This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 13:57, 16 February 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Latin}}, {{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome}}, {{WikiProject Languages}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 13:57, 16 February 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Latin}}, {{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome}}, {{WikiProject Languages}}.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Being a written language, Late Latin is not identifiable with Vulgar Latin. The latter during those centuries served as proto-Romance, a reconstructed ancestor of the Romance languages.
I'm nobody's linguist and I'm not quite sure how to fix this, but it seems to me that saying an actual spoken language "served as" a reconstructed proto-lanaguage is a bass-ackwards way of thinking about it. I wonder if there's a usual way of talking about a proposed correspondence between an actual spoken language and a reconstruction that would be more accurate here?
