Español Latino vs Castellano/Español de España

[Perikles]

Why always pop the supposed "Latín vulgar" -an oxymoron by its own- and Latin as the putative mother of Spanish, I don't know; .

Lo que me refería en el post #13 es la idea todavía difundida de que el castellano -y todas las lenguas romances de la Península- son descendientes directos del latín en su forma vulgar. El castellano desciende del italiano antiguo, especialmente de los dialectos hablados en la Campania y más hacia el sur. I think some clarification is needed here. This is really a question of definition of terms, but to challenge the idea that Vulgar Latin is not the root of Spanish is to go against well establish academic and linguistic concepts long accepted over the past century. Vulgar Latin is not an oxymoron, at least not in English. From the Oxford Classical Dictionary: Latin ... was originally spoken in Latium from 800 B.C. or earlier and with the spread of Roman power became the common language first of Italy .... then ...of the Roman Empire. The language of the illiterate majority of Latin speakers, Vulgar Latin, evolved through its regional dialects into the Romance languages. This label may not be to everyone's liking, but it is not just some vague unattested idea. To disgree with this is either a very individual interpretation or a confusion of terms. :)

[aleCcowaN]

I think some clarification is needed here. This is really a question of definition of terms, but to challenge the idea that Vulgar Latin is not the root of Spanish is to go against well establish academic and linguistic concepts long accepted over the past century. Vulgar Latin is not an oxymoron, at least not in English.

That idea is unchallengeable simply because "Vulgar Latin" was a name coined to label the sack where all the unexplained went.

This label may not be to everyone's liking, but it is not just some vague unattested idea. To disgree with this is either a very individual interpretation or a confusion of terms. :)

There's a lot of research going on and a bunch of works published during the last 15 or 20 years even when the subject is elusive as written documents are mostly in Latin because that language was intended for written documents, while every day earlier Italian languages were ... just to speak. Certainly a matter for controversy, but anyway the ball is rolling.

I wonder what 'looked like' the famous apologue of Menenius Agrippa -who had recently defeated the Sabines- to the plebeians when they retreat to Mount Sacro. Such a speech might contain hints of what'd become three hundreds years later, in one hand, written, official, administrative Latin, and in the other hand, one of many lines of what'd become the """""Vulgar Latin""""" which was to overflow the boot's borders and seed what'd later come to be known as Romance languages. That's how they explain why Latin has no articles (like Sanskrit or modern Slave and Baltic languages) and some say "I need your el truck-o to go to the next el town-o" because Spanish looks like having not enough, or even English -which grammar looks like having been bulldozed by the force of the clashes of languages- has managed to keep a vestige of cases and declinations in the Saxon genitive while Spanish and the like have "lost" them -nobody lost what they never had-. Future tense in Latin replaced by a verbal periphrasis, it's possible, but, exactly the same in many Romance languages? It's a matter of debate but the periphrasis probably existed before any arms and wombs left the boot.

This is a nice subject. I'm on learning-mode about it and just as a non academic interest, so many mistakes can be attributed to me. :)

[JPablo]

@AleC, te comprendo perfectamente... es un fenómeno que ocurre, pero creo que con los medios de comunicación existentes las tendencias de corrupción de un idioma, creo que se pueden reducir o paliar hasta cierto punto. Pero eso no quita que no las conozcamos... y que podamos bromear con ellas y sobre ellas... o jokear... ju nous?

@Perikles, yes, your points are well taken. (I may be wrong, but the terminology on this I believe it is parallel in Spanish.)

[explorator]

Lo que dice AleCcowaN en el post número 18 me parece muy razonable, es a eso a lo que me refería cuando al hablar del latin clásico y el vulgar dije que mundo romano se enfrentaba a una realidad lingüística disglósica, esto es presencia real de dos idiomas, en el mismo territorio, tal vez tres, puesto que también se dice que las clases altas hablaban entre sí en griego como símbolo de distinción.
Por otro lado, entiendo que la utilización del término "latino" para diferenciarnos entre nosotros, como nos diferencian los norteamericanos carece de sentido.

[poli]

Latino se usa los de latinoamérica que hablan español pero tienen poco en común con España. En general los hispanos admiran a España y los latinos no piensan mucho de España o llevan una mala impresión por el colonialismo del pasado (en mexico y peruamnos que cononzoco hay recelo por el tratamiento de los aztecas y incas) o el compartamiento de algunos turistas.

[aleCcowaN]

Latino se usa los de latinoamérica que hablan español pero tienen poco en común con España. En general los hispanos admiran a España y los latinos no piensan mucho de España o llevan una mala impresión por el colonialismo del pasado (en mexico y peruamnos que cononzoco hay recelo por el tratamiento de los aztecas y incas) o el compartamiento de algunos turistas.
Residentes en Estados Unidos o vinculados a su actividad y cultura, n'est-ce pas?

[explorator]

Entiendo, que lo que Poli quiere decir en el post 25 es que se utiliza el término latino para no identificarse con los gentilicios español e hispano, dado el recelo que continúa suscitando la "Conquista de América". Ya había oido un argumento similar respecto a la utilización que en algunos países, especialmente en Argentina, se hace de la palabra "gallego" para evitar llamar españoles a los naturales de mi país, puesto que tras las guerras de independencia la españolidad llegó a considerarse odiosa.

No obstante, debo recordar, que tanto Francia como España utilizaron en su política de conquista de territorios ultramarinos, la misma estratégia, inspirada en la conquista romana (de hecho, esa es una de las razones por la que incluí la descripción de ésta en un post anterior): Procurar la destrucción total de los pueblos que se les oponían y buscar la integración de aquellos que se les aliaban, incluso por medio de la política matrimonial entre la nobleza indígena y los oficiales de la Corona de España. A veces salió bien y otras diversas circunstancias derivaron en sangrientos enfrentamientos. En todo caso, desde España nos llama la atención el grado de antiespañolismo persistente en la América de lengua española tras dos siglos de independencia, a pesar de que el número de descendientes de la población indígena en dichos países es mucho mayor que en los de colonización Británica.

[poli]

Naturally Spain does not own the patent for colonialism which often works
out badly especially when great empires are taken over by other empires. (Byzantine/Ottoman comes to mind)

[pjt33]

a pesar de que el número de descendientes de la población indígena en dichos países es mucho mayor que en los de colonización Británica.
:confused: :thinking: ¿Quieres decirme que los mil millones de habitantes de la India no son indígenas?

[Perikles]

los mil millones de habitantes de la India *cough* BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12930126) :)

[aleCcowaN]

Maybe colonización and colonization are a little bit of false friends. Certainly, in Spanish, India hadn't been subjected to colonización británica in almost any way. The cultural element is certainly present -and I learnt a lot of English from Indian movies, for instance, a student being rusticated- but the genetic element is absent. In Spanish we can certainly say about India that there was a colonialismo británico,and control colonial and poder colonial.

[explorator]

Si consideramos la idea de pjt33, de que la "colonización" que ejerció Gran Bretaña sobre la India, supuso el mismo grado de implicación cultural y étnica de los británicos que el de los españoles en América, deberíamos concluir, que al igual que los américanos que hablan español son "latinos" los indios de la India son "anglosajones". Obviamente, me refería al caso americano, donde, hablar de angloamérica o de América anglosajona, resultaría más adecuado para tratar de Canadá y los Estados Unidos de lo que resulta hacerlo de latinoamérica o de América latina en el caso de los países de este continente donde se habla español.

[Caballero]

Wouldn't it depend on the country? Since some countries in Latin America have had much more Spanish culture and influences, whereras others have had more indigenous influences on the overall culture of the country.

[Torres]

NO. Español latino es tan correcto como lo es Español latinoamericano.
Los estadounidenses se llaman a si mismos "Americans" pero en su ignorancia olvidan que América es el continente COMPLETO. Español latino es el español que se habla en latinoamerica, español de España es el que se habla en España. Sencillo

[Caballero]

NO. Español latino es tan correcto como lo es Español latinoamericano.
Los estadounidenses se llaman a si mismos "Americans" pero en su ignorancia olvidan que América es el continente COMPLETO. Español latino es el español que se habla en latinoamerica, español de España es el que se habla en España. Sencillo
It's not out of ignorance. It has to do with how many continents there are. In the Hispanosphere, the system is, that there is the American continent, which is subdivided into two different subsections--North and South America. However in countries with an Anglo-Saxon culture such as the US there is no American continent. It doesn't exist. There are two separate continents--North and South America (And there's also Central America, which is sort of part of North America, and sort of a transitional zone between them. It's a bit of a grey area.) North and South America are as separate as Europe and Asian and Africa. There is no higher level of classification--just like we don't really have a name for (or if we do, we don't really use it) for Europe/Asia/Africa taken together. So there is no continent called America under the Anglosphere classification of continents. There is in the Hispanosphere system. Both systems are equally valid for their specific cultures and languages. So, in English, people from North America are North Americans; people from South America are South Americans. That does not imply that people from North and South Americans are all Americans; they are North Americans and South Americans. Incidentally a Canadian would protest violently at being called an American. People from the United States of America exclusively have the denonym American in the English language. Not so in Spanish, where they share it with anyone from the American continent. If you need to refer to North and South America collectively in English, then use the word "the Americas", but not America, as that is correct in Spanish, but not in English.

That does not mean that anyone from the Americas is an American in English. In English, a Canadian is not an American. A Canadian is a North American. In English, a Colombian is not an American. A Colombian is a South American.

Trying to impose a different system on English speakers, would be akin to insisting that people from Brittany, France are British, because they are from Little Britain (as opposed to Great Britain), or to say that people from the Republic of Ireland are British because they are from the British Isles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
"The ideal criterion that each continent be a discrete landmass is commonly disregarded in favor of more arbitrary, historical conventions. Of the seven most commonly recognized continents, only Antarctica and Australia are distinctly separated from other continents."

"The seven-continent model is usually taught in China and most English-speaking countries. "

They are: North America, South America, Antarctica, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia

"The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is sometimes preferred in the former states of the USSR and Japan."

"The six-continent combined-America model is sometimes taught in Latin America and in some parts of Europe including Greece (equivalent 5 inhabited continents model(i.e. excluding Antarctica) still also found in texts), Portugal and Spain. "
They are: America, Antarctica, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia

[Torres]

Rubbish! Americans DO call themselves AMERICANS!

[Caballero]

Rubbish! Americans DO call themselves AMERICANS!
Where did I say they didn't? :thinking:
In English it's just used exclusively for people from the United States of America, since there is no such thing as the American continent in the 7 continent model. People from the United States are also North Americans in English. People from Mexico are as well. People from Colombia or Ecuador are South Americans.

[Torres]

True.
I believe Latino itself refereeing to the language IS wrong. However "Español Latino" isn't necessarily wrong. It refers to the way latin people speak spanish *shrugs* simple.
Note: People seem to like Latin Spanish better than Spanish from Spain.

[Caballero]

True.
I believe Latino itself refereeing to the language IS wrong. However "Español Latino" isn't necessarily wrong. It refers to the way latin people speak spanish *shrugs* simple.
Note: People seem to like Latin Spanish better than Spanish from Spain.

People from the US and Canada tend to prefer learning a Latin American dialect than that from Spain because they are more likely to travel to a Latin American country. However, in the UK, I believe Peninsular Spanish is prefered because they are much closer to Spain.

[aleCcowaN]

"Español latino" and "Usian" are both terms with a similar origin and purpose. The only difference are the addressees, one group more inclined to tolerate their assigned term than the other group.