Talk:Late Latin
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Served as reconstructed proto-romance!?
[edit]Currently, the article says:
Being a written language, Late Latin is not identifiable with Vulgar Latin. The latter during those centuries served as proto-Romance, a reconstructed ancestor of the Romance languages.
I'm nobody's linguist and I'm not quite sure how to fix this, but it seems to me that saying an actual spoken language "served as" a reconstructed proto-lanaguage is a bass-ackwards way of thinking about it. I wonder if there's a usual way of talking about a proposed correspondence between an actual spoken language and a reconstruction that would be more accurate here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.213.99 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Almost no info about language
[edit]I find it strange that this article contains almost no information about the actual language. There is no discussion about phonetics or morphology, no section explaining the evolution of the language. No examples of writing of the time. The section about how different authors define the period, particularly the definition of “media” and “infima” is exhaustingly long-winded… ~2026-27485-48 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)