Why do the Romance languages use definite articles, when Latin doesn't?Understanding the purpose of determiners/articles/demonstratives in languageWhy do so many core Romanian words with Latin roots come from different roots than in the other Romance languages?Is there a diagram showing the history of sound changes from Latin to the Romance languages?My otherwise monogamous friends came to the party with their wivesLatin -que suffix in romance languagesDo the words “angst” and “anxiety” share a common root?Have Latin and Romance languages evolved from vowel to consonant variety?Earliest recognition that Germanic and Romance languages are relatedWhy does Italian use definite articles before possessive adjectives, except when these are followed by a singular family noun?What determines how a language creates new words? For example, is it likely for English to continue to create new words from Latin in future?Which Romance Language is the least similar to Latin?
How are synthesizers used in music production?
Why do microwave ovens use magnetrons?
Asking my PhD advisor for a postdoc position. Is it bad to appear desperate?
Why is the Falcon Heavy center core recovery done at sea?
What is an "07" chord?
where does black come from in CMYK color mode?
Non-differentiable Lipschitz functions
Tikz: Arranging of a Table with Tikz elements
Computationally expensive AI techniques (that are promising!)
Create a program that prints the amount of characters it has, in words
How does AT-AT deploy troops?
Continents with simplex noise
I'm being drafted to the military but I have the option to refuse (legally), would it be immoral for me to serve?
In Cura, can I make my top and bottom layer be all perimiters?
Can a planet's magnetic field be generated by non-ferromagnetic metals?
How does a manufacturer determine the warranty for the battery?
Replacing triangulated categories with something better
Where do overtones in a 555 generated square wave come from?
Why does Bane's stock exchange robbery actually work to bankrupt Bruce Wayne?
What is the difference between tone deafness and amusia?
Problem aligning two alphabets
How is warfare affected when armor has (temporally) outpaced guns? How can guns compete?
How would a young girl/boy (about 14) who never gets old survive in the 16th century?
What's the earliest a champion can have a focus pool of 3?
Why do the Romance languages use definite articles, when Latin doesn't?
Understanding the purpose of determiners/articles/demonstratives in languageWhy do so many core Romanian words with Latin roots come from different roots than in the other Romance languages?Is there a diagram showing the history of sound changes from Latin to the Romance languages?My otherwise monogamous friends came to the party with their wivesLatin -que suffix in romance languagesDo the words “angst” and “anxiety” share a common root?Have Latin and Romance languages evolved from vowel to consonant variety?Earliest recognition that Germanic and Romance languages are relatedWhy does Italian use definite articles before possessive adjectives, except when these are followed by a singular family noun?What determines how a language creates new words? For example, is it likely for English to continue to create new words from Latin in future?Which Romance Language is the least similar to Latin?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
Classical Latin, as I understand things, barely has a definite article at all: ille is the nearest equivalent, and even this word is closer to English that than the. But Spanish, French and Italian are chock full of el/le/il/etc. What on earth could cause a language, even over the course of centuries, to undergo such a drastic structural change?
latin romance-languages
asked Oct 14 at 12:48
Tom HoskerTom Hosker
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
New contributor
Tom Hosker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 3 more comments
Classical Latin, as I understand things, barely has a definite article at all: ille is the nearest equivalent, and even this word is closer to English that than the. But Spanish, French and Italian are chock full of el/le/il/etc. What on earth could cause a language, even over the course of centuries, to undergo such a drastic structural change?
latin romance-languages
asked Oct 14 at 12:48
Tom HoskerTom Hosker
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
New contributor
Tom Hosker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
The presence or definite and indefinite article is, together with other characteristics, a trait of the Standard Average European sprachbund, which encompasses all the Romance languages but not Latin, but also Germanic languages like English, and other languages (some slavic, hungarian, etc.). It seems to be the result of heavy language contacts during the migration period, at the end of the 1st millenium.
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:33
@FrédéricGrosshans. The Sprachbund hypothesis does not explain why in (for example) Romanian the article appears not as a prefix, but as a suffix.
– fdb
Oct 14 at 13:51
5
@fdb : This is weel explained by Romanian being part of the Balkanic Sprachbund, a stronger Sprachbund within Standard average European
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:57
1
Consider that contemporary colloquial Slovak is well on the way of transforming demonstrative pronouns into definite articles - not a drastic change at all (of course, this being modern times, the trend is supressed by widespread literacy, education and the pressure to use the "proper" language).
– Radovan Garabík
Oct 15 at 14:39
1
The rise of articles seems to be one result of the loss of inflectional affixes. When morphology fails, syntax enters, and it brings with it lots of little particles (prepositions, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.) that do for syntax what paradigms did for morphology. Except syntax isn't paradigmatic; it's much messier and leaves artifacts all over the place.
– jlawler
Oct 16 at 20:37
|
show 3 more comments
Classical Latin, as I understand things, barely has a definite article at all: ille is the nearest equivalent, and even this word is closer to English that than the. But Spanish, French and Italian are chock full of el/le/il/etc. What on earth could cause a language, even over the course of centuries, to undergo such a drastic structural change?
latin romance-languages
asked Oct 14 at 12:48
Tom HoskerTom Hosker
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
New contributor
Tom Hosker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Classical Latin, as I understand things, barely has a definite article at all: ille is the nearest equivalent, and even this word is closer to English that than the. But Spanish, French and Italian are chock full of el/le/il/etc. What on earth could cause a language, even over the course of centuries, to undergo such a drastic structural change?
latin romance-languages
latin romance-languages
asked Oct 14 at 12:48
Tom HoskerTom Hosker
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
New contributor
Tom Hosker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Oct 14 at 12:48
Tom HoskerTom Hosker
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
New contributor
Tom Hosker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Oct 14 at 12:48
Tom HoskerTom Hosker
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
New contributor
Tom Hosker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Oct 14 at 12:48
Tom HoskerTom Hosker
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 12:48
Tom HoskerTom Hosker
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
1482 silver badges6 bronze badges
New contributor
Tom Hosker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Tom Hosker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
The presence or definite and indefinite article is, together with other characteristics, a trait of the Standard Average European sprachbund, which encompasses all the Romance languages but not Latin, but also Germanic languages like English, and other languages (some slavic, hungarian, etc.). It seems to be the result of heavy language contacts during the migration period, at the end of the 1st millenium.
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:33
@FrédéricGrosshans. The Sprachbund hypothesis does not explain why in (for example) Romanian the article appears not as a prefix, but as a suffix.
– fdb
Oct 14 at 13:51
5
@fdb : This is weel explained by Romanian being part of the Balkanic Sprachbund, a stronger Sprachbund within Standard average European
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:57
1
Consider that contemporary colloquial Slovak is well on the way of transforming demonstrative pronouns into definite articles - not a drastic change at all (of course, this being modern times, the trend is supressed by widespread literacy, education and the pressure to use the "proper" language).
– Radovan Garabík
Oct 15 at 14:39
1
The rise of articles seems to be one result of the loss of inflectional affixes. When morphology fails, syntax enters, and it brings with it lots of little particles (prepositions, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.) that do for syntax what paradigms did for morphology. Except syntax isn't paradigmatic; it's much messier and leaves artifacts all over the place.
– jlawler
Oct 16 at 20:37
|
show 3 more comments
3
The presence or definite and indefinite article is, together with other characteristics, a trait of the Standard Average European sprachbund, which encompasses all the Romance languages but not Latin, but also Germanic languages like English, and other languages (some slavic, hungarian, etc.). It seems to be the result of heavy language contacts during the migration period, at the end of the 1st millenium.
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:33
@FrédéricGrosshans. The Sprachbund hypothesis does not explain why in (for example) Romanian the article appears not as a prefix, but as a suffix.
– fdb
Oct 14 at 13:51
5
@fdb : This is weel explained by Romanian being part of the Balkanic Sprachbund, a stronger Sprachbund within Standard average European
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:57
1
Consider that contemporary colloquial Slovak is well on the way of transforming demonstrative pronouns into definite articles - not a drastic change at all (of course, this being modern times, the trend is supressed by widespread literacy, education and the pressure to use the "proper" language).
– Radovan Garabík
Oct 15 at 14:39
1
The rise of articles seems to be one result of the loss of inflectional affixes. When morphology fails, syntax enters, and it brings with it lots of little particles (prepositions, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.) that do for syntax what paradigms did for morphology. Except syntax isn't paradigmatic; it's much messier and leaves artifacts all over the place.
– jlawler
Oct 16 at 20:37
3
3
The presence or definite and indefinite article is, together with other characteristics, a trait of the Standard Average European sprachbund, which encompasses all the Romance languages but not Latin, but also Germanic languages like English, and other languages (some slavic, hungarian, etc.). It seems to be the result of heavy language contacts during the migration period, at the end of the 1st millenium.
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:33
The presence or definite and indefinite article is, together with other characteristics, a trait of the Standard Average European sprachbund, which encompasses all the Romance languages but not Latin, but also Germanic languages like English, and other languages (some slavic, hungarian, etc.). It seems to be the result of heavy language contacts during the migration period, at the end of the 1st millenium.
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:33
@FrédéricGrosshans. The Sprachbund hypothesis does not explain why in (for example) Romanian the article appears not as a prefix, but as a suffix.
– fdb
Oct 14 at 13:51
@FrédéricGrosshans. The Sprachbund hypothesis does not explain why in (for example) Romanian the article appears not as a prefix, but as a suffix.
– fdb
Oct 14 at 13:51
5
5
@fdb : This is weel explained by Romanian being part of the Balkanic Sprachbund, a stronger Sprachbund within Standard average European
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:57
@fdb : This is weel explained by Romanian being part of the Balkanic Sprachbund, a stronger Sprachbund within Standard average European
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:57
1
1
Consider that contemporary colloquial Slovak is well on the way of transforming demonstrative pronouns into definite articles - not a drastic change at all (of course, this being modern times, the trend is supressed by widespread literacy, education and the pressure to use the "proper" language).
– Radovan Garabík
Oct 15 at 14:39
Consider that contemporary colloquial Slovak is well on the way of transforming demonstrative pronouns into definite articles - not a drastic change at all (of course, this being modern times, the trend is supressed by widespread literacy, education and the pressure to use the "proper" language).
– Radovan Garabík
Oct 15 at 14:39
1
1
The rise of articles seems to be one result of the loss of inflectional affixes. When morphology fails, syntax enters, and it brings with it lots of little particles (prepositions, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.) that do for syntax what paradigms did for morphology. Except syntax isn't paradigmatic; it's much messier and leaves artifacts all over the place.
– jlawler
Oct 16 at 20:37
The rise of articles seems to be one result of the loss of inflectional affixes. When morphology fails, syntax enters, and it brings with it lots of little particles (prepositions, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.) that do for syntax what paradigms did for morphology. Except syntax isn't paradigmatic; it's much messier and leaves artifacts all over the place.
– jlawler
Oct 16 at 20:37
|
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Languages evolve in many ways! Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all, but they evolved independently in several different branches: you can still see the similarity between English "the" and "that", which is almost exactly the same as how ille turned into el/il/etc.
It looks a bit more likely, too, when you realize this evolution only had to happen once in Romance. This semantic bleaching started in Vulgar Latin around the first few centuries CE; it was well-established by the time Vulgar Latin started splitting into the ancestors of French and Spanish and Italian and the like. So they all inherited it from the same source, rather than all having to develop it independently.
answered Oct 14 at 17:35
DraconisDraconis
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
3
'Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all'. That's fascinating. Forgive my scepticism, but how can we know that a reconstructed language lacked certain features? I have a rough idea how we might reconstruct this or that word, but reconstructing the absence of a word is almost a contradiction in terms. Please convince me otherwise!
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 19:29
14
@TomHosker Basically, all the oldest IE languages that have articles seem to have developed them from different sources. If PIE had articles, we'd expect its descendants to all have articles from the same source—but that's not what we see. Instead, Romance made them one way, Germanic made them another way, Hellenic made them a different way, etc.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:32
3
@Malvolio Some part of it may be areal/Sprachbund features, especially in modern times. But the Germanic and Hellenic ones were definitely independent; the Romance one might have influenced Germanic, but was etymologically separate.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 3:41
2
@Imago "Why" is always hard to answer in linguistics, but "what purpose do articles serve" would make a good question of its own—the explanation is too long to fit in a single comment.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 18:22
2
@Draconis, there already seems to be a discussion about that: linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/29059/…
– Imago
Oct 15 at 18:23
|
show 17 more comments
such a drastic structural change
The change is not drastic at all! It is a simple case of semantic bleaching (this is where the meaning of a word gets weaker. So you can kind of see how the is a "weaker version" of that).
Also it's not a structural change, since wherever ille and all its forms may be used, it's the same whether it was early on and meant that or it was later on and it meant the.
This had already happened in Late Latin. By that time, ille was pretty close to meaning the.
answered Oct 14 at 13:14
WilsonWilson
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
1
I suppose "drastic" is in the eye of the beholder, but it feels like a big change to me! Imagine if you put a copy of Don Quixote in front of Virgil or Propertius. Most of the vocabulary, and pretty much all of the grammatical structure, he could work out very quickly. But this strange word el, which occurs more frequently than any one word in Latin, would keep him guessing for a fair while, no?
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 18:36
5
@TomHosker Honestly, I think Vergil would probably recognize el — he'd just recognize it as a stigmatized form that you would never use in proper literature and poetry! (I'm not sure quite when ille started getting bleached in Vulgar Latin, but it's attested within the first few centuries, so it was probably starting to happen by his time.)
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:10
4
I don't know how much Greek Virgil (in particular) knew, but some educated Romans did know Greek, and Greek had articles in classical times.
– Colin Fine
Oct 14 at 20:24
3
@ColinFine Also a good point. Vergil loved the Homeric epics, so presumably he knew some Greek.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 20:35
1
I would think the lack of case endings and semi-fixed word order might prove a challenge for someone like Virgil.
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 2 more comments
I agree with the earlier answers, but they essentially state that it was a possible occurrence and how it happened (ille, illa), not why it happened.
Could it be (I am only venturing a hypothesis), that there was an influence of another language, typically Greek?
While "standard" Italian has these forms:
il vicolo
la casa
(the street, the house)
Naples and other Southern regions have:
o vico
a casa
which is suprisingly close to Ancient Greek "hos" and "he" (with the Dorian variation of the eta into alpha). Furthermore, those articles "o" an "a" have a glottal attack that may resemble the Ancient Greek prononciation.
Could it be that, e.g. native Greek speakers, e.g. from the military or tradespeople, could have borrowed this article from Greek when speaking whatever Latin pidgin they were speaking?
After all, we saw this phenomenon of cross-pollinization much later with the Italian lingua franca of the Mediterranean (which e.g. adopted Arabic habit of doubling words such as poco poco).
answered Oct 15 at 19:21
fralaufralau
1313 bronze badges
New contributor
fralau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Not "borrowed" exactly; that word has a more specific meaning which is slightly different. But I like your description, "cross-pollinization". That fits well. This kind of thing happens over and over with neighbouring languages. It's normally called a Sprachbund feature.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:02
Providing the hypothesis was verified, would that not be a borrowing, in the linguistic sense? We would have a couple of words that traveled, with minor alteration (and without barely a calque) from a language to another. In the extreme, it could be that illus and illa were calques of Greek.
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:26
Interesting point. I don't know exactly. But you have a question there, if you pots it as one I'm sure it will get an answer.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:28
I agree: I answered a question with another question...
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:29
1
I would be skeptical if that's what happened for a number of reasons. Ille was reduced to o/a also in Portuguese (which would have far less Greek influence; l being a weaker sound). Ancient/Koine Greek only had the vowel w/ glottal sound in the nominative masculine and feminine, the remaining forms all start with /t/; plus Ancient/Koine Greek used the article more extensively than we see in Romance languages (repeated for articles or prepositional phrases in some constructs)
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 1 more comment
It is doubtful many people actively spoke Classical Latin. Rather they spoke Vulgar Latin, but Classical Latin was used for writing things down. Consider it a special administrative language. This is common in many empires where you need a lingua franca for laws and records and propoganda and suchlike.
answered Oct 17 at 9:32
crobarcrobar
97
New contributor
crobar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
This is true, but not really an answer to the question.
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 9:58
1
It's the same as English, or any language! most people don't speak the same way they write.
– Wilson
Oct 17 at 14:27
@ColinFine how does it not answer the question? It answers it by explaining that the premise of the question is flawed. The drastic change is explained via the fact that these languages probably didn't evolve from Classical Latin at all.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:28
@Wilson, it is the same as english in that it is used as a lingua franca by people in other countries who speak completely different languages in their day-to-day lives, but perhaps use English in a business setting, or writing official documents etc.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:30
1
But it does not mention anything about articles - did Vulgar Latin have them? If so, when, and where did they come from? Or are you suggesting that Classical Latin dropped them?
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 22:30
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Tom Hosker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33870%2fwhy-do-the-romance-languages-use-definite-articles-when-latin-doesnt%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Languages evolve in many ways! Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all, but they evolved independently in several different branches: you can still see the similarity between English "the" and "that", which is almost exactly the same as how ille turned into el/il/etc.
It looks a bit more likely, too, when you realize this evolution only had to happen once in Romance. This semantic bleaching started in Vulgar Latin around the first few centuries CE; it was well-established by the time Vulgar Latin started splitting into the ancestors of French and Spanish and Italian and the like. So they all inherited it from the same source, rather than all having to develop it independently.
answered Oct 14 at 17:35
DraconisDraconis
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
3
'Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all'. That's fascinating. Forgive my scepticism, but how can we know that a reconstructed language lacked certain features? I have a rough idea how we might reconstruct this or that word, but reconstructing the absence of a word is almost a contradiction in terms. Please convince me otherwise!
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 19:29
14
@TomHosker Basically, all the oldest IE languages that have articles seem to have developed them from different sources. If PIE had articles, we'd expect its descendants to all have articles from the same source—but that's not what we see. Instead, Romance made them one way, Germanic made them another way, Hellenic made them a different way, etc.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:32
3
@Malvolio Some part of it may be areal/Sprachbund features, especially in modern times. But the Germanic and Hellenic ones were definitely independent; the Romance one might have influenced Germanic, but was etymologically separate.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 3:41
2
@Imago "Why" is always hard to answer in linguistics, but "what purpose do articles serve" would make a good question of its own—the explanation is too long to fit in a single comment.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 18:22
2
@Draconis, there already seems to be a discussion about that: linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/29059/…
– Imago
Oct 15 at 18:23
|
show 17 more comments
Languages evolve in many ways! Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all, but they evolved independently in several different branches: you can still see the similarity between English "the" and "that", which is almost exactly the same as how ille turned into el/il/etc.
It looks a bit more likely, too, when you realize this evolution only had to happen once in Romance. This semantic bleaching started in Vulgar Latin around the first few centuries CE; it was well-established by the time Vulgar Latin started splitting into the ancestors of French and Spanish and Italian and the like. So they all inherited it from the same source, rather than all having to develop it independently.
answered Oct 14 at 17:35
DraconisDraconis
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
3
'Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all'. That's fascinating. Forgive my scepticism, but how can we know that a reconstructed language lacked certain features? I have a rough idea how we might reconstruct this or that word, but reconstructing the absence of a word is almost a contradiction in terms. Please convince me otherwise!
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 19:29
14
@TomHosker Basically, all the oldest IE languages that have articles seem to have developed them from different sources. If PIE had articles, we'd expect its descendants to all have articles from the same source—but that's not what we see. Instead, Romance made them one way, Germanic made them another way, Hellenic made them a different way, etc.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:32
3
@Malvolio Some part of it may be areal/Sprachbund features, especially in modern times. But the Germanic and Hellenic ones were definitely independent; the Romance one might have influenced Germanic, but was etymologically separate.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 3:41
2
@Imago "Why" is always hard to answer in linguistics, but "what purpose do articles serve" would make a good question of its own—the explanation is too long to fit in a single comment.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 18:22
2
@Draconis, there already seems to be a discussion about that: linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/29059/…
– Imago
Oct 15 at 18:23
|
show 17 more comments
Languages evolve in many ways! Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all, but they evolved independently in several different branches: you can still see the similarity between English "the" and "that", which is almost exactly the same as how ille turned into el/il/etc.
It looks a bit more likely, too, when you realize this evolution only had to happen once in Romance. This semantic bleaching started in Vulgar Latin around the first few centuries CE; it was well-established by the time Vulgar Latin started splitting into the ancestors of French and Spanish and Italian and the like. So they all inherited it from the same source, rather than all having to develop it independently.
answered Oct 14 at 17:35
DraconisDraconis
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
Languages evolve in many ways! Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all, but they evolved independently in several different branches: you can still see the similarity between English "the" and "that", which is almost exactly the same as how ille turned into el/il/etc.
It looks a bit more likely, too, when you realize this evolution only had to happen once in Romance. This semantic bleaching started in Vulgar Latin around the first few centuries CE; it was well-established by the time Vulgar Latin started splitting into the ancestors of French and Spanish and Italian and the like. So they all inherited it from the same source, rather than all having to develop it independently.
answered Oct 14 at 17:35
DraconisDraconis
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 17:35
DraconisDraconis
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 17:35
DraconisDraconis
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 17:35
DraconisDraconis
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
25.7k2 gold badges49 silver badges97 bronze badges
3
'Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all'. That's fascinating. Forgive my scepticism, but how can we know that a reconstructed language lacked certain features? I have a rough idea how we might reconstruct this or that word, but reconstructing the absence of a word is almost a contradiction in terms. Please convince me otherwise!
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 19:29
14
@TomHosker Basically, all the oldest IE languages that have articles seem to have developed them from different sources. If PIE had articles, we'd expect its descendants to all have articles from the same source—but that's not what we see. Instead, Romance made them one way, Germanic made them another way, Hellenic made them a different way, etc.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:32
3
@Malvolio Some part of it may be areal/Sprachbund features, especially in modern times. But the Germanic and Hellenic ones were definitely independent; the Romance one might have influenced Germanic, but was etymologically separate.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 3:41
2
@Imago "Why" is always hard to answer in linguistics, but "what purpose do articles serve" would make a good question of its own—the explanation is too long to fit in a single comment.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 18:22
2
@Draconis, there already seems to be a discussion about that: linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/29059/…
– Imago
Oct 15 at 18:23
|
show 17 more comments
3
'Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all'. That's fascinating. Forgive my scepticism, but how can we know that a reconstructed language lacked certain features? I have a rough idea how we might reconstruct this or that word, but reconstructing the absence of a word is almost a contradiction in terms. Please convince me otherwise!
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 19:29
14
@TomHosker Basically, all the oldest IE languages that have articles seem to have developed them from different sources. If PIE had articles, we'd expect its descendants to all have articles from the same source—but that's not what we see. Instead, Romance made them one way, Germanic made them another way, Hellenic made them a different way, etc.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:32
3
@Malvolio Some part of it may be areal/Sprachbund features, especially in modern times. But the Germanic and Hellenic ones were definitely independent; the Romance one might have influenced Germanic, but was etymologically separate.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 3:41
2
@Imago "Why" is always hard to answer in linguistics, but "what purpose do articles serve" would make a good question of its own—the explanation is too long to fit in a single comment.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 18:22
2
@Draconis, there already seems to be a discussion about that: linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/29059/…
– Imago
Oct 15 at 18:23
3
3
'Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all'. That's fascinating. Forgive my scepticism, but how can we know that a reconstructed language lacked certain features? I have a rough idea how we might reconstruct this or that word, but reconstructing the absence of a word is almost a contradiction in terms. Please convince me otherwise!
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 19:29
'Proto-Indo-European had no articles at all'. That's fascinating. Forgive my scepticism, but how can we know that a reconstructed language lacked certain features? I have a rough idea how we might reconstruct this or that word, but reconstructing the absence of a word is almost a contradiction in terms. Please convince me otherwise!
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 19:29
14
14
@TomHosker Basically, all the oldest IE languages that have articles seem to have developed them from different sources. If PIE had articles, we'd expect its descendants to all have articles from the same source—but that's not what we see. Instead, Romance made them one way, Germanic made them another way, Hellenic made them a different way, etc.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:32
@TomHosker Basically, all the oldest IE languages that have articles seem to have developed them from different sources. If PIE had articles, we'd expect its descendants to all have articles from the same source—but that's not what we see. Instead, Romance made them one way, Germanic made them another way, Hellenic made them a different way, etc.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:32
3
3
@Malvolio Some part of it may be areal/Sprachbund features, especially in modern times. But the Germanic and Hellenic ones were definitely independent; the Romance one might have influenced Germanic, but was etymologically separate.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 3:41
@Malvolio Some part of it may be areal/Sprachbund features, especially in modern times. But the Germanic and Hellenic ones were definitely independent; the Romance one might have influenced Germanic, but was etymologically separate.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 3:41
2
2
@Imago "Why" is always hard to answer in linguistics, but "what purpose do articles serve" would make a good question of its own—the explanation is too long to fit in a single comment.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 18:22
@Imago "Why" is always hard to answer in linguistics, but "what purpose do articles serve" would make a good question of its own—the explanation is too long to fit in a single comment.
– Draconis
Oct 15 at 18:22
2
2
@Draconis, there already seems to be a discussion about that: linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/29059/…
– Imago
Oct 15 at 18:23
@Draconis, there already seems to be a discussion about that: linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/29059/…
– Imago
Oct 15 at 18:23
|
show 17 more comments
such a drastic structural change
The change is not drastic at all! It is a simple case of semantic bleaching (this is where the meaning of a word gets weaker. So you can kind of see how the is a "weaker version" of that).
Also it's not a structural change, since wherever ille and all its forms may be used, it's the same whether it was early on and meant that or it was later on and it meant the.
This had already happened in Late Latin. By that time, ille was pretty close to meaning the.
answered Oct 14 at 13:14
WilsonWilson
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
1
I suppose "drastic" is in the eye of the beholder, but it feels like a big change to me! Imagine if you put a copy of Don Quixote in front of Virgil or Propertius. Most of the vocabulary, and pretty much all of the grammatical structure, he could work out very quickly. But this strange word el, which occurs more frequently than any one word in Latin, would keep him guessing for a fair while, no?
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 18:36
5
@TomHosker Honestly, I think Vergil would probably recognize el — he'd just recognize it as a stigmatized form that you would never use in proper literature and poetry! (I'm not sure quite when ille started getting bleached in Vulgar Latin, but it's attested within the first few centuries, so it was probably starting to happen by his time.)
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:10
4
I don't know how much Greek Virgil (in particular) knew, but some educated Romans did know Greek, and Greek had articles in classical times.
– Colin Fine
Oct 14 at 20:24
3
@ColinFine Also a good point. Vergil loved the Homeric epics, so presumably he knew some Greek.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 20:35
1
I would think the lack of case endings and semi-fixed word order might prove a challenge for someone like Virgil.
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 2 more comments
such a drastic structural change
The change is not drastic at all! It is a simple case of semantic bleaching (this is where the meaning of a word gets weaker. So you can kind of see how the is a "weaker version" of that).
Also it's not a structural change, since wherever ille and all its forms may be used, it's the same whether it was early on and meant that or it was later on and it meant the.
This had already happened in Late Latin. By that time, ille was pretty close to meaning the.
answered Oct 14 at 13:14
WilsonWilson
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
1
I suppose "drastic" is in the eye of the beholder, but it feels like a big change to me! Imagine if you put a copy of Don Quixote in front of Virgil or Propertius. Most of the vocabulary, and pretty much all of the grammatical structure, he could work out very quickly. But this strange word el, which occurs more frequently than any one word in Latin, would keep him guessing for a fair while, no?
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 18:36
5
@TomHosker Honestly, I think Vergil would probably recognize el — he'd just recognize it as a stigmatized form that you would never use in proper literature and poetry! (I'm not sure quite when ille started getting bleached in Vulgar Latin, but it's attested within the first few centuries, so it was probably starting to happen by his time.)
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:10
4
I don't know how much Greek Virgil (in particular) knew, but some educated Romans did know Greek, and Greek had articles in classical times.
– Colin Fine
Oct 14 at 20:24
3
@ColinFine Also a good point. Vergil loved the Homeric epics, so presumably he knew some Greek.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 20:35
1
I would think the lack of case endings and semi-fixed word order might prove a challenge for someone like Virgil.
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 2 more comments
such a drastic structural change
The change is not drastic at all! It is a simple case of semantic bleaching (this is where the meaning of a word gets weaker. So you can kind of see how the is a "weaker version" of that).
Also it's not a structural change, since wherever ille and all its forms may be used, it's the same whether it was early on and meant that or it was later on and it meant the.
This had already happened in Late Latin. By that time, ille was pretty close to meaning the.
answered Oct 14 at 13:14
WilsonWilson
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
such a drastic structural change
The change is not drastic at all! It is a simple case of semantic bleaching (this is where the meaning of a word gets weaker. So you can kind of see how the is a "weaker version" of that).
Also it's not a structural change, since wherever ille and all its forms may be used, it's the same whether it was early on and meant that or it was later on and it meant the.
This had already happened in Late Latin. By that time, ille was pretty close to meaning the.
answered Oct 14 at 13:14
WilsonWilson
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
edited Oct 14 at 13:23
answered Oct 14 at 13:14
WilsonWilson
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 13:14
WilsonWilson
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 13:14
WilsonWilson
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
2,8367 silver badges26 bronze badges
1
I suppose "drastic" is in the eye of the beholder, but it feels like a big change to me! Imagine if you put a copy of Don Quixote in front of Virgil or Propertius. Most of the vocabulary, and pretty much all of the grammatical structure, he could work out very quickly. But this strange word el, which occurs more frequently than any one word in Latin, would keep him guessing for a fair while, no?
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 18:36
5
@TomHosker Honestly, I think Vergil would probably recognize el — he'd just recognize it as a stigmatized form that you would never use in proper literature and poetry! (I'm not sure quite when ille started getting bleached in Vulgar Latin, but it's attested within the first few centuries, so it was probably starting to happen by his time.)
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:10
4
I don't know how much Greek Virgil (in particular) knew, but some educated Romans did know Greek, and Greek had articles in classical times.
– Colin Fine
Oct 14 at 20:24
3
@ColinFine Also a good point. Vergil loved the Homeric epics, so presumably he knew some Greek.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 20:35
1
I would think the lack of case endings and semi-fixed word order might prove a challenge for someone like Virgil.
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 2 more comments
1
I suppose "drastic" is in the eye of the beholder, but it feels like a big change to me! Imagine if you put a copy of Don Quixote in front of Virgil or Propertius. Most of the vocabulary, and pretty much all of the grammatical structure, he could work out very quickly. But this strange word el, which occurs more frequently than any one word in Latin, would keep him guessing for a fair while, no?
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 18:36
5
@TomHosker Honestly, I think Vergil would probably recognize el — he'd just recognize it as a stigmatized form that you would never use in proper literature and poetry! (I'm not sure quite when ille started getting bleached in Vulgar Latin, but it's attested within the first few centuries, so it was probably starting to happen by his time.)
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:10
4
I don't know how much Greek Virgil (in particular) knew, but some educated Romans did know Greek, and Greek had articles in classical times.
– Colin Fine
Oct 14 at 20:24
3
@ColinFine Also a good point. Vergil loved the Homeric epics, so presumably he knew some Greek.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 20:35
1
I would think the lack of case endings and semi-fixed word order might prove a challenge for someone like Virgil.
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
1
1
I suppose "drastic" is in the eye of the beholder, but it feels like a big change to me! Imagine if you put a copy of Don Quixote in front of Virgil or Propertius. Most of the vocabulary, and pretty much all of the grammatical structure, he could work out very quickly. But this strange word el, which occurs more frequently than any one word in Latin, would keep him guessing for a fair while, no?
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 18:36
I suppose "drastic" is in the eye of the beholder, but it feels like a big change to me! Imagine if you put a copy of Don Quixote in front of Virgil or Propertius. Most of the vocabulary, and pretty much all of the grammatical structure, he could work out very quickly. But this strange word el, which occurs more frequently than any one word in Latin, would keep him guessing for a fair while, no?
– Tom Hosker
Oct 14 at 18:36
5
5
@TomHosker Honestly, I think Vergil would probably recognize el — he'd just recognize it as a stigmatized form that you would never use in proper literature and poetry! (I'm not sure quite when ille started getting bleached in Vulgar Latin, but it's attested within the first few centuries, so it was probably starting to happen by his time.)
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:10
@TomHosker Honestly, I think Vergil would probably recognize el — he'd just recognize it as a stigmatized form that you would never use in proper literature and poetry! (I'm not sure quite when ille started getting bleached in Vulgar Latin, but it's attested within the first few centuries, so it was probably starting to happen by his time.)
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 19:10
4
4
I don't know how much Greek Virgil (in particular) knew, but some educated Romans did know Greek, and Greek had articles in classical times.
– Colin Fine
Oct 14 at 20:24
I don't know how much Greek Virgil (in particular) knew, but some educated Romans did know Greek, and Greek had articles in classical times.
– Colin Fine
Oct 14 at 20:24
3
3
@ColinFine Also a good point. Vergil loved the Homeric epics, so presumably he knew some Greek.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 20:35
@ColinFine Also a good point. Vergil loved the Homeric epics, so presumably he knew some Greek.
– Draconis
Oct 14 at 20:35
1
1
I would think the lack of case endings and semi-fixed word order might prove a challenge for someone like Virgil.
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
I would think the lack of case endings and semi-fixed word order might prove a challenge for someone like Virgil.
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 2 more comments
I agree with the earlier answers, but they essentially state that it was a possible occurrence and how it happened (ille, illa), not why it happened.
Could it be (I am only venturing a hypothesis), that there was an influence of another language, typically Greek?
While "standard" Italian has these forms:
il vicolo
la casa
(the street, the house)
Naples and other Southern regions have:
o vico
a casa
which is suprisingly close to Ancient Greek "hos" and "he" (with the Dorian variation of the eta into alpha). Furthermore, those articles "o" an "a" have a glottal attack that may resemble the Ancient Greek prononciation.
Could it be that, e.g. native Greek speakers, e.g. from the military or tradespeople, could have borrowed this article from Greek when speaking whatever Latin pidgin they were speaking?
After all, we saw this phenomenon of cross-pollinization much later with the Italian lingua franca of the Mediterranean (which e.g. adopted Arabic habit of doubling words such as poco poco).
answered Oct 15 at 19:21
fralaufralau
1313 bronze badges
New contributor
fralau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Not "borrowed" exactly; that word has a more specific meaning which is slightly different. But I like your description, "cross-pollinization". That fits well. This kind of thing happens over and over with neighbouring languages. It's normally called a Sprachbund feature.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:02
Providing the hypothesis was verified, would that not be a borrowing, in the linguistic sense? We would have a couple of words that traveled, with minor alteration (and without barely a calque) from a language to another. In the extreme, it could be that illus and illa were calques of Greek.
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:26
Interesting point. I don't know exactly. But you have a question there, if you pots it as one I'm sure it will get an answer.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:28
I agree: I answered a question with another question...
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:29
1
I would be skeptical if that's what happened for a number of reasons. Ille was reduced to o/a also in Portuguese (which would have far less Greek influence; l being a weaker sound). Ancient/Koine Greek only had the vowel w/ glottal sound in the nominative masculine and feminine, the remaining forms all start with /t/; plus Ancient/Koine Greek used the article more extensively than we see in Romance languages (repeated for articles or prepositional phrases in some constructs)
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 1 more comment
I agree with the earlier answers, but they essentially state that it was a possible occurrence and how it happened (ille, illa), not why it happened.
Could it be (I am only venturing a hypothesis), that there was an influence of another language, typically Greek?
While "standard" Italian has these forms:
il vicolo
la casa
(the street, the house)
Naples and other Southern regions have:
o vico
a casa
which is suprisingly close to Ancient Greek "hos" and "he" (with the Dorian variation of the eta into alpha). Furthermore, those articles "o" an "a" have a glottal attack that may resemble the Ancient Greek prononciation.
Could it be that, e.g. native Greek speakers, e.g. from the military or tradespeople, could have borrowed this article from Greek when speaking whatever Latin pidgin they were speaking?
After all, we saw this phenomenon of cross-pollinization much later with the Italian lingua franca of the Mediterranean (which e.g. adopted Arabic habit of doubling words such as poco poco).
answered Oct 15 at 19:21
fralaufralau
1313 bronze badges
New contributor
fralau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Not "borrowed" exactly; that word has a more specific meaning which is slightly different. But I like your description, "cross-pollinization". That fits well. This kind of thing happens over and over with neighbouring languages. It's normally called a Sprachbund feature.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:02
Providing the hypothesis was verified, would that not be a borrowing, in the linguistic sense? We would have a couple of words that traveled, with minor alteration (and without barely a calque) from a language to another. In the extreme, it could be that illus and illa were calques of Greek.
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:26
Interesting point. I don't know exactly. But you have a question there, if you pots it as one I'm sure it will get an answer.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:28
I agree: I answered a question with another question...
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:29
1
I would be skeptical if that's what happened for a number of reasons. Ille was reduced to o/a also in Portuguese (which would have far less Greek influence; l being a weaker sound). Ancient/Koine Greek only had the vowel w/ glottal sound in the nominative masculine and feminine, the remaining forms all start with /t/; plus Ancient/Koine Greek used the article more extensively than we see in Romance languages (repeated for articles or prepositional phrases in some constructs)
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 1 more comment
I agree with the earlier answers, but they essentially state that it was a possible occurrence and how it happened (ille, illa), not why it happened.
Could it be (I am only venturing a hypothesis), that there was an influence of another language, typically Greek?
While "standard" Italian has these forms:
il vicolo
la casa
(the street, the house)
Naples and other Southern regions have:
o vico
a casa
which is suprisingly close to Ancient Greek "hos" and "he" (with the Dorian variation of the eta into alpha). Furthermore, those articles "o" an "a" have a glottal attack that may resemble the Ancient Greek prononciation.
Could it be that, e.g. native Greek speakers, e.g. from the military or tradespeople, could have borrowed this article from Greek when speaking whatever Latin pidgin they were speaking?
After all, we saw this phenomenon of cross-pollinization much later with the Italian lingua franca of the Mediterranean (which e.g. adopted Arabic habit of doubling words such as poco poco).
answered Oct 15 at 19:21
fralaufralau
1313 bronze badges
New contributor
fralau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I agree with the earlier answers, but they essentially state that it was a possible occurrence and how it happened (ille, illa), not why it happened.
Could it be (I am only venturing a hypothesis), that there was an influence of another language, typically Greek?
While "standard" Italian has these forms:
il vicolo
la casa
(the street, the house)
Naples and other Southern regions have:
o vico
a casa
which is suprisingly close to Ancient Greek "hos" and "he" (with the Dorian variation of the eta into alpha). Furthermore, those articles "o" an "a" have a glottal attack that may resemble the Ancient Greek prononciation.
Could it be that, e.g. native Greek speakers, e.g. from the military or tradespeople, could have borrowed this article from Greek when speaking whatever Latin pidgin they were speaking?
After all, we saw this phenomenon of cross-pollinization much later with the Italian lingua franca of the Mediterranean (which e.g. adopted Arabic habit of doubling words such as poco poco).
answered Oct 15 at 19:21
fralaufralau
1313 bronze badges
New contributor
fralau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Oct 16 at 10:21
answered Oct 15 at 19:21
fralaufralau
1313 bronze badges
New contributor
fralau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Oct 15 at 19:21
fralaufralau
1313 bronze badges
answered Oct 15 at 19:21
fralaufralau
1313 bronze badges
1313 bronze badges
New contributor
fralau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
fralau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Not "borrowed" exactly; that word has a more specific meaning which is slightly different. But I like your description, "cross-pollinization". That fits well. This kind of thing happens over and over with neighbouring languages. It's normally called a Sprachbund feature.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:02
Providing the hypothesis was verified, would that not be a borrowing, in the linguistic sense? We would have a couple of words that traveled, with minor alteration (and without barely a calque) from a language to another. In the extreme, it could be that illus and illa were calques of Greek.
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:26
Interesting point. I don't know exactly. But you have a question there, if you pots it as one I'm sure it will get an answer.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:28
I agree: I answered a question with another question...
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:29
1
I would be skeptical if that's what happened for a number of reasons. Ille was reduced to o/a also in Portuguese (which would have far less Greek influence; l being a weaker sound). Ancient/Koine Greek only had the vowel w/ glottal sound in the nominative masculine and feminine, the remaining forms all start with /t/; plus Ancient/Koine Greek used the article more extensively than we see in Romance languages (repeated for articles or prepositional phrases in some constructs)
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 1 more comment
Not "borrowed" exactly; that word has a more specific meaning which is slightly different. But I like your description, "cross-pollinization". That fits well. This kind of thing happens over and over with neighbouring languages. It's normally called a Sprachbund feature.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:02
Providing the hypothesis was verified, would that not be a borrowing, in the linguistic sense? We would have a couple of words that traveled, with minor alteration (and without barely a calque) from a language to another. In the extreme, it could be that illus and illa were calques of Greek.
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:26
Interesting point. I don't know exactly. But you have a question there, if you pots it as one I'm sure it will get an answer.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:28
I agree: I answered a question with another question...
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:29
1
I would be skeptical if that's what happened for a number of reasons. Ille was reduced to o/a also in Portuguese (which would have far less Greek influence; l being a weaker sound). Ancient/Koine Greek only had the vowel w/ glottal sound in the nominative masculine and feminine, the remaining forms all start with /t/; plus Ancient/Koine Greek used the article more extensively than we see in Romance languages (repeated for articles or prepositional phrases in some constructs)
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
Not "borrowed" exactly; that word has a more specific meaning which is slightly different. But I like your description, "cross-pollinization". That fits well. This kind of thing happens over and over with neighbouring languages. It's normally called a Sprachbund feature.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:02
Not "borrowed" exactly; that word has a more specific meaning which is slightly different. But I like your description, "cross-pollinization". That fits well. This kind of thing happens over and over with neighbouring languages. It's normally called a Sprachbund feature.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:02
Providing the hypothesis was verified, would that not be a borrowing, in the linguistic sense? We would have a couple of words that traveled, with minor alteration (and without barely a calque) from a language to another. In the extreme, it could be that illus and illa were calques of Greek.
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:26
Providing the hypothesis was verified, would that not be a borrowing, in the linguistic sense? We would have a couple of words that traveled, with minor alteration (and without barely a calque) from a language to another. In the extreme, it could be that illus and illa were calques of Greek.
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:26
Interesting point. I don't know exactly. But you have a question there, if you pots it as one I'm sure it will get an answer.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:28
Interesting point. I don't know exactly. But you have a question there, if you pots it as one I'm sure it will get an answer.
– Wilson
Oct 16 at 10:28
I agree: I answered a question with another question...
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:29
I agree: I answered a question with another question...
– fralau
Oct 16 at 10:29
1
1
I would be skeptical if that's what happened for a number of reasons. Ille was reduced to o/a also in Portuguese (which would have far less Greek influence; l being a weaker sound). Ancient/Koine Greek only had the vowel w/ glottal sound in the nominative masculine and feminine, the remaining forms all start with /t/; plus Ancient/Koine Greek used the article more extensively than we see in Romance languages (repeated for articles or prepositional phrases in some constructs)
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
I would be skeptical if that's what happened for a number of reasons. Ille was reduced to o/a also in Portuguese (which would have far less Greek influence; l being a weaker sound). Ancient/Koine Greek only had the vowel w/ glottal sound in the nominative masculine and feminine, the remaining forms all start with /t/; plus Ancient/Koine Greek used the article more extensively than we see in Romance languages (repeated for articles or prepositional phrases in some constructs)
– eques
Oct 17 at 14:21
|
show 1 more comment
It is doubtful many people actively spoke Classical Latin. Rather they spoke Vulgar Latin, but Classical Latin was used for writing things down. Consider it a special administrative language. This is common in many empires where you need a lingua franca for laws and records and propoganda and suchlike.
answered Oct 17 at 9:32
crobarcrobar
97
New contributor
crobar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
This is true, but not really an answer to the question.
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 9:58
1
It's the same as English, or any language! most people don't speak the same way they write.
– Wilson
Oct 17 at 14:27
@ColinFine how does it not answer the question? It answers it by explaining that the premise of the question is flawed. The drastic change is explained via the fact that these languages probably didn't evolve from Classical Latin at all.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:28
@Wilson, it is the same as english in that it is used as a lingua franca by people in other countries who speak completely different languages in their day-to-day lives, but perhaps use English in a business setting, or writing official documents etc.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:30
1
But it does not mention anything about articles - did Vulgar Latin have them? If so, when, and where did they come from? Or are you suggesting that Classical Latin dropped them?
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 22:30
|
show 1 more comment
It is doubtful many people actively spoke Classical Latin. Rather they spoke Vulgar Latin, but Classical Latin was used for writing things down. Consider it a special administrative language. This is common in many empires where you need a lingua franca for laws and records and propoganda and suchlike.
answered Oct 17 at 9:32
crobarcrobar
97
New contributor
crobar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
This is true, but not really an answer to the question.
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 9:58
1
It's the same as English, or any language! most people don't speak the same way they write.
– Wilson
Oct 17 at 14:27
@ColinFine how does it not answer the question? It answers it by explaining that the premise of the question is flawed. The drastic change is explained via the fact that these languages probably didn't evolve from Classical Latin at all.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:28
@Wilson, it is the same as english in that it is used as a lingua franca by people in other countries who speak completely different languages in their day-to-day lives, but perhaps use English in a business setting, or writing official documents etc.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:30
1
But it does not mention anything about articles - did Vulgar Latin have them? If so, when, and where did they come from? Or are you suggesting that Classical Latin dropped them?
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 22:30
|
show 1 more comment
It is doubtful many people actively spoke Classical Latin. Rather they spoke Vulgar Latin, but Classical Latin was used for writing things down. Consider it a special administrative language. This is common in many empires where you need a lingua franca for laws and records and propoganda and suchlike.
answered Oct 17 at 9:32
crobarcrobar
97
New contributor
crobar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It is doubtful many people actively spoke Classical Latin. Rather they spoke Vulgar Latin, but Classical Latin was used for writing things down. Consider it a special administrative language. This is common in many empires where you need a lingua franca for laws and records and propoganda and suchlike.
answered Oct 17 at 9:32
crobarcrobar
97
New contributor
crobar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Oct 17 at 9:32
crobarcrobar
97
New contributor
crobar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Oct 17 at 9:32
crobarcrobar
97
answered Oct 17 at 9:32
crobarcrobar
97
97
New contributor
crobar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
crobar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
This is true, but not really an answer to the question.
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 9:58
1
It's the same as English, or any language! most people don't speak the same way they write.
– Wilson
Oct 17 at 14:27
@ColinFine how does it not answer the question? It answers it by explaining that the premise of the question is flawed. The drastic change is explained via the fact that these languages probably didn't evolve from Classical Latin at all.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:28
@Wilson, it is the same as english in that it is used as a lingua franca by people in other countries who speak completely different languages in their day-to-day lives, but perhaps use English in a business setting, or writing official documents etc.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:30
1
But it does not mention anything about articles - did Vulgar Latin have them? If so, when, and where did they come from? Or are you suggesting that Classical Latin dropped them?
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 22:30
|
show 1 more comment
2
This is true, but not really an answer to the question.
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 9:58
1
It's the same as English, or any language! most people don't speak the same way they write.
– Wilson
Oct 17 at 14:27
@ColinFine how does it not answer the question? It answers it by explaining that the premise of the question is flawed. The drastic change is explained via the fact that these languages probably didn't evolve from Classical Latin at all.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:28
@Wilson, it is the same as english in that it is used as a lingua franca by people in other countries who speak completely different languages in their day-to-day lives, but perhaps use English in a business setting, or writing official documents etc.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:30
1
But it does not mention anything about articles - did Vulgar Latin have them? If so, when, and where did they come from? Or are you suggesting that Classical Latin dropped them?
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 22:30
2
2
This is true, but not really an answer to the question.
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 9:58
This is true, but not really an answer to the question.
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 9:58
1
1
It's the same as English, or any language! most people don't speak the same way they write.
– Wilson
Oct 17 at 14:27
It's the same as English, or any language! most people don't speak the same way they write.
– Wilson
Oct 17 at 14:27
@ColinFine how does it not answer the question? It answers it by explaining that the premise of the question is flawed. The drastic change is explained via the fact that these languages probably didn't evolve from Classical Latin at all.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:28
@ColinFine how does it not answer the question? It answers it by explaining that the premise of the question is flawed. The drastic change is explained via the fact that these languages probably didn't evolve from Classical Latin at all.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:28
@Wilson, it is the same as english in that it is used as a lingua franca by people in other countries who speak completely different languages in their day-to-day lives, but perhaps use English in a business setting, or writing official documents etc.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:30
@Wilson, it is the same as english in that it is used as a lingua franca by people in other countries who speak completely different languages in their day-to-day lives, but perhaps use English in a business setting, or writing official documents etc.
– crobar
Oct 17 at 22:30
1
1
But it does not mention anything about articles - did Vulgar Latin have them? If so, when, and where did they come from? Or are you suggesting that Classical Latin dropped them?
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 22:30
But it does not mention anything about articles - did Vulgar Latin have them? If so, when, and where did they come from? Or are you suggesting that Classical Latin dropped them?
– Colin Fine
Oct 17 at 22:30
|
show 1 more comment
Tom Hosker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tom Hosker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tom Hosker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tom Hosker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33870%2fwhy-do-the-romance-languages-use-definite-articles-when-latin-doesnt%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
The presence or definite and indefinite article is, together with other characteristics, a trait of the Standard Average European sprachbund, which encompasses all the Romance languages but not Latin, but also Germanic languages like English, and other languages (some slavic, hungarian, etc.). It seems to be the result of heavy language contacts during the migration period, at the end of the 1st millenium.
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:33
@FrédéricGrosshans. The Sprachbund hypothesis does not explain why in (for example) Romanian the article appears not as a prefix, but as a suffix.
– fdb
Oct 14 at 13:51
5
@fdb : This is weel explained by Romanian being part of the Balkanic Sprachbund, a stronger Sprachbund within Standard average European
– Frédéric Grosshans
Oct 14 at 13:57
1
Consider that contemporary colloquial Slovak is well on the way of transforming demonstrative pronouns into definite articles - not a drastic change at all (of course, this being modern times, the trend is supressed by widespread literacy, education and the pressure to use the "proper" language).
– Radovan Garabík
Oct 15 at 14:39
1
The rise of articles seems to be one result of the loss of inflectional affixes. When morphology fails, syntax enters, and it brings with it lots of little particles (prepositions, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.) that do for syntax what paradigms did for morphology. Except syntax isn't paradigmatic; it's much messier and leaves artifacts all over the place.
– jlawler
Oct 16 at 20:37