Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Language
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LATIN
ERNST PULGRAM
University of Michigan
The great number of definitions proposed for the term Vulgar Latin mirrors
the plurality of Vulgar Latin theories, which cannot all be correct.' They not
only do not all coincide, which is but natural, but some of them are radically op-
posed to each other. Since all of them are based on the same records, the diver-
gence of theories must spring from the interpretation and not from the nature
of the evidence.2
One may completely discard, as the majority of scholars have done, the idea
that spoken Vulgar Latin is the chronological successor (a corruption) of Classical
Latin.3 Apart from this antiquated view, there are, roughly, two types of Vulgar
Latin theories. First, there are theories which propose that there was, especially
during the Empire and the early Middle Ages, a linguistic unity of popular speech
throughout the Roman and Romanized world; according to some scholars this
unity dissolved in the 5th or 6th century of our era, according to others not be-
fore the end of the 8th or 9th century. Second, there are theories which insist on
early dialectalization of Latin, or indeed maintain that there never was, outside
of early Latium, a single unified Latin, or anything but a number of local dialects,
especially in the Romania outside of Italy.
Let us examine briefly to what extent our sources may claim to represent
spoken Latin; on our conclusions will depend our judgment of Vulgar Latin
theories,4 Our largest and most varied sources are inscriptions from the entire
Romania of all periods. Besides, we have also literary texts, sacred and profane;
political, juridical, historical, liturgical, and hagiographical documents; and,
last but not least, the testimony of the grammarians and the glosses. All writing
in Classical Latin is by its nature excluded.
Inscriptions are highly prized for determining popular speech, especially those
referring to and made by common people. Official inscriptions are mostly stuffy,
full of archaisms to enhance their solemnity. Their writers, of no matter what
period, are consistently guided by a desire to write good, that is Classical, Latin;
1 Cf. Louis Furman Sas, The noun declension in Merovingian Latin 491 (Paris, 1937),
who counts nineteen definitions. See also Einar L6fstedt, Philologischer Kommentar zur
Peregrinatio Aetheriae 8 f. (Uppsala, 1936).
'The difficulties were seen, or rather foreseen, nearly a century ago, when Hugo
Schuchardt, Der Vokalismus des Vulgiirlateins 1.ix (Leipzig, 1866-8), mentioned the
complications of the subject, '... da der Ausdruck "Vulglirlatein" strenggenommen nicht
eine einzige Sprache, sondern eine Summe von Sprachstufen und Dialecten von der Zeit
der ersten r6mischen bis zur Zeit der ersten wirklich romanischen Schriftdenkmailer be-
deutet.' See also ibid. 1.3.
3 This too had already been said by Schuchardt, Vokalismus 1.47: 'Der sermo plebe
steht zum sermo urbanus in keinem Descendenz, in keinem Ascendenz, sondern in ein
Kollateralverhailtnis.'
4 On the evaluation of written documents see Elise Richter, Beitriige zur Geschichte
der Romanismen, ZRP Beiheft 82.4 if. (1934).
458
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LATIN 459
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
460 ERNST PULGRAM
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LATIN 461
B.C. 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 A.D.500 1000
1 1I I
that you cannot talk to people in a language they have long since ceased to under-
stand, nor thereby save their souls.
In an article on Demotic and Coptic,8 Kurt Sethe prints a sketch to illustrate
the development of Egyptian (see Fig. 1). Our knowledge of Egyptian extends
over a much longer period than that of Latin, the Romance languages included.
Its history comprises, as the sketch shows, six different written or classical lan-
guages of successive eras. The sloping line represents the continuous change of the
spoken idiom throughout the history of Egyptian, whereas the steps indicate
the succeeding classical languages. Each linguistic break that produces a step
coincides roughly with an important political event in Egyptian history, usually
a catastrophe. Now while the spoken language of the masses goes along its un-
disturbed linear development, each classical language, from its inception, is held
to a level standard, without major changes, as long as the society which employs
it remains stable. A breakdown of this society involves the breakdown of its classi-
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
462 ERNST PULGRAM
Fig. 2
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LATIN 463
9 Lfstedt, Kommentar 14 and passim. Elise Richter, Der innere Zusammenhang in der
Entwicklung der romanischen Sprachen, ZRP Beiheft 27.80 (1911), claims that the Prae-
nestine fibula (DUENOS MED FHEFHAKED NUMASIOI), the oldest Latin document in our
possession (of the late 7th or 6th century B.c.), is already an example of popular Romance
speech because of its word order; see also Karl v. Ettmayer's article on Vulgar Latin in
Wilhelm Streitberg, Die Erforschung der indogermanischen Sprachen 1.231-80 (Strassburg,
1916).
10 See especially Henri Frangois Muller, When did Latin cease to be a spoken language?,
RR 12.318-34 (1921); id., A chronology of Vulgar Latin, ZRP Beiheft 78 (1929); id., L'6poque
m6rovingienne: Essai de synthese de philologie et d'histoire (New York, 1945); Pauline
Taylor, The latinity of the 'Liber Historiae Francorum' (New York, 1924); Mario A. Pei,
The language of the eighth century texts in northern France (New York, 1932); id., Ac-
cusative or oblique? A synthesis of the theories concerning the origin of the oblique case of
Old French and the single-case system of the Romance languages, RR 28.241-67 (1937);
id., Reflections on the origin of the Romance languages, RR 36.235-9 (1945). Robert L.
Politzer, On the emergence of Romance from Latin, Word 5.126-30 (1949), assigns the
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
464 ERNST PULGRAM
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LATIN 465
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
466 ERNST PULGRAM
This content downloaded from 140.206.154.236 on Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:16:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms