Talk:Sequence of Saint Eulalia
|WikiProject Saints||(Rated Stub-class)|
Removal of Vulgar Latin
I have removed the transposition of the text into "hypothetical post-imperial Vulgar Latin", first added in December 2010. This, and subsequent edits, were OR. The same action was taken for similarly unsourced content in Oaths of Strasbourg in April 2007. I have added an English translation directly quoted from two different sources (hoping in this way to avoid both NOR and COPYVIO problems). Notable remarks about the VL sources of individual words or structures in the Sequence can be added in the Analysis section, but only if they are taken from reliable, cited sources. CapnPrep (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Concurrence -- although the exercise is interesting.
However viable "Vulgar Latin" (VL) was as a language, it was not written -- and any effort to translate any language into VL is hence moot. It is a reconstruction; it is possible that VL contained archaisms from Classical Latin that disappeared in all places at some point between about AD 400 and AD 880 (perhaps at different times in the various locations). The exercise is interesting, and it may even be possible even to create a functioning, semi-artificial language out of VL... but even that fails to take account of dialectal differences that may have existed even in Classical times. As an example I might guess that the Celtic influence in Gaul, most of Iberia (but contrast Mozarabic), northern Italy, and probably Britain caused the shift of medial plosives and that those medial plosives remained intact in central and southern Italy and Dacia.
People may have been speaking VL, but the few literate people of the time were still writing Classical Latin until this Sequence and the Strasburg Oaths (unless one wishes to figure that Mozarabic is even older).