Romance languages do not come from latin

There is a law of linguistics that says that languages ​​diverge and that excludes any possibility of convergent evolution. If Romance languages ​​derive from Latin as we have been told, they would separate from each other but maintain a clear linguistic relationship with the mother. However, what we find is just the opposite: Romance languages ​​share the same linguistic typology and closely resemble each other, arriving at identical convergent solutions that show a break with

 Latin.

Vulgar Latin, understood as a unitary language derived from the Latin from which the romances would derive, did not exist. What we always find is classic Latin written with better or worse mastery. We could compare it to what is happening today with English, the global communication language used by science and international trade: not all users speak it correctly and that does not mean that there is a vulgar English, there is well spoken English and many other types of badly spoken English that clearly reflect the language and accent of the speaker. In the same way, the texts written in medieval Latin are indicators that the person intends to write in Latin having a limited knowledge of Latin grammar, and this in no way should be interpreted as being the oral language: who writes the Latin wrong simply He does it because of ignorance of Latin, and not because it is his usual way of speaking. Written language and spoken language were two different realities. In historical grammar, we try to justify the enormous distance that separates Latin from Romance languages, speaking of vulgarization, of a setback that led to parataxis, that is, it returned to the primitive stage of using nonverbal language, with gestures, to understand beyond a language that only used simple sentences or elementary composition by coordination. However, this statement cannot be sustained because there is no culture in the world whose language is so abruptly deformed that there is a stage of loss of grammatical markers to the point of ambiguity and confusion. Such a case could only occur temporarily and in a situation of strong diglossia, a consequence of forced coexistence with speakers of another language who would not have allowed bilingualism. But that is not what happened. The agents of political unification had disappeared when the empire fell, so there was no pressure on native speech. Therefore, the convergence between the languages ​​languages ​​can only be understood if the relationship is prior to the so-called Romanization. The romances would be languages ​​with a close relationship of kinship and with a linguistic typology that would have evolved much more slowly than what has been affirmed. That Latin was the official language of the empire, does not mean that all Romans spoke Latin and much less that imposed their language on the conquered peoples. The Roman Empire, in its different stages, included more than 67 countries with a total of 270 ethnic communities with their respective languages ​​and dialects. The Palestinians were under Roman rule 800 years; Egyptians and Greeks 400 years, and they never imposed their tongues. In fact, except the patricians, the Romans had to study to speak Latin correctly. If they understood each other with neighboring countries, it was because their languages ​​were related and not because they had been quickly Latinized.

The reality is that linguists cannot explain this structural change between Latin and Romance. And what is even more difficult, in this supposed state of confusion, speakers from regions as far away as Galicia and Romania, who were never in touch with the fall of the Empire, came to identical solutions.

Chance?

Our current languages ​​share many words; This affinity would not respond so much to Latinization but to a common lexicon that would go back thousands of years. The differences would be the result of the slow natural evolution from an older mother tongue and shared by the different Mediterranean peoples. Historical grammar has started from the supposed Latin origin without taking into account that the inhabitants of our lands spoke and wrote long before the Roman conquest. The lexicon is the most volatile part of a language. If we carry out an analysis a little deeper, we realize that many of the ethics used to demonstrate the Latin origin of the words of the Romance languages ​​can be better explained from the knowledge of the substrate languages. We find many of these ethical comoforming of place names that literally describe a territory geographically. Cognitive linguistics is a symbolic basis for all grammatical constructs. The compositional elements that have been considered dismantled in romances are actually symbolic bases that join together in information clusters to form a larger unit used by speakers to understand and produce the language: These are symbolic formants of a compositional language. These formants or lexemas are still in the current lexicon of both Romance and non-Romance languages ​​and have reached us on two levels. On the one hand, we have the phonetic level: there are sound similarities, mostly consonant, that show us unexplained or unexplained relationships from the official canons. Comparative grammar has studied these phonetic changes from the synchronous and diachronic analysis between related languages, which has made it possible to verify the systematization in the change of consonants. But so far it had not been studied semantically. The relationship

semantics of these formants is so evident that it seems incredible that until now the compositional character of our languages ​​has not been identified: the basic unit is composed of a semantic structure with a phonological label

If the phonetics and etymology show an abyss between Latin and its supposed daughters, the morphology and syntax are not the same as those of the so-called mother tongue. In nominal forms, there are no cases, because there is no need; grammatical functions are marked with the use of prepositions. The links that establish syntactic relationships are completely different. In general terms, the preferential use of peripheral constructions is established over analytical ones. In the verbal paradigm, the passive voice is used very little because the opposition is Agent-Object and not Agent-Patient; there are no deponent verbs; nonpersonal verbal forms are reduced; there are no absolute ablative sentences or infinitive sentences. As for the non-lexical or closed categories: prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions, although they should be the most stable, there is no relation of continuity but of total breakage; The romances present and share a wide and varied paradigm that did not exist in Latin.

And last but not least, between romances and Latin there is a radical change in the order of the constituents of the sentence and in the structure of interrogative and negative sentences that show that they belong to different linguistic typologies.

Where do Romance languages ​​come from?

Romance languages ​​do not come from anywhere. They were here. They were the languages ​​spoken in the territory, slightly different as they separate linguistically and geographically. This process of change is slow or very slow. The articulatory characteristics that, according to historical grammar, are attributed to the change from Latin to vulgar Latin and from there to Romance languages, could have evolved directly from a previous and common mother tongue that does not pass through Latin. The relationship with Latin would be kinship, not filiation. Undoubtedly a fascinating aspect that we present in this new edition is the finding that the Romanian retains some aspects that help us get closer to this common mother tongue. But we must also take into account that in the Iberian Peninsula there was Iberian writing; Through it we know that many of the changes that historical grammar attributes to the evolutionary process of classical Latin to vulgar Latin, could be caused by the language of the substrate. Our current languages ​​share many words and this affinity does not seem to respond to the incorporation of foreign words or rocambolesque phonetic evolutions, but to a common lexicon based on the same ideas or concepts, expressed through compositional formants that refer us to a mother tongue common and older, shared by different peoples, language that would go back thousands of years. This forces us to focus our attention on the previous languages. In this situation, we should approach the more than two thousand epigraphic texts that Iberian culture has left us. We should ask ourselves how it is possible that, in the 21st century, his writing will continue without deciphering. Why it is still explained in the schools that were the Roman conquerors who contributed culture and civilization. Why it is not known the high level of indigenous culture that has commercialized since ancient times with other Mediterranean peoples: Minoan, Mycenaean, Hellenic, Phoenician. And in linguistics, why a complicated theoretical framework of phonetic evolution that ignores the characteristics of the Iberian is still used.

The multiple questions posed by this work should help us rethink current philological studies. The Iberian language is our great hope to advance in the understanding of our own roots,

Author: Carme Jiménez Huertas