Do you think that a Roman could have understood

[Emperor Goblinus]

If a person from ancient Rome were exposed to any of the Romance languages, do you think that he might be able to understand some of them, or would they be totally incomprehensible?

[sylla]

If a person from ancient Rome were exposed to any of the Romance languages, do you think that he might be able to understand some of them, or would they be totally incomprehensible?

Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem:

Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternam peribit.

Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur.

Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam seperantes.

Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti:

Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas.

Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis Spiritus Sanctus. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spiritus Sanctus.

Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus Sanctus.

Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus Spiritus Sanctus.

Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus.

Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus.

Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus.

Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.

Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus.

Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus.

Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus.

Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus.

Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compelimur: ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur.

Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus.

Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Emperor Goblinus]

If a person from ancient Rome were exposed to any of the Romance languages, do you think that he might be able to understand some of them, or would they be totally incomprehensible?

Between both extremes; "ancient Rome" would include people from at least 12 centuries; all languages were (and are) in constant evolution.

 

Modern Romance languages are essentially locally evolved variants of Vulgar Latin; in general terms, the closer they get in time, the more understandable each one of them are expected to be.

 

Cicero or Caesar would undoubtedly require translation among any modern Romance language speaking population.

 

I had in mind the Late Republic/Early Empire era Latin. Yes, the language was in evolution, but until at least the ninth century, it was still recognizably Latin.

[sylla]

Cicero or Caesar would undoubtedly require translation among any modern Romance language speaking population.

I had in mind the Late Republic/Early Empire era Latin. Yes, the language was in evolution, but until at least the ninth century, it was still recognizably Latin.

Linguistic evolution is extremely slow; no one went to bed speaking Latin and wake up talking in Spanish, Italian or French.

Just remember Polybius (II century BC):

 

"The first treaty between Rome and Carthage dates from the consulship of Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Horatius, the first Consuls after the expulsion of the kings, and the founders of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

This is twenty-eight years before the crossing of Xerxes to Greece (circa 509 BC).

I give below as accurate a rendering as I can of this treaty, but the ancient Roman language differs so much from the modern that it can only be partially made out, and that after much application, by the most intelligent men".

 

(Docoflove was obviously not there; she would have made the things far easier for them ; )

Edited November 9, 2009 by sylla

[Emperor Goblinus]

Cicero or Caesar would undoubtedly require translation among any modern Romance language speaking population.

I had in mind the Late Republic/Early Empire era Latin. Yes, the language was in evolution, but until at least the ninth century, it was still recognizably Latin.

Linguistic evolution is extremely slow; no one went to bed speaking Latin and wake up talking in Spanish, Italian or French.

Just remember Polybius (II century BC):

 

"The first treaty between Rome and Carthage dates from the consulship of Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Horatius, the first Consuls after the expulsion of the kings, and the founders of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

This is twenty-eight years before the crossing of Xerxes to Greece (circa 509 BC).

I give below as accurate a rendering as I can of this treaty, but the ancient Roman language differs so much from the modern that it can only be partially made out, and that after much application, by the most intelligent men".

 

I actually don't remember that quote; thanks for refreshing my memory. It's not too surprising that the language had changed significantly between the sixth century and Polybius' time.

 

No, people didn't immediately shift to new language; there were a number of "transition" Romance language like the Gallo-Romance one found in the Oaths of Strasbourg. But I'm not sure if its fair to compare the Latin changes during the BC period to what happened after the fall of the western empire. Republican Rome never had any outside invaders push in on their culture and language the way that the Germanics, Arabs, and Slavs did to the late imperial provinces.

[sylla]

I actually don't remember that quote; thanks for refreshing my memory. It's not too surprising that the language had changed significantly between the sixth century and Polybius' time.

Polybius 3:22:1-3; no, it's no surprise; like 3 1/2 centuries, far shorter than the lapses involved for your current question.

No, people didn't immediately shift to new language; there were a number of "transition" Romance language like the Gallo-Romance one found in the Oaths of Strasbourg. But I'm not sure if its fair to compare the Latin changes during the BC period to what happened after the fall of the western empire. Republican Rome never had any outside invaders push in on their culture and language the way that the Germanics, Arabs, and Slavs did to the late imperial provinces.

Any living language at any time is a "transition" language; all languages (even the isolated ones) are permanently evolving, in fact at a relatively constant rate, which is BTW the scientific basis for glottochronology.

Only dead languages (i.e. those without native speakers) remain unchanged; that's why sacred languages tend to be actually dead (or almost).

Edited November 9, 2009 by sylla

[Ludovicus]

If a person from ancient Rome were exposed to any of the Romance languages, do you think that he might be able to understand some of them, or would they be totally incomprehensible?

 

 

I think there's a good chance that a fourth century speaker of Latin would be able to understand a modern speaker of Italian or Spanish. By late imperial times spoken Latin was beginning to lose its case system, relying more on prepositions. Here's one modern Romance language that may be the best candidate for an answer to your hypothetical question:

 

The Pater Noster in Modern Sardinian:

 

Babbu nostru, ch

[sylla]

I think there's a good chance that a fourth century speaker of Latin would be able to understand a modern speaker of Italian or Spanish.

Don't bet on it.

 

The issue is actually easy to answer, because linguistic intelligibility is reciprocal.

 

You can verify by yourself that modern Italian and Spanish speakers require translations to understand IV century Latin.

[Ludovicus]

I think there's a good chance that a fourth century speaker of Latin would be able to understand a modern speaker of Italian or Spanish.

Don't bet on it.

 

The issue is actually easy to answer, because linguistic intelligibility is reciprocal.

 

You can verify by yourself that modern Italian and Spanish speakers require translations to understand IV century Latin.

 

If that hypothetical Roman of the Late

Empire were to shop at the butcher's alongside a modern

Italian or Spaniard I'll bet they would understand each others

languages quite well. Please remember that my reference is to

the mutual intelligibility of spoken language.

 

Non mi placet carne de vacca, said the Roman.

 

Preferisco agnello, said the Italian.

 

Sic, adoro carne de agnello, replied the Roman.

 

Creo que la carne de pollo tiene un gusto

superior, added the Spaniard.

 

 

Bene, nos videmus.

Si, ci vediamo.

Si, nos vemos.

Sic, bona idea.

 

And they returned home.

And all the went home.

[docoflove1974]

Mutual intelligibility is a tricky thing. It's not 100% measurable...sure, we can measure how much the grammar and lexicon is similar, but what one person says is intelligible versus what someone else says is intelligible is different. But overall, I think it's not wise to assume that even a native Latin speaker of the Late Republic/Early Empire would be able to understand a modern Romance language speaker. And, for the record, I'm talking about spoken language as well.

 

Perhaps one vital clue is the Appendix Probi and other such grammars of the end of the Empire days through to the 7th century, which documented the evolution of Classical Latin to the Vulgar Latin of the time. Even then Latin grammarians were trying to correct lexical, phonological, morphological and syntactical 'errors'--changes in case due to the use of prepositions, lack of case use, collapse of declension, evidence of change in the phonological inventory. And this is in 3-4th c. CE! Click here for a reproduction on the University of Pennsylvania's site. This would lead many (including myself) to question whether a native Latin speaker of that 3-4th c. CE could understand Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, Sardinian, Rumanian, and the like.

 

I completely agree with sylla, that the evolution of these Vulgar Latin speeches (and I only say this because we end up with various Romance Languages later...not because we've found evidence of different Vulgar Latin speeches--how ironic!) was over several centuries, such that taking speakers of one century wouldn't necessarily understand someone from even 1-2 centuries later. *Perhaps* (and I do mean to imply a great deal of doubt here) you could say that someone from the same town in northern Italy from 5th c. CE and 8th c. CE would be able to understand each other, but I'm not even sure about that. I will say that one element that is up in the air is the lack of documentation in Romance (the speeches of the people in these areas between "Latin" and the modern languages). We have some margin notes (the "glosses") from monks in the monasteries, made while they were copying the manuscripts, but what we have is from closer to 9th/10th c. CE. We have the jarchas, poetry written by the Iberians during the Moorish occupation; these love songs were written in Arabic or Hebrew for the most part, except for the last stanza, 4 lines written in Semitic script but in Ibero-Romance words. Their translation has been going on for the last several decades, but it's a slow and tedious process, so our collection is growing.

 

In terms of the modern languages, even if we went to the 'old' versions of these language--say, 11th/12th c. to 15th/16th c. CE--the syntax and morphology have changed drastically, the phonology has changed in various ways (vowel system reduced, sibilants changed, palatalization to varying degrees), that I don't know how much a native Latin speaker of any Roman period would understand them fully. I think mutual intelligibility would be compromised.

 

The two books I go to to start on Vulgar Latin are J

[Trethiwr]

If I were to travel back in a time machine just 50 years there are possible areas of misunderstanding, especially in casual spoke English.

100 - 200 years ago I could understand most of a conversation with an ordinary Englishman although there would be an awful lot of possible misunderstandings and sticking points. Words that have completely reversed in meaning or just fallen out of use would make up about a quarter to a third but I could probably work it out from context.

If I were to travel back 500 years it would be unlikely that I could understand half of anything that was said. Probably much less

Just 1000 years ago at the time of my 29 x great grandfather William the conqueror I would not have the first clue what anyone was talking about. The ruling elite spoke medieval French and the peasants spoke Saxon.