Re: On the knowledge of the reaserched languages

Des Small wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Joachim Pense wrote:
> >
> > > In another thread someone recently claimed IIRC that Romanian did in fact
> > > not descend from Latin but from a different language closely related to
> > > Latin (but not descended from it); and that Romanian was artificialy
> > > Latinified in the 19th century.
> > >
> > > Did I get that right? If so, is it true?
> >
> > I don't think it appears in any of the usual treatments of Romance
> > linguistics.
>
> Romanian in general or that claim in particular? The former does

The claim that Romanian isn't descended from Latin.

> certainly occur in Posner's _The Romance Languages [sic]_, which on
> page 22 remarks: "The conclusion of some scholars is that Latin did
> not survive uninterrupted in Rumania, but was reimported at a later
> period from south of the Danube. As the earliest Rumanian text dates
> from 1521, we have no certain evidence of what went on in the
> intervening twelve and a half centuries, and our problem remains
> substantially unsolved."
>
> I've also seen the claim of re-Latinisation somewhere, but not in
> Posner.
>
> Des
> hasn't read and doesn't recommend it

Posner is shorter than it could have been. El*** is more comprehensive.

Also, of course, Hall, who completed only three of his projected eight
volumes.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Quantcast