Tikolm wrote: linguoboy wrote:
Tikolm wrote:This is very interesting. Thank you for posting it, locuroso. But is this supposed to be a conlang, or not? If it's not, then why is it under "conlangery"? This sort of thing is called "reconstruction" and not "conlanging".
Locuroso wasn't trying to reconstruct Vulgar Latin--that's already been done. This is a proposal for a romlang with more Classical Latin elements than is typical for such a project.
Locuroso didn't say that this was a conlang - he/she was trying to reconstruct Vulgar Latin. Where did you hear that this was really a romlang? I didn't.
He posted it in "Conlangery", didn't he? You assume this was an error, that possibly he didn't realise there was a forum called "Extinct Languages". But I think it makes more sense to assume he knew exactly what he was doing. Particularly in light of what he says in the OP:
1. This language is an attempt to recreate Vulgar Latin, if it still existed today.
2. I am not familiar with the IPA format or any others, so bear with me on the alphabet
3. The language is supposed to resemble modern Romance Languages, as I stated this language is what I feel Vulgar Latin would look like if it still existed today, therefore there would be some borrowings from romance.
Twice he says that he wants to present what "Vulgar Latin would look like if it still existed today
" [my emphasis]. A reconstruction would be an attempt to present Vulgar Latin as it looked back when we know it to have been spoken
Moreover, he goes on to say that there would be "borrowings from romance". How could actual Vulgar Latin borrow from Romance when it was the ancestor
of Romance? To borrow from Romance, you'd have to be a contemporary of it. So it's clear to me what's really under discussion is a romlang--a conlang derived from the same sources as the actual attested Romance languages. He's just emphasising that it would be much more conservative than the typical romlang, i.e. it would more like Vulgar Latin than any contemporary Romance variety.