Ooof I love city fortifications, but I don't want to be a Romaboo :'(
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
My brother in Christ you are without a doubt the most dense person in this forum. First of all you never specified you meant late antiquity/medieval times, second it was literally -informally- called vulgar latin since the late republican era as it is from the vulgar (From "Volgo", plebs [I'm not sure about the english translation]) that the now-called romance languages evolved. If you asked a guy who spoke proto-romance in medieval time he would either said he was speaking "latin" or if it was the late middle age he could said "vulgar".
If you had the decency of reading the wiki article you would have known that "During the Classical period, Roman authors referred to the informal, everyday variety of their own language as sermo plebeius or sermo vulgaris, meaning "common speech" "
I literally studied this shits, in Rome. Insisting that most people who spoke proto-romance called their language "roman" is absolutic moronic, they didn't. Not even the roman variant of italian was called "roman" untill some years ago [For those actually interessed: the italian variant was called "romanesco", while the new dialect is sometime called "romano"]
PS I actually work with a view on the Aurelian walls; I think every city should have some, they're very cool
- 5
- 1
Friends, there is no need for insults or anger.
We are all here for our shared love of this game. Nobody is right all the time, and with the right attitude debates such as these can be a positive, enjoyable experience.
We are all here for our shared love of this game. Nobody is right all the time, and with the right attitude debates such as these can be a positive, enjoyable experience.
- 3
- 1
Do you really think Upper class Romans sneeringly calling Vernacular Latin "common speech" meant anything to the speakers of classical period Vernacular Latin? Does the existence of the Kings English and received pronunciation among other "formal" forms, mean we don't call "vernacular English" English? or identify us as English speakers? You ask the average American, Brit and Australian on the street what language they speak? They will answer English, and your trying to tell me the average pleb in the days of the republic cared enough about what some cloistered upper class grammarian said about how they spoke Latin that if asked their language would have replied with some variation of "sermo vulgaris" and not "Latin"?
Also what do you even think "Latin" would have meant at that point in time?!? The only people that spoke Latin were Romans. When I said they'd answer "the language of the Romans" people especially someone claiming to be an academic linguist who studied/studies Latin and romance languages would pick up that I mean Latin, considering Latin was the language of the Romans.
English doesn't seem to be your first language, as I'm sure with your own first language, you can speak in roundabout, referential ways that others can pick up from context and reference what you mean. When I said they'd refer to their language as "Roman" is that "Latin" and "Roman" would have been synonymous because Romans spoke Latin. Latin was the roman language. So if you told a Slav or Germanic you spoke Latin to them that meant Roman to them in context because Romans spoke Latin.
Understand my point? Because from where I stand its took an entire debate with you coming across as a very arrogant, patronizing, bizarre, knit-picky, dismissive and aggressive person to basically come out and say basically what I said to begin with. Ill happily take the L on not wording myself very clearly. That can be a fault of mine. But id like to ask you as someone who isn't a native speaker that you be a bit more careful in your reading and interpretation, if at any point you had asked for clarification on what I meant I would have gladly explained. Instead you jumped to conclusions. Ill also admit I was a bit terse and rude when i was on the defensive and I apologise.
As an example I assumed that it could be read from the context of the topic and discussion that I was on about late antiquity/medieval times. I didn't think it needed to be specifically mentioned, second I have read the wiki page, and had assumed anyone else who had done that would be able to understand that in English, especially academic English nouns tend to not be literal to to what they name, "Vulgar Latin" in English is very broad term for what amounts to Latin slang, dialects and vernaculars from the late republic to the emergence of the romance languages as distinct languages some time in the 8th to 9th centuries, a period of about 4 to 5 centuries compared to "Proto romance" which strictly refers to the hypothetical common ansestor of all the romance languages as reconstructed from the common traits shared by them.* Academic English is imfamous even amongst native spears for being obtuse and exceptionally jargon filled. Trust me as someone how has a background in vertebrate anatomy that "Opisthocoelous Sarcral centrum with a large spinous process that projects anteriorly and is laterally flattened" means a backbone from the hip area with a concave back side and forward jutting spur of bone coming from the top that is flat on its sides.
*A bit of a tangent since my field is Paleontology and the Terminology and way of thinking has quite a bit of overlap with this part of linguistics, "Common ancestor" refers to a purely hypothetical thing reconstructed from the shared traits of all its decedents. We treat it as a hypothetical because its so far removed in terms of time (and in general we lack any direct evidence of it) from us we cannot pinpoint for 100% certain exactly what it actually was. As an example in biology We can reconstruct the common ancestor of Humans and Chimps from the shared characteristics, ie it was 4 limbed, had forward facing eyes, 5 digit hands with an opposable thumb, was an opportunistic omnivore, ext ext because we both have these traits which implies we inherited them unchanged from that common ancestor. There are fossil apes from around the presumed correct time and place the common ancestor is presumed to have lived but we can't say they are because we wern't there 11 Million years ago to watch the initial split of the lineages, its very similar for reconstructing a proto-language like Proto-Romance. You have the equivalent issue, you probably have bits of text from the time and place and probable candidate dialects, but you cant empirically say that the "Mediolanum dialect of vernacular Latin/Vulgar Latin from the mid 350s ce"(I made that up as an example) IS Proto-Romance.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
Having accepted detachment from this problem, as it is largely irrelevant to me, it's funny to watch. It kind of just devolves into a pro skub VS anti skub argument. I said my piece earlier and I stand by that, you guys have fun arguing about this, I'll be enjoying my pop corn.
- 6
If Byzantium can't be called the Roman Empire or Eastern Roman Empire because they don't control the city of Rome, why can the HRE still be called the Holy Roman Empire despite not owning Rome either?
- 4
Because a guy with a funny hat and a hooky stick said so
- 2
I love Paradox, they are dedicated to true history even when it is not popular institutionally such as the case of using Eastern Roman rather than Byzantine. Well done.
"The Germanic International Organisation centered around..."
Last edited:
- 1
I'm not against calling the byzs Eastern roman empire, I'm against calling it Rome/Roman empire
YES, THEY WOULD SAY "LATIN" AND NOT "ROMAN". But a couple message ago you said this.
Which is painfully wrong, as you admit they would have said Latin.
Literally false, as many people spoke latin without being roman. To be fair if you told a slav you spoke latin they would probably think you were a priest or a scholar (in late antiquity/medieval time)
I do. And I'm explaining why you're wrong
I literally don't agree with you
You started it
I don't accept your apology
A very weird misanderstanding while talking about USA/Hawaii and the national identity of modern day Romania
As I'm not an native english speaker I can't really tell if this is true, however I know that contemporary called it "vulgar latin" (Latino volgare, in italy) at the very least untill the start of the reinassance. Case on point Dante Alighieri, who wrote De vulgari eloquentia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_vulgari_eloquentia ) and caused quite a bit of controversy becouse he wrote La Divina Commedia in Vulgar
This looks actually painful to read, (Yet, knowing both greek and latin most of those unusual terms are almost intuitive)
Very cool. We have almost nothing in proto-romance/vulgar latin while we know it was spoken at least since the I century bc (most of Pompei's graffiti are regarded as such)
- 5
This is getting better and better now :]
So... calling it "Roman empire" is completely wrong, but calling it "eastern part of Roman empire" is fine.
In a situation when there's no "western part of Roman empire" (in WRE sense) anymore, so Roman empire is just... a Roman empire.
"It's not my hand, it's my right hand. Right hand, not a hand, do you understand?"
- 7
- 2
- 1
All major anti-byzantiboos are compromising their ideology, but I will never let these greeks win!
- 4
A true roman speaks Latin. A barbarian not worthy of citizenship would speak a different language. So tell me? What do the Rōmaîos speak?
- 4
- 2
I know you're trolling, but even snobbish Romans didn't think this way. Roman elites saw knowing both Latin and Greek as important. They hired/bought Greeks to teach their kids so they would be bilingual. The Empire was deeply bilingual and focused on Greek culture.
Also, the most famous "Byzantine" emperor, Justinian, was a native Latin speaker who published legal codes in Latin. What are we to do with that?
- 4
- 1
Well, there was a Roman citizen, Paul, who wrote quite a lot of pretty influential letters in "Koine Greek".
And Rōmaîos spoke Romeika. "Language of the Romans".
- 3
The document is called "Letter to the Romans" since Paul the Apostle is not a true Roman but most likely the son of freed Jewish slaves. He was also a citizen of the Greek polis of Tarsus, Cilicia.
Soon Bizaboos will claim Arminius was a "Rōmaîos" caused he was granted the citizenship prior to his famous ambush.
Last edited:
- 2