Death to Inflections

So @LSCatilina you are of the opinion that even in a surviving and later ascendant Western Rome which supports Latin through and through would still see the fragmentation of the language into different languages completely not just dialects that could later be standardised? You use Arabic as the standard of this but would that be the most accurate way of looking at this as for most of history there was never one unified Arabian state and in periods no Arabic state of prominence at all which help most of the Arabic speaking regions. Here there is a Latin state who would with the proposed mandated schooling which would admittedly have a greater bearing on writing than speaking but with one state there should be a greater interconnectedness which would help keep numerous dialects from evolving into languages or keep the number of separate languages low.

On the topic of writing, Late Latin was already adopting a few trappings of the spoken Vulgar Latin. Could we possibly see Written Latin continuously evolve to just be the written form of the Vulgar Latin on its own?
 
So @LSCatilina you are of the opinion that even in a surviving and later ascendant Western Rome which supports Latin through and through
I have to stress that we're talking of the equivalent of a pre-modern state : meaning that it doesn't as much supports Classical Latin, than it use it administrativelly : you don't have schools, media, a socially invasive state institution that would be able to impose or even support Classical Latin to the bulk of the population that would have only a faint idea about it.
You can look at virtually any language in Europe before the XVIIIth, and see an ensemble of dialects mostly related between them thanks to not only linguistical reality, but whatever dialect or speech was used administratively and scholarly. And these were at least contemporary developments and not an older development.

You use Arabic as the standard of this but would that be the most accurate way of looking at this as for most of history there was never one unified Arabian state
Which is irrelevant : most of Arab states, with some precise exception not only used Arab as their administrative and institutional language, but an Arab whom standard was the same, the Quranic language. Not unlike English doesn't need to be the language of a global unified state to be used as such in United States, UK but as well Nigeria or India (altough for this exemple, it's because a clear linguistical frame of reference existed since the XVIIIth century)

If institutional use alone was enough to impress this much on common population in pre-modern state, most of the board would speak a derivative of Franco-Norman.
Again, not that the maintained use of Latin in western Med institutions wouldn't have a real influence (I proposed above some exemples)[ But spreading to the the majority of the population?

Here there is a Latin state who would with the proposed mandated schooling
In a pre-modern state? In a WRE whom main fiscal ambition was not to ruin itself too quickly? That's, I'm afraid, not going to happen, especially for a culture as the Roman one that really didn't put a stress on general education. At best, you could count on a very broad equivalent of medieval universities ITTL, based on the maintain of a middle-class, but that's anything but pregnant in a surviving WRE.
I don't want to be too dismissive there, but really, there's reason why compulsory education really began to appear in the late XVIIIth century IOTL.

On the topic of writing, Late Latin was already adopting a few trappings of the spoken Vulgar Latin. Could we possibly see Written Latin continuously evolve to just be the written form of the Vulgar Latin on its own?
I'd say mostly no, due to the particular conservatism that surrounded written Latin at this point (when it was proposed to adapt Latin to new phonemes, there was a general backleash IOTL in the VIth century) and I think you'd end up with a similar conservatism that IOTL when most of the institutional texts (safe in England) were in Latin (arguably medieval Latin there, not that it was more understandable by Romance speakers) up to the point inconvenience would be too much.
Most of the changes in written Latin were less due to Vulgar Latin sometimes, than simplifications that already happened in Classical Latin (while indirectly due to VL, such as Claudius/Clodius).

I wonder, arguably, abut the possibility of an *interlingua ITTL, a more or less artificial Romance that could be understood by most Romance speakers, a mix of formal forms, Classical Latin and super-dialects (which I think might be less numerous than IOTL). A bit like the quite artificial romance speech of the Oaths of Strasbourg, being neither Old French, neither Gallo-Romance, neither a dialect in particular.
It could be argued too that Classical Latin could be adapted more and more as such, but doing so, it would cease to be Classical Latin eventually safe maybe in name, and even there...
 
In a pre-modern state? In a WRE whom main fiscal ambition was not to ruin itself too quickly? That's, I'm afraid, not going to happen, especially for a culture as the Roman one that really didn't put a stress on general education. At best, you could count on a very broad equivalent of medieval universities ITTL, based on the maintaining of a middle-class, but that's anything but pregnant in a surviving WRE.
I don't want to be too dismissive there, but really, there's a reason why compulsory education really began to appear in the late XVIIIth century IOTL.
The schools come later I guess I failed to specify the timeframe for that. What I was referencing with a unified state is that its presence could be enough to keep regional speaking changes 'dialectal' instead of them developing into their own separate languages. Though this may often times be an arbitrary line I was thinking the present of the state would do a lot to pull people together and around the more so than in the fractured kingdoms of the 'Dark Ages' allowing the mixture of the mixture and transfer of larger dialectal changes across superregional lines i.e. there being a type of Western Latin spoken in Gaul and Hispania, Insular Latin spoken in Britannia etc instead of the even greater regional breakdown into languages and dialects like Occitan, French, Arpitan, Catalan etc. Basically fewer distinctive dialects than OTL making any future standardisation long into the future much easier and less controversial as there are regional dialects but fewer and more connected. Obviously, I doubt such would settle into such large blocks like Gaul and Hispania as I described but something along that axis.

I'd say mostly no, due to the particular conservatism that surrounded written Latin at this point (when it was proposed to adapt Latin to new phonemes, there was a general backlash IOTL in the VIth century)
Backlash from who?

I'd say mostly no, due to the particular conservatism that surrounded written Latin at this point (when it was proposed to adapt Latin to new phonemes, there was a general backlash IOTL in the VIth century) and I think you'd end up with a similar conservatism that IOTL when most of the institutional texts (safe in England) were in Latin (arguably medieval Latin there, not that it was more understandable by Romance speakers) up to the point inconvenience would be too much.
Writing is an area where a pre-modern body can institutionally impose its will, at least to a degree. If it was wished that the writing style of officials ecclesiastical and secular was more brought in line with on ground realities (with the support of the church of course) could we see written Latin be brought more in line with that of speech? Of course, there are those writers outside the state and church apparatus but with full support from both institutions, could you?

Also while mandated schooling for the masses is practically impossible for a pre-modern state, mandated schooling, in general, is possible for a pre-modern state to force upon the higher echelons of society as seen in the Education Act 1496 of Scotland. Of course, for the Roman elite such would most likely be already expected of them. Mandated standardised schooling though even for the nobility would be unlikely as well.
 
The schools come later I guess I failed to specify the timeframe for that.
It's more or less a given that it would take centuries to have something similar to a complete education system ITTL. Meanwhile, I think we can agree the linguistical development would continue.
And when the situation would allow this (which is not the same to say it would happen then) the devellopment of Vulgar Latin and the need of basic efficiency in at the very least day-to-day administration wouldn't make Classical Latin the new standard.

What I was referencing with a unified state is that its presence could be enough to keep regional speaking changes 'dialectal' instead of them developing into their own separate languages.
Thing is, these supra-dialectal groups were issued from Vulgar Latin rather than Classical Latin. While I agree the linguistical differenciation would be more limited ITTL, regionalisation associated with a diglossic relationship with Vulgar Latins and Classic Latin would still be a thing, mostly because it already was the case IOTL since the IIIrd century.

I was thinking the present of the state would do a lot to pull people together and around the more so than in the fractured kingdoms of the 'Dark Ages' allowing the mixture of the mixture and transfer of larger dialectal changes across superregional lines i.e. there being a type of Western Latin spoken in Gaul and Hispania, Insular Latin spoken in Britannia etc instead of the even greater regional breakdown into languages and dialects like Occitan, French, Arpitan, Catalan etc.
Regionalisation was more or less a feature of Late Roman societies, arguably possibly more in some as Late Roman Britain. I think we're still bound to see a differenciation happening very roughly along the lines of supra-regions such as Gaul, Spain, Britain, etc. And I agree that the linguistical differenciation in modern Romance language would be considerebly butterflied away (see my earlier post about Germanic influence o French, or Vasconic influence on Castillan and Gascon).

This being said, you're bound to have some Germanic influence there and there in Western Romania, not only due to laeti presence, but the foedi that are bound to be preserved there and there (the idea of a ethnic cleasing with Romans pushing Germans back to Rhine is, frankly, ludicrous : it makes little political sense for the Vth century). Let's take a PoD where Constans III becomes emperor, so it means Frankish influence in Northern Gaul, Alamans in Middle Rhine basin, possibly Gothic in Aquitaine, etc. Giving that reducing these entities into semi-autonomous ones would already be a challenge, we can consider that they would form possible linguistical particularities : maybe some *French in Netherlands, *Alemanic/Burgundian in Upper Rhineland, etc. I'd expect as well some influence on super-dialects (such as these two or three on Gallo-Romance), to say nothing of a likely Gaelic superstrate in Britain, assuming a Romance language really manages to blossom there and not just an extension of Gallo-Romance.

Basically fewer distinctive dialects than OTL
I agree, up to a point : the linguistical distinction between, say, Old French and Old Occitan is a relatively late happenance from the Xth century, but it's due to the fragmentation of political, administrative and ultimately cultural centers. ITTL, you'd probably have a relatively less complex distinction within these super-dialects without real way for these to become more. In short having a southern Gallo-Romance speaker speaking something essentially similar to a North-Western one (with the caveat of aformentioned "foedi dialects")

Backlash from who?
Scholars, essentially, on the lines of "muh Latin".

If it was wished that the writing style of officials ecclesiastical and secular was more brought in line with on ground realities (with the support of the church of course) could we see written Latin be brought more in line with that of speech?
If the problem was essentially phonologic, I would agree : but the evolution of Vulgar Latin was (as we saw) a matter of grammar and vocabulary as well as phonology. It doesn't help you already had regional variations already in phonology at this point (such as Vulgar Latin in Gaul loosing open vowels, and many others such as loss/gain of diphtongs). At the very best it would be a cosmetic adaptation of Classical Latin on Italian speeches (which were the closest, arguably, to Classical Latin).
Except as a very first step into "vulgarisation" of administrative/institutional languages (which would be, I agree, an interesting development), I'm not sure it would do much.

Of course, there are those writers outside the state and church apparatus but with full support from both institutions, could you?
You mean an actively supported script change? It seems a bit...convenient, giving that you didn't have such concept in Romania. The inter-regional exchanges were enough (and would be enough ITTL) to switch to new practices IMO.

Also while mandated schooling for the masses is practically impossible for a pre-modern state
It's arguably hard enough for a pre-modern state to go for a middle-class schooling : medieval universities really beneficied from the rise of medieval bureaucracies both clerical and royal. There is a reason if the intellectual is a characterization which is medieval and not ancient.

mandated schooling, in general, is possible for a pre-modern state to force upon the higher echelons of society as seen in the Education Act 1496 of Scotland.
To get a bit technical, by the XVIth century, we can talk of early modern states in Western Europe.
Now as for the causes and consequences of the act, it was a consequence of the humanist thought in Scotland (arguably an early one) and the necessity for high classes to have a formal teaching on humanities.

Giving the decentralized, and relatively privatized, school network in the Empire I'm not sure such act would be needed (more or less as you pointed yourself) : the imperial and provincial courts recruited among the same elites which generally took on themselves this education.
Now, in case of an important crisis (let's say a TL where WRE survives in the mid-Vth but is forced to abandon most of direct rule of provincial areas to foedi, which it slowly re-integrates), you could see the introduction of a standardized cursus for what matter administrative tasks, but it would be a continuation of the late classical paieda rather than the less elitist early medieval crusus which tolerated "Rustic language".
 
@LSCatilina Thanks for all this. On the issue of Classical Latin vs Vulgar Latin, I don't actually really care about who 'wins' I was more asking about the preservation of 'Latin' as Latin with it being recognised ITTL as Modern Latin as the evolution of the Latin spoken before it all the way back to Late Latin eg Old English to Middle English to Modern English, Late Latin/Late Vulgar Latin to 'Middle Latin' to 'Modern Latin' with the various dialects and such. Basically that Latin is still recognised as a living language. Granted thinking about it such would be obvious in a surviving Roman state where 'Italian' would never really exist as no one would recognise it as such instead being Italic Latin.
 
Given all that has been said on this subject, I find myself wondering about the impact that printing would have on the languages spoken in the continued Western Roman Empire. Would it strengthen the position of Classical Latin, whether by exerting a conservative influence on the language of the elite or by increasing access to it? Or, would printing allow dialects, whether Romantic or not, to attain the status of regional languages?
 
@LSCatilina Thanks for all this. On the issue of Classical Latin vs Vulgar Latin, I don't actually really care about who 'wins' I was more asking about the preservation of 'Latin' as Latin with it being recognised ITTL as Modern Latin as the evolution of the Latin spoken before it all the way back to Late Latin eg Old English to Middle English to Modern English, Late Latin/Late Vulgar Latin to 'Middle Latin' to 'Modern Latin' with the various dialects and such. Basically that Latin is still recognised as a living language. Granted thinking about it such would be obvious in a surviving Roman state where 'Italian' would never really exist as no one would recognise it as such instead being Italic Latin.
Well, what you'd get could be considered as Tuscan/Italian with a more obvious re-Latinisation. Most of the modern romance reborrowed Latin words anyway, in ttl this would be more obvious.
 
French language as a dynamic one and Occitan as a conservative one is essentially tied to historical-social events...etc. And of course, I say nothing of the evolution of Raetho-Romance, Illyro-Romance and Danubian Romance.
What are those socio-historical events? I'm particularly interest because I previously opened up a thread about what determines conservativness and innovativness of languages and speed of linguistic or sound changes, but I never heard any really particular example being brought up.
 
Last edited:
What are those socio-historical events? I'm particularly interest because I previously opened up a thread about what determines conservativness and innovativness of languages and speed of linguistic or sound changes, but I never heard any really particular example being brought up.
The growing dominance of medieval French over medieval Occitan (which is really beggining in the XIIIth with the linguistical replacement of written official or semi-official texts and more or less over by the late XVIth except in Béarn) is probably a good cause : Occitan more or les lost its cultural centers, lacking chancery/courtly and eventually literary grounds to express itself.
That doesn't expain everything, tough, as a certain linguistic conservatism was already perceptible before in Occitan (such as a longer survival of case, if not that long) : I think (but without being certain there) that is due to the tradition of classicism in southern Gaul. While the Frankish presence and influence is perceptible up to Loire (altough definitely on a massive Romance base) it is not south of it, which is a first social-historical happenance. Moreover, Aquitaine cultural centers tended to consider themselves as "Roman" in comparison to whatever they witnessed in the North, which was more or less acknowledged by Carolingians whom a good part of cultural, administrative and religious cadres outside potentes came from Aquitaine, with a certain stress on classicism.
 
Well, what you'd get could be considered as Tuscan/Italian with a more obvious re-Latinisation. Most of the modern romance reborrowed Latin words anyway, in ttl this would be more obvious.
Yeah, I meant there was never a need for a re-Latinisation. Latin never die it just became 'New Latin', like how Old English became Modern English.
 
Yeah, I meant there was never a need for a re-Latinisation. Latin never die it just became 'New Latin', like how Old English became Modern English.
Well, Vulgar Latin is more or less "New Latin" already in the IIIrd century CE, in the same way Old French and Middle French coexisted for a relatively long period, but the latter being an evolution from the former.
The problem with Classical Latin is that the evolution that would have make Vulgar Latin transcriptable should have been done in the Ist century BCE or CE. Instead it became a more and more archaising variant that at some point would have to make way in everyday writing, like khatarevousa had to make way for demotic IOTL (if you pass me the ill-comparison).
 
Well, Vulgar Latin is more or less "New Latin" already in the IIIrd century CE, in the same way Old French and Middle French coexisted for a relatively long period, but the latter being an evolution from the former.
The problem with Classical Latin is that the evolution that would have make Vulgar Latin transcriptable should have been done in the Ist century BCE or CE. Instead it became a more and more archaising variant that at some point would have to make way in everyday writing, like khatarevousa had to make way for demotic IOTL (if you pass me the ill-comparison).

Does it really matter as long as educated Vulgar speakers could read and write Classical Latin even if they don't speak it? Sure, pronunciation might change, but it doesn't really matter as long as when Vulgar speakers read Classical, they can speak it in Vulgar, and as long as they write their vulgar speech with classical spellings.

For example, if he pronounced a word Deus Deos, it's different, it won't matter if when he reads Deus, he would immediately think it's pronunciation is Deos in his mind, and when he's writing his friend about Deos, he would instinctively write Deus and see nothing wrong with it.

Or if his name is, for example, Lucio, but he still writes it as Lucius, and he has no problem thinking that the correct spelling of Lucio is Lucius. Or if he thinks that 'us' is an acceptable way to spell 'o'. Thus, me might think that the name of Gaius Marius of the first century BC is really called 'Gaio Mario', just like how we think Caesar is pronounced Seezar not Kaiser.

It could be like English spelling, which was based before the Great Vowel Shift. And where pronunciation would be not be on one on one correspondence with spelling. For example, I write Taliafierro in English, but it's pronounced Tolliver. I speak 'kernel' but I write colonel. Or I pronounce 'nukular' and I spell nuclear. Etc. Does English have to be forced to conform to everyday pronunciation? That would be the same for Latin. New words could be added, but old words could keep their spelling, and change pronunciation.
 
Does it really matter as long as educated Vulgar speakers could read and write Classical Latin even if they don't speak it?
Take a wild guess about the literacy of the average Roman citizen in the late western empire. Now, take in consideration how much the average Roman citizen would be in connection with circles educated in Classical Latin.
Vulgar Latin is going to evolve independently off the really tiny minority of scholars and educated people using Classical Latin on an every day basis, because the population that uses one or the other rarely cross except in a reduced middle-class.

And, as repeated above, changes were much more than just phonological but grammatical and on vocabulary as well already in the IIIrd century.

So, yes, it does matter, as in every pre-modern society where diglossic relation is predominant linguistically.
Eventually, I think people there really overestimate the use of Classical Latin in late Roman society (for good reasons, I'd add, giving that the people in charge did used it and that it had a monopoly on texts and inscriptions) and underestimate its differentiation from Vulgar Latin.
 
Last edited:
What about something like Koine Greek? Didn't that incorporate prestigious Attic features, yet became the language of the entirety of Greece?
 
Take a wild guess about the literacy of the average Roman citizen in the late western empire. Now, take in consideration how much the average Roman citizen would be in connection with circles educated in Classical Latin.
Vulgar Latin is going to evolve independently off the really tiny minority of scholars and educated people using Classical Latin on an every day basis, because the population that uses one or the other rarely cross except in a reduced middle-class.

And, as repeated above, changes were much more than just phonological but grammatical and on vocabulary as well already in the IIIrd century.

So, yes, it does matter, as in every pre-modern society where diglossic relation is predominant linguistically.
Eventually, I think people there really overestimate the use of Classical Latin in late Roman society (for good reasons, I'd add, giving that the people in charge did used it and that it had a monopoly on texts and inscriptions) and underestimate its differentiation from Vulgar Latin.

The speech of the illiterate don't matter, no matter how numerical they are compared to the educated, as long as when they become literate and educated, they write and read in Classical. That's what happened in the Roman Empire. Those educated people at the Late Roman Empire all speak Vulgar at home yet wrote and read in Classical. Do you think Jerome when he wrote Vulgate spoke Classical Latin at home?

As long as all written communication is in Classical Latin, it does not matter what the illiterate thinks, since they don't write anyway. Educated people would speak Vulgar and write in Classical. It happens all the time.

If they want to learn how to read, they have to learn classical latin. Eventually, education levels would go up, and that education would be in Latin. Vulgar Latin may remain unwritten, and all the writing done would be in Classical.

Especially in the modern times, when the Roman state, when it acquires the capability to do so, imposes a universal education and teaches everyone how to read Classical Latin as the written language of the empire.
 
The speech of the illiterate don't matter, no matter how numerical they are compared to the educated, as long as when they become literate and educated, they write and read in Classical.
This is not how linguistical evolution works in pre-modern state. There isn't going to be a mass education, or mass media to widespread Classical Latin to the population. You can't just ignore what the crushing majority of the population is speaking because it's not convenient for the thin layer of everyday Classical Latin users.

Classical Latin will remain for a time the institutional and administrative language because at this point, it's a marker of late imperial society, but it's not going to put the evolution of Vulgar Latin in a statis. Educated people tended to avoid Vulgar Latin as plague (and complain endlessly about it) but it would have zero impact on popular speeches. The only social class relatively fluent in both would be the urban peri-urban middle-class that would be maintained as much as possible ITTL instead of disappearing as IOTL. This is not enough to maintain a close diglossy, especially with a growingly divergent Vulgar Latin (growingly divergent in no small part because Classical Latin was in a morphological stasis) that lost most of its cases already by the IIIth to mention but an exemple.

As for learning how to write, giving that everyday Roman society is still essentially oral, the need for mass education (would it be even conceptualized in this period) is moot for the immediate future of this TL.
Eventually, the gap between Classical Latin and what would come out of Vulgar Latin would be too important to keep Classical Latin as an everyday administrative language and especially with a more literate society if Rome avoids more crisis, it would make a "vulgarisation" of administration needed for the sake of efficiency over higher classes' sensitivities.

Heck, the more or less half-hearted tentatives in the VIth century to "adapt" Latin to vulgar speeches weren't nearly enough, and it was a Latin that used cases without coherence because it looked prettier.
 
This is not how linguistical evolution works in pre-modern state. There isn't going to be a mass education, or mass media to widespread Classical Latin to the population. You can't just ignore what the crushing majority of the population is speaking because it's not convenient for the thin layer of everyday Classical Latin users.

Classical Latin will remain for a time the institutional and administrative language because at this point, it's a marker of late imperial society, but it's not going to put the evolution of Vulgar Latin in a statis. Educated people tended to avoid Vulgar Latin as plague (and complain endlessly about it) but it would have zero impact on popular speeches. The only social class relatively fluent in both would be the urban peri-urban middle-class that would be maintained as much as possible ITTL instead of disappearing as IOTL. This is not enough to maintain a close diglossy, especially with a growingly divergent Vulgar Latin (growingly divergent in no small part because Classical Latin was in a morphological stasis) that lost most of its cases already by the IVth to mention but an exemple.

As for learning how to write, giving that everyday Roman society is still essentially oral, the need for mass education (would it be even conceptualized in this period) is moot for the immediate future of this TL.
Eventually, the gap between Classical Latin and what would come out of Vulgar Latin would be too important to keep Classical Latin as an everyday administrative language and especially with a more literate society if Rome avoids more crisis, it would make a "vulgarisation" of administration needed for the sake of efficiency over higher classes' sensitivities.

I'm not talking about spoken language. It's going to change. I'm only talking about written language, and how it is perfectly possible to have one language that is written, and another that is spoken. Do you think all those educated people who wrote in classical in the late empire actually spoke that language at home?

I don't think it's impossible. The Persian Empire, for example, wrote in Armenian, and not Persian, for example. And Akkadian lasted centuries as a written language long after the death of the language.

And the writing, I predict, won't change, even if spoken language change. Why?

Simple. Vulgar Latin is going to diverge. Latin in Italy, Gaul, Germany,Spain, and North Africa would evolve, and the dialects would be unintelligible. But Classical written will remain the same.

Now if the state would decide to change the language of everyday administration to a Vulgar standard, what 'dialect' would it choose? Most probably that of Rome, but think of what the elite of Gaul, or Britain, of Germany, of Africa, would think about that? They would protest and say that it would be an imposition upon them, and would force them to learn another language when they already learning classical. For that reason alone, to maintain communication throughout the empire, writing won't be changed at all. So it would be even more efficient to keep a written language that everyone who could read could understand than an admin language that only one part of the empire could understand.

As for mass education, remember, we are trying to imagine the effects to the present time. Surely, after 1500 years, the Roman state would have mass education. And the Roman state would have to choose a standard language for all schools in the empire. If the Roman Empire survived intact until now, you have to consider the impact of the fact there would be universal mass education, and fact that all those Vulgar forms spoken would probably not have written standards and would remain local dialects.
 
Last edited:
Top