Linguistic Diversification of Re-Unified Roman Empire

In a scenario in which the Roman Empire is re-unified after the Fall of the West, but before the Romance languages become literary languages, would it be reasonable to expect greater diversification of the dialects that would have become the Romance languages?

Consider that the official language of government would likely remain 'proper' Latin (as it did, anyway). Consider also that the government would likely not ilt towards any one regional dialect over the others. So, no Parisian dialect dominating Gaul, no Castillian dominating Hispania, no Tuscan dialect dominating Italia. So, the regional dialects that waned in the face of those local powerhouses would hold out.

Then, geography has to be taken into consideration. Regions like Italy and the Balkans are so rugged that the local dialects are likely to be much smaller and more fragmented. Meanwhile, regions like France are relatively flat, so their dialects might be more widely spread.
 
Interesting idea. I agree, a reunified Rome would probably lead to more conservative "peasant" languages.

Although there is a small chance that merchants could keep the Vulgar Latin dialects connected, slowing their divergence.
 
Last edited:
Interesting idea. I agree, a reunified Rome would probably lead to more conservative "peasant" languages.

Although there is a small chance that merchants could keep the Vulgar Latin dialects connected, slowing their divergence.

Would something like the Sabir/Mediterranean Lingua Franca pidgin language develop in this scenario?
 
Well, you see a similar situation with Arabic and Chinese - I would not expect "Latin" to be any different.
 
Would something like the Sabir/Mediterranean Lingua Franca pidgin language develop in this scenario?

The pidgin was developed as a means of communication between Latinate speakers and Arab and Berber speakers, right? Maybe not, if the Roman empire was so powerful that Arab and Berber traders were forced to learn its language to do business, rather than being on more equal ground in OTL.
 
The pidgin was developed as a means of communication between Latinate speakers and Arab and Berber speakers, right? Maybe not, if the Roman empire was so powerful that Arab and Berber traders were forced to learn its language to do business, rather than being on more equal ground in OTL.

There would still be lots of Greek speakers in the east though (and maybe the political language of the reunited Roman Empire would even be Greek).
 
Yeah, but for the Romance dialects, there would be cultural centers that would hold local prestige. Basically the major cities of each Roman province, maybe?

Would something like the Sabir/Mediterranean Lingua Franca pidgin language develop in this scenario?

Probably, but much, much more African Romance (a couple different dialects of it at that) and likely some Punic instead. I wouldn't be surprised if they contributed far more to Sabir than Arabic or Berber ever did.

Well, you see a similar situation with Arabic and Chinese - I would not expect "Latin" to be any different.

So maybe a situation where the only people talking in Latin are foreigners? I'd imagine Latin itself would evolve over the years. Compare Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Chinese. Latin in TTL's 15th century would be pronounced differently than 1st century Latin, that's probably a given.
 
So maybe a situation where the only people talking in Latin are foreigners?

Would not be surprised. (ROFL :D)

I'd imagine Latin itself would evolve over the years. Compare Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Chinese. Latin in TTL's 15th century would be pronounced differently than 1st century Latin, that's probably a given.

You actually see that happening more or less with Latin itself in OTL, as pronunciation delved more into regional pronunciations and the written language changed over time, despite repeated attempts to approximate the Classical language; the current "standard" Italianate pronunciation is basically a historical accident and not in tune with post-Classical historical development, though the grammar of modern Ecclesiastical Latin is only somewhat more in tune with its history than modern New and Contemporary Latin versions.
 
I'm quite intrigued by what dialect would become the language of government. Would they do their best to stick to classical latin or would they lean towards what we know as ecclesiastical latin?

Or would there even be an ecclesiastical latin?

How about a literary latin? Would poets and the like write in the official government or ecclesiastical latin? They probably wouldn't bother with their local dialect, with said dialects being in a weaker position than OTL. Or might they adopt a sort of mix, applying popular conventions that cross multiple dialects?
 
I'm quite intrigued by what dialect would become the language of government. Would they do their best to stick to classical latin or would they lean towards what we know as ecclesiastical latin?

Or would there even be an ecclesiastical latin?

How about a literary latin? Would poets and the like write in the official government or ecclesiastical latin? They probably wouldn't bother with their local dialect, with said dialects being in a weaker position than OTL. Or might they adopt a sort of mix, applying popular conventions that cross multiple dialects?

Ecclesiastical Latin is only named that way because it survived through the Church. If it survives through imperial bureaucracy, it would be called something else and would eventually be influenced by Classical Latin and Greek (v.g. All the "ph"s and "th"s that the Romance languages adopted during the Renaissance). A move to make it more comprehensible to the people seems rather unlikely.

Given that the use of local Romance languages in administration only started shortly before the early modern age, the logic is to adopt an universal type of Latin and not a Romance dialect. The masses would still uses dialects, though. Pretty much like Arabic.
 
There would still be lots of Greek speakers in the east though (and maybe the political language of the reunited Roman Empire would even be Greek).
That depends on how it was unified. If it was reconquered by the Byzantine Empire, there's a decent chance that it would use Greeks until the Turks and Arabs arrived.
 
Could someone explain me one thing, I hear mostly that the celtic languages of Iberia and Gaul were replaced by Latin and that later the Latin devolved into different varieties and later on in languages, but is this actually true?
I mean didn´t the latin spoken in Iberia at the time of the Romanization already differ from the one spoken in Rome?
Same for Gaul, more so when I hear that most of the unique things of French came from the Gaullish influence and it would not make sense if the local variety was born after the complete romanization.
 
Could someone explain me one thing, I hear mostly that the celtic languages of Iberia and Gaul were replaced by Latin and that later the Latin devolved into different varieties and later on in languages, but is this actually true?
I mean didn´t the latin spoken in Iberia at the time of the Romanization already differ from the one spoken in Rome?

On the contrary, in the most distant provinces people tended to speak a better Latin than in the center of the empire: less people, less commerce, etc. equals less linguistic innovation. Just see how much more archaich Canadian French or Brazilian Portuguese are if compared to their European counterparts (to establish what is archaic or not in linguistics is quite complicated, though).

As a matter of fact, Pre-Roman influences only survived marginally in the modern Romance languages if compared with the linguistic influences introduced after the fall of the Roman Empire (i.e. Germanic and Semitic influences).

Same for Gaul, more so when I hear that most of the unique things of French came from the Gaullish influence and it would not make sense if the local variety was born after the complete romanization.

Supposably, The only major Celtic in French is the base 20 counting system (soixante-dix, quatre-vingts, quatre-vingts-dix...). Other than that, what differs French from the other Romance languages is the Germanic influence - which is also present in all Western Romance langages, but in a much lesser extent.
 
Supposably, The only major Celtic in French is the base 20 counting system (soixante-dix, quatre-vingts, quatre-vingts-dix...). Other than that, what differs French from the other Romance languages is the Germanic influence - which is also present in all Western Romance langages, but in a much lesser extent.

Not just Germanic influence, but also a lot of native innovation, which came from French and influenced other Western Romance languages to various degrees: extensive vowel shifts including innovation of new /y ø/, nasalization, erosion of intervocalic consonants (saputum > su), loss of final vowels and final consonants, loss of syllable-final /s/.
 
Also, the time that Latin was introduced to a region matters. Latin had evolved in the time between the conquest of Hispania and of Gaul, for example.
 
Top