How did Spanish remain so close to Latin?

LAA   Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:45 pm GMT
Despite centuries of rule under the Visigoths (who I know had little impact, but still), and then eight centuries of rule under the Moors! And yet, of all the MAJOR Romance languages, after Italian, Spanish remains the closest language to Latin. Could it be that the Iberian languages other than Basque of course, were closely related to the Italic languages like Latin?

Perhaps the explanation lies in the degree of Romanization which Spain experienced. Spain was arguebly the most Latinized province outside of Italy.
greg   Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:02 pm GMT
LAA : « (...) Spanish remains the closest language to Latin. »
Prouve-le puisque tu es si affirmatif !


LAA : « Spain was arguebly the most Latinized province outside of Italy. »
Apparemment t'as jamais entendu parler de la Provincia Romana ni de la Gallia Narbonensis...
LAA   Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:08 pm GMT
"Provincia Romana nor of Gallia Narbonensis..."

Yes, these regions recieved a very thourough Romanization as well. But Hispania was part of empire long before even Provincia and Gallia Narbonesis was. In fact, Transalpine Gaul, or namely, Provincia, was only counquered in order to have a land route between the Italian and Iberian peninsulas.

Provincia was already Hellenized before the arrival of the Romans. As for the rest of Gaul as a WHOLE, it was not as Latinized as Spain. Simply look at the divergency of the French language to see my point.
a.p.a.m.   Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:36 pm GMT
I don't know what Iberian sounded like, but there are linguists who claim that Iberian was related to the Berber languages of North Africa. I've seen written Basque many times, and it in no way whatsoever resembles Latin at all!!!
LAA   Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:00 pm GMT
"I've seen written Basque many times, and it in no way whatsoever resembles Latin at all!!! "

That is because it is not even of the same Indo-European language family. It is a totally isolated language, not belonging to any other major group.

Most of the Pre-Latin Iberians spoke some sort of Iberian language, and in areas of North Iberia, some Celtic dialects might have been spoken.

I don't know much about the ancient Iberian languages.
greg   Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:14 pm GMT
Non, l'Hispanie n'a pas été annexée longtemps avant la Narbonnaise ou la Provincia Romana : à peine 94 ans avant — sur 2.200 ans, c'est presque rien.

Mais tu n'as toujours pas démontré en quoi le castillan serait le plus "proche" du "latin".

Perte d'inspiration ?
LAA   Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:23 pm GMT
Greg, do you speak English? Because, I don't speak French.
fab   Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:55 pm GMT
LAA, tu cherches constament à prouver que la culture Française est moins latine... Mais en oubliant à chaque fois de préciser à quoi tu réfères. plus proche du latin classique, du Roman, de l'Italien, de l'Espagnol... ? S'il s('agit vraiment du latin classique l'Espagnol, comme la plupart des langues Romanes, à l'exception peut être du Sarde s'en est assez éloigné, et n'en est en fait descendant du latin vulgaire.
Linguistiquement Le Castillan (Espanol) c'est une chose, le Toscan (Italien) une autre, Le Français aussi. Tu ne peux pas nier que la latinophonie ne se limite pas à deux langues. Le français est la deuxième labgue romance après l'Espanol en nombre de locuteurs.
Le fait que l'Espagnol soit de nos jours la langue neo-latine la plus parlée ne veut pas dire qu'elle est la langue de référence.
fab   Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:57 pm GMT
Greg te pida que hace del Castellano un idioma mas cercano del latin ?
Si tienes argumentos claros para apoyar tu teoria ?
fab   Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:12 pm GMT
El nivel de romanizacion del sur de Gallia habia fuerte especialmente en el sur donde se encuentran unas de las mas impressionantes construcciones Romanas del exterior de Italia.

Arles, Nîmes, Orange, ciudades famosas por sus arenas donde las corridas han replazado los gladiatores, tiemplos, teatros, o el puente del Gard.
http://france-for-visitors.com/images/large/corrida-Arenes-vertical.jpg
http://img.www.france.com/gallery/archive/arenes%20de%20nimes.jpg
http://www.masdelacam.fr/images/photo-de-nimes-001.jpg
http://www.phonk.net/Images/Pont-du-Gard/small/pont-du-Gard-980212.jpg
http://france-for-visitors.com/images/large/orange-roman-theatre.jpg
Luis Zalot   Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:07 pm GMT
Spanish, Italian, Logudorese, Greek & Romanian all have very similar phonology towards Latin. Although, Spanish & Logudorese (greek, too) are very similar to "Classical-latin's" Phonology.

Evolution degree from Latin.
Sardu 8%
Italian 12%
Spanish 20%
Romanian 23.5%
LAA   Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:51 am GMT
"As an Italian I find Spanish more divergent to Italian than French, maybe is is due of the arab influences. "

Please guest, reveal yourself, so I know that your not simply some Frenchmen posing as a "guest".

"Secondly , the aboriginal cultures that the Romans found in Spain (both Iberian and Celtic) were more primitive than those they found in Gaul. The same was true of Britain. Therefore, it was eaiser for Spaniards to make the transition to Romanization"

I'm not so sure about that Brennus. The Gauls were definitely more cultured than the Celts in Britain, or the Germans, because of closer contact with the Romans and classical civilization. Caesar spoke of the Gauls as having been effeminated by luxury, and they were very concerned about personal appearance and fashion, and so forth, so that they were about halfway between the Romans and the Germans in terms of sophistication. The Celts of Britain had a more independent spirit, and were less cultured, not to mention more geographically distant and isolated from Rome, so that the Britons were never fully Romanized, and Latin never took hold amongst the common people.

But the people of Iberia were, compared to the Celts, also more cultured. Spain, a Mediterranean country, had been colonized by Greeks, Phonecians, Cartheginians, and other peoples for ages. Tarsus was in Spain. I disagree with you on this one point. I don't believe the Gauls, aside from the natives of Provincia and Cisalpine Gaul, were any more culturally advanced than the people of Hispania. By the time the Gauls were granted the status of Roman citizens, Spain could already boast a host of senators, and leading Roman military officials. The process of Romanization in Spain began around a whole century before it did in most of Gaul.
Georgero   Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:46 am GMT
@ LAA
you wrote: "Despite centuries of rule under the Visigoths (who I know had little impact, but still)"

That's a very interesting fact. The subject of Visigoths contribution to Latinisation could be higher than it is known now. Of course, it is just a theory.
But just watch the chronological events of main contacts of Visigoths with Roman Empire.
They were the main reason of evacuation of Dacia by Emperor Aurelianus. The invasion of Visigoths determined the Roman administration to retire from Dacia in 271. Then, the Visigoths settled in Dacia, where they remained for more than 100 years.
In this period, after of series of wars with the Roman Empire, they agreed to be part of the Roman Empire and defended the Danubian border against other migrators. Tey were the only authority in Dacia for these years and that was under direct supervision of the Roman Empire.
Finally, Visigoths revolted again and the last Roman legions in the area were destroyed and the Emperor Valens killed. That's the point when they started to move West.
It is good to notice that some of the local people were already speaking a form of a Latin language, being under the influence of Constantinopolis, which was still under the Latin influence at that time.
Visigoths have encountered Latin speakers in almost all the lands in which they passed, even from the beginning of their migration.
LAA   Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:52 am GMT
Yes, it has been said that the Visigoths were the most Latinized of all the Germanic peoples at the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

But one correction my friend (are you Italian by the way?). Constantinope was not Latinized in terms of language. It was always predominantly Greek speaking, as it was within the Hellenized sphere of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Georgero   Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:40 am GMT
No, I guess maybe I wasn't very clear. And I don't think it really matters what my nationality is.

What I meant is that Roman culture and Latin language was predominant until 4th century. Than, the Greek language was officialised and gradually all the administration switched to Greek langauge. But in the first centuries, Latin was widely spoken and it was the only authorities language. Even the Eastern army used Latin terms and Emperor Constantine legions had the motto: "in hoc sine vincem". In the early centuries, it was still the Eastern Roman Empire, of course the Greek influence always existed, but it became decisive only beginning with 4th century.
Even in the 7th century the Byzantines still called themselves "Romanioi". Also, they were called "Rumani" by Oriental (Turkic and Iranian) invaders.