Iberian Spanish vs Latin American Spanish (and a few more qst about Catalan

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

Sorry, but my own background is in the sciences, and I can assure you that the use of this sort of language in the sciences is - in my experience - very different from it's use in the humanities.

My background is the sciences also, but perhaps a different area. Regardless, I really don't understand what the argument is. I initially said Spanish descended from an earlier form of Latin than the other Romance languages, you initially greeted this with "wtf???" as if it was ridiculous nonsense. Now that you've seen it in a textbook, you are saying the author is unsure because he uses tentative language common to (at least) all reconstructions in linguistic textbooks and that this casts doubt on its truth. However the fact that it is given in a textbook as the explanation shows at least that it isn't "wtf???" nonsense.

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

My background is the sciences also, but perhaps a different area. Regardless, I really don't understand what the argument is. I initially said Spanish descended from an earlier form of Latin than the other Romance languages, you initially greeted this with "wtf???" as if it was ridiculous nonsense. Now that you've seen it in a textbook, you are saying the author is unsure because he uses tentative language common to (at least) all reconstructions in linguistic textbooks and that this casts doubt on its truth. However the fact that it is given in a textbook as the explanation shows at least that it isn't "wtf???" nonsense.

I suppose that my original reaction was because I am fed up with people going on about Basque/Irish whatever being the "oldest" language in Europe.
In my book, all languages are equally old - except those such as Esperanto.
What I mean by that is that (until demonstrated otherwise) all languages descend from original human speech - whatever that was -, and they are all therefore no more than modern manifestations of that original speech.
That said, it's refreshing to find someone who can argue their point.

Last word on this subject: which dialect of Latin does the Italian of Lazio descend from, and how early was that dialect? (OK, not really a fair question, but still ...)

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

I suppose that my original reaction was because I am fed up with people going on about Basque/Irish whatever being the "oldest" language in Europe.

Ah, this is understandable. Would you prefer the phrasing:
"Spanish descends from a variety of Latin which was common in the third century B.C., where as most other Romance languages descend from a variety of Latin common in the first century A.D."

Of course even this is "wrong" since it would leave Italian being the youngest Romance language in a completely artificial way.

Perhaps it would be best to say that Spanish was simply the western end of the Latin speaking area which kept much more of the traditional forms which were later dropped in other areas.

You are correct, in my opinion, for taking me to task on this. We can give incorrect impressions with loose language.

What I mean by that is that (until demonstrated otherwise) all languages descend from original human speech - whatever that was -, and they are all therefore no more than modern manifestations of that original speech.

I can see your point. All languages are but an evolution of the preceding stages, hence all the Romance languages are equal young or old forms of Latin. I'd just point out that monogenesis may not be true, it's still hotly debated, but I think your point would still stand. Even if there were multiple "first languages" there would still be no oldest speech.

Last word on this subject: which dialect of Latin does the Italian of Lazio descend from, and how early was that dialect? (OK, not really a fair question, but still ...)

I don't know actually, why? Although I can guess the point you're making and agree with it.

NiaDublin

Aard wrote: »

Catalan is quite a different language to Spanish. You may get words here and there, but that's about it. I imagine the difference is like that between Spanish and French or Italian.

Hi,
I'm Italian, and lived in Barcelona. Catalan and Spanish are different languages. In my opinion Catalan is closer to Italian than to Castillan Spanish when it comes to grammar and phonetics.

Regards,
Annamaria

NiaDublin

deirdremf wrote: »

Virtually all Catalan speakers are fluent in Spanish (except perhaps those over the border in France and in Alghero), which means that they generally use Spanish vocabulary when they don't know a word in Catalan.

It's rather the opposite. Catalan mothertongue people use Catalan vocabulary when they don't remember a word in "Castellano". They use Catalan most of the time.

NiaDublin

deirdremf wrote: »

, it is in fact very definitely an Iberian rather than a GalloRoman language: it shares bilabial V, rolled R, U rather than Ü, somewhat stacatto pronunciation with Spanish, and certain other features with Portuguese etc etc - and not that much with French.

Well, I don't know French, but I'd say that Catalan misses the "jota" sound of Spanish, and has the "g" sound similar to the Italian or French one. This is a very important difference.