jaysgsl wrote:
I meant the dialect used in Rome, which was, I know, nothing but a defect Latin nation. So yes, you are correct :)
At what point should we consider it to be a different language, though, with the basic structure even changing?
At what point should we consider it to be a different language, though, with the basic structure even changing?
There wasn't a single dialect used in Rome, though. Soldiers, merchants, and slaves used Vulgar Latin, and the senators and wealthy used Classic Latin.
And er, Rome wasn't formed out of a defunct (that's the word you were looking for, I think) Latin nation, since there wasn't really a Latin nation to begin with. There was no central government, just a language that was common among the people on the Italian peninsula, even if there were different dialects in different areas.
Generally a language is considered different when it undergoes substantial changes that makes it more than just a different dialect of the same language (e.g. southern English and English in England are still considered the same language despite being vastly different).