Death to Inflections

Anyway, imagine this scenario.

It's A.D. 2018, and in Londinium, an average citizen woke up.

Now, he is Roman citizen. And he speaks London Latin, a form of Vulgar Latin spoken in London, the province of Britannia Superior. He learned it from his parents, and he speaks it with his wife, children, and neighbors. He greets his wife in that language. The Celtic languages of Britain were long extinct, and nobody spoke that language anymore.

He goes down for breakfast, and reads the morning paper. That paper was written in classical Latin. But why does he understand that kind of Latin? Because he has to in order to read anything, since in this world, classical Latin became intertwined with written language. So he necessarily learned classical when he learned to read and write since there is no written vernacular.

He then remembers that he need to write a letter, to his neighbor as thanks to his help in repairing his fence. Then to a friend in Italy to invite him to his birthday, and another one to a business associate in Roman Germany about some kind of business.

So he went to his study. First, the letter to his neighbor.

If he would talk to him directly, he would speak in Vulgar London Latin. But he does not know how to write London Latin. He does not know how to read it either. Neither do his neighbor know how to read his dialect. So he mentally translates what he is thinking from the London dialect to writes it in classical Latin. This would like a Gaul in 1st century AD, who knows Gaulish, and is writing to another Gaul, but wrote in Latin since there was no written Gaulish.

The letter to Italy was also written in classical Latin, since the receipient does not know London speech. Both know how to write and read Latin. So is the letter to Germany.

Then he opens the radio, and listen to a channel from Rome. The speaker speaks a Latin that everybody understood. He opens the TV. Every text he would see and read is in Classical Latin, while the speech of the people on TV is also in a common Latin.

Then he goes out. All signs on the road are in classical latin. He greets friends in his London dialect. Then he goes to work in the middle of the city.

But he does not use the dialect at work. Why? Because his dialect was only known in his locality. Another dialect, a variety of Vulgar, is spoken by those from Kent, from Cornwall, and from Norfolk. In fact, linguists would identify more than forty spoken Vulgar Latin varieties in Britannia alone, most mutually unintelligible. And more dialects exist in Gaul, Hispania, Germania, Hibernia, and Africa and most other parts of the Imperium Romanum.

But they can communicate because all had, because of their education, know classical and common Latin. Ever since the Emperor and Senate decreed in AD 1700 universal education, everyone knows how to write and read classical Latin (and no other languages). The empire adopted the Latin of Rome and Italy as a universal standard, called common Latin, as spoken speech. But that common Latin does not have a written form. Indeed, all form of written communication is classical Latin instead, or Greek. So in order to write, one must mentally translate the common Latin speech to written classical. But since everybody knew classical since elementary, it became second nature to most.

In fact, due to this universal education, almost everyone across the empire, even the Greek east, knows how to speak the Latin of Italy. In fact, many Vulgar dialects of the west were in danger of becoming extinct due to the pervasiveness of the common Latin.
 
Last edited:
Now if the state would decide to change the language of everyday administration to a Vulgar standard, what 'dialect' would it choose?
I'm going to just answer to this about linguistic evolution, because I think we agree on most things there (even if I think Vulgar Latin super-dialects ITTL wouldn't necessarily diverge to the point of mutual unintellegibility, at least for neighboring ones).
They probably wouldn't choose a specific dialect : few standardized languages are evolving from a specific dialects, and generally it's more a matter of linguistical elaboration, creating a language form originally spoken by no one in everyday reality. Of course, some dialects can have a decisive influence, but it's rather a matter of established chanceries habits (such as the influence of Picard and Norman chanceries written habits in Middle French).

There's several exemples of this, but I'll take the Oaths of Strasbourg in their romance version in particular, giving it's a mix of various gallo-romance speeches (northern as southern) with dialectal influences taken there and there.
ITTL, while *Italian super-dialect would be indeed an obvious candidate for Roman administration (it would be less diverging from classical Latin as it is IOTL) but especially for a transregional administration whom cadres would be gathered from all the corners of Romania, you'd end up with an "artificial" Romance form that wouldn't be obviously *Italian or *Gallic but something elaborated from there. The main obstacle would be morphological but as you said, the written form of Latin really makes it relatively easy to deal with.

And when mandatory education kicks in (it wouldn't be an obvious direct evolution, tough : the idea of a non-elitist education really appeared in Europe with the medieval church. ITTL it can take longer and differently), this *Romance language being taught, and functionning effectively as an interlingua, may (apart phonetics and accents) amend the biggest differenciations on the core Romance speeches.
Now I do think that some dialects would have diverged far too much to be totally included into this ensemble : especially the "Barbaro-Romance" speeches of the Rhineland that I mentioned earlier.
 
Top