, 3:49am

>12 anglemark:
Actually, "Sweden" is derived from "Sweotheod". English and their pronunciation.

19AndreasJ
Redigeret: jan 14, 2013, 3:58am

18 > The Online Etymological Dictionary disagrees, deriving it from a Middle Dutch form of the ethnonym. (Cf. Du Zweden, Ge. Schweden)

20andejons
Redigeret: jan 14, 2013, 6:44am

Elof Hellquist seems to suggest that we're both somewhat right: he does say that the English form is borrowed (from German or Dutch), but that "-de" ending is likely from "þjóð". But it's certainly not the English who has been the worst corrupters here.

ETA: Further, "Swéoðéode" can be found in Beowulf. One can actually also find "Swíoríce", which is the earliest attestation of what would become the (non-icelandic) Nordic name of Sweden.

21AndreasJ
jan 14, 2013, 7:01am

20 > The Online Etymological Dictionary agrees that the ethnonym in turn is derived from something like akin to Svíþjóð, Sweotheod etc

(Incidentally I think it's wrong to cite Sviar as an Old Swedish form. IIUC, the i-vocalism is West Scandinavian, while the East Scandinavian form would have been svear like in Modern Swedish.)

22anglemark
jan 14, 2013, 8:38am

Incidentally I think it's wrong to cite Sviar as an Old Swedish form.

I agree. Neither andejons nor I did.

23AndreasJ
jan 14, 2013, 9:32am

22 > I didn't mean to imply you did. The "it" there refers to the Online Etymological Dictionary page I liked to.

24anglemark
jan 14, 2013, 9:40am

Ah. Right.