Is Vulgar Latin just an artificial or constructed version of Classical Latin?

[Spiderman]

According to what I researched, Vulgar Latin was not standardized like Classical Latin and it was just everyday speech and it evolved into Romance languages that used Vulgar Latin pronounciation. However, according to wiki, it is also known as Colloquial Latin which means it was an informal version of Latin but why is it called that? Was it developed artificially, or is it a reconstruction of the original Latin? source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin#:~:text=Vulgar%20Latin%2C%20also%20known%20as,time%20and%20in%20many%20places. And if it was just an informal version of Classical Latin why did the Romance languages adopt the Vulgar pronounciation but not Classical?

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Vulgar Latin is supposed to be a spoken language with different dialects.

[potato]

now i want to be a vulgar potato

[Spiderman]

Postat inițial de potato:

now i want to be a vulgar potato

Calm me Vulgar Phillips

[Tsubame ⭐]

Vulgar Latin was the spoken language of the masses, and the one that did give origin to all the Romance languages spoken in Europe - Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian, among smaller local languages.

Elites and governments are not everything - they do have influence in a language development, but so does the regular people, especially when they have a sizeable population. Especially when the government does not regulate and mandate the use of a standardized form of language across its jurisdiction.

Remember, these days communication and networking was nowhere as fast and integrated as it is now, and education standards were different, most people could not write and read - in fact, universal literacy is a rather modern achievement.

This is not a concept unique to Latin; for example, plenty of European languages survived centuries long occupation by Arab and Ottoman powers, and more recent cases like some former colonies that did not adopt the language of the occupiers, such as Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Korean.

[Spiderman]

Postat inițial de Tsubame ⭐:

Vulgar Latin was the spoken language of the masses, and the one that did give origin to all the Romance languages spoken in Europe - Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian, among smaller local languages.

Elites and governments are not everything - they do have influence in a language development, but so does the regular people, especially when they have a sizeable population. Especially when the government does not regulate and mandate the use of a standardized form of language across its jurisdiction.

Remember, these days communication and networking was nowhere as fast and integrated as it is now, and education standards were different, most people could not write and read - in fact, universal literacy is a rather modern achievement.

This is not a concept unique to Latin; for example, plenty of European languages survived centuries long occupation by Arab and Ottoman powers, and more recent cases like some former colonies that did not adopt the language of the occupiers, such as Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Korean.

Was Vulgar Latin a recreation of CL?

[Tsubame ⭐]

It was Latin, but more flexible as it was not constrained by Classical/Standard rules allowing it to morph much more quickly with time as different groups in different places adopted different ways to say and pronounce words or assimilating words from different foreign languages.

[metamec]

Vulgar Latin wasn't 'created'. It evolved from Classical Latin... which itself evolved like any other language. Classical Latin became the language of education and of government however, and was standardised by the Romans themselves.

Most people living on the Italian peninsula under the authority of Rome however were poor and uneducated. Peasant kids didn't learn rhetoric like kids from Patrician families. So over the centuries, these 'vulgar' forms of spoken Latin emerged among these groups—much like different dialects of English (cockney, scouse, etc.) emerged the past few centuries among the lower/less educated classes in Britain.

The reason we know so little about Vulgar Latin compared to Classical Latin is that it was not standardised. It was not used for writing so it did not turn up in histories, in poetry, in stories, etc. So we don't have much evidence of it compared to Classical Latin.

[permanent name]

When English was reconstructing Latin using a joke lexicon (The Rosetta Stone) it decided to impress its ideas of linguism (ie the proscriptive (ie clearly defined top-down expressions of language rules) vs descriptive (language is hjow you use it lul) divide) onto a language where that divide was not present.

They decided to term this 'vulgur latin' since English commoners were always vulgur to them what was deciding the language, so the Romans' commoners must have been vulgur as well since they also had social classes. (I am being sarcastic.)

In short yes.

[Spiderman]

Postat inițial de Tsubame ⭐:

It was Latin, but more flexible as it was not constrained by Classical/Standard rules allowing it to morph much more quickly with time as different groups in different places adopted different ways to say and pronounce words or assimilating words from different foreign languages.

Was it created

[Spiderman]

Postat inițial de metamec:

Vulgar Latin wasn't 'created'. It evolved from Classical Latin... which itself evolved like any other language. Classical Latin became the language of education and of government however, and was standardised by the Romans themselves.

Most people living on the Italian peninsula under the authority of Rome however were poor and uneducated. Peasant kids didn't learn rhetoric like kids from Patrician families. So over the centuries, these 'vulgar' forms of spoken Latin emerged among these groups—much like different dialects of English (cockney, scouse, etc.) emerged the past few centuries among the lower/less educated classes in Britain.

The reason we know so little about Vulgar Latin compared to Classical Latin is that it was not standardised. It was not used for writing so it did not turn up in histories, in poetry, in stories, etc. So we don't have much evidence of it compared to Classical Latin.

Then why is it often called an informal version?

[Caw Caw Caw]

Postat inițial de TREVOR PHILLIPS:

Postat inițial de Tsubame ⭐:

It was Latin, but more flexible as it was not constrained by Classical/Standard rules allowing it to morph much more quickly with time as different groups in different places adopted different ways to say and pronounce words or assimilating words from different foreign languages.

Was it created

latin was created by your mother, trevor

[Caw Caw Caw]

Postat inițial de TREVOR PHILLIPS:

Postat inițial de potato:

now i want to be a vulgar potato

Calm me Vulgar Phillips

calm me puke. you know what puke is in latin, trevor

[Tsubame ⭐]

Postat inițial de TREVOR PHILLIPS:

Postat inițial de metamec:

Vulgar Latin wasn't 'created'. It evolved from Classical Latin... which itself evolved like any other language. Classical Latin became the language of education and of government however, and was standardised by the Romans themselves.

Most people living on the Italian peninsula under the authority of Rome however were poor and uneducated. Peasant kids didn't learn rhetoric like kids from Patrician families. So over the centuries, these 'vulgar' forms of spoken Latin emerged among these groups—much like different dialects of English (cockney, scouse, etc.) emerged the past few centuries among the lower/less educated classes in Britain.

The reason we know so little about Vulgar Latin compared to Classical Latin is that it was not standardised. It was not used for writing so it did not turn up in histories, in poetry, in stories, etc. So we don't have much evidence of it compared to Classical Latin.

Then why is it often called an informal version?

As I stated, it was not bound by unflexible rules from Classical standardized Latin. These rules have stayed the same largely the same over time.

Languages evolve with time.

Remember that unlike today, transportation and communication were very slow, schooling was not prevalent, and definitely not standardized forms teaching children across the empire the same content, so this evolution occurred in different ways in different locations of the Empire.

Do not take the terms "vulgar" or "informal" literally.

Comparisons can be made with German, Chinese, or Indian languages, which have dozens of associated languages.

These days, languages are standardized as countries implement education that teaches the same content across the nation, and many countries also have laws language associations that strictly dictate the rules of their language - i.e. Academie Francaise, Academia Brasileira de Letras, government decrees in China and Japan dictating how Chinese characters are supposed to be written, etc.

Furthermore, increased mobility and focus in professional careers ensures that pretty much the mastery of the lingua franca over time, as opposed to a dialect with substantial differences with other local languages.

[permanent name]

Patricians used 'vulgur language' all the time in the senate. Infact it was held up as the 'authentic' Latin instead of the constructed Classical Latin; it's what excited people.

The rigid class division inherent to the term is an English formulation at best, and a long-forgotten joke at worst.