Ad Infinitum

[Robert Vermaat]

Is anyone making the claim that Italian and French are Latin?

I'm not. Are you? If not, why do you ask?

Fortunately I found Gysseling online: http://www.wulfila.be/tw/facsimile/?page=1111

Thank you, that's helpful, I'll read it.

And what would the 'perfect way'? Going in this direction, nothing can be 'perfectly proven', are we suppposed to suspend reason and research?

Did I say there was? Did I say we should suspend reason and research? Why are you overreacting as if I said anything like that?

To be sure, toponymy when careful studied (attestation, etymology) can provide a relatively reliable linguistic map of an area.

But of course.
But to draw a map you must have good sources. For the, say, 6th and 7th centuries, there hardly exist such detailed sources that you can draw conclusions from them what the first and second language was of a group of people in a given region outside the main towns. It's like doing a study of 6th-c. migrations based on modern dna research.
One can speculate of course, go by the evidence available, but drawing 'perfect' lines on maps is not the same.

I encountered more than once recent attempts to shape Celtic or Germanic speaking groups based on (or at least considering) Kenneth Jackson's work and maps.

Who said anything about 'Jackson's work and maps'? I merely mentioned his map showing the Anglo-saxon conquests based on toponymic research, not ALL of his work?

One quick example here: http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2006/ ... m_2004.pdf

Indeed! I'm surprised to read that. But then they also quote Whitelock (1952) in saying that "the word for Briton simply means slave", which is also no longer a valid theory.

You should also read page 2, because it illustrates the types of argumentation which can woven around a name (Cædmon). Nevertheless that's one name. A map can fit hundreds such names (sometimes tens, but some other times thousands) and thus it comes with a different argument: statistics.

Agreed.
And one can draw as many lines as one wishes.

Let's imagine we have 200 Romance and Germanic toponyms attested along a river. On the left bank we have 96 Romance names and 4 Germanic, while on the right bank we have 98 Germanic and 2 Romance. In such a case I believe the geography of these two dialects should be obvious.

Agreed.
Now imagine that this information dates to the 10th century. And that the next available evidence dates to the 5th c. How would you draw a map of the development of these dialects between the 5th c. and the 10th c.? Simply by assumption?

But we don't create maps from one source, we create maps from numerous and whenever possible independent sources. If every source constantly fails to bring some clear evidence of spoken Celtic, then instead of assuming the speakers were numerous but hidden, perhaps we should move to the right conclusion that their presence is insignificant in some way.
Linguistic fossils such as toponyms reflect languages which once were currently in use. An absence of new waves of Celtic toponyms in 7th century Gaul is equivalent with Celtic dialects not being spoken in most segments of Merovingian society.

Can you just leave that Celtic alone please? My argument was about the supposed developemt of the language border between French and German, not about Celtic. My reference to Sidonius merely was to point out that we do not know the details and hence cannoy draw detailed conclusions.
You refer rightly to sources, and I agree that maps can be creatred from 'numerous and whenever possible independent sources'. But these sources are not always available, and for large parts in some periods we do not have any. Sure, a village name and a river name hardly ever change. But names of people are not available in abundance for every village, and even then they may deceive (Germanic soldiers calling themselves Flavius or Attila the Hun bearing a Gothic name to use two examples).

J. N. Adams, book mentioned above, p. 759: "The complete disregard, if not open contempt, shown by the Romans (at least under the Empire) for languages other than Greek will have placed great pressure on speakers of vernacular languages to switch to Latin (or Greek) once the Romans had established power in their territories. Septimius Severus’ embarrassment about his native language Punic, the public application by the Cumaeans for permission to switch to Latin in certain domains, and the use by the potters of La Graufesenque of Latin for their makers’ marks all point to the prestige of Latin in the eyes of vernacular speakers (despite their occasional displays of linguistic nationalism), and it is this attitude, rather than any aggressive policy on the part of the Romans themselves, which provides the background to language death in the western provinces."

But of course Latin had prestige, no argument there. But why should we see this as the eradication of the original language? We are both writing English here, yet I doubt that we are to lose or own languages, simply because English is the Lingua Franca? Severus could still speak Punic, did he? Celtic was still spoken around Trier, despite the city being the capital of the West for a time. Celtic was still spoken in some provinces by at least some people, as well as Germanic being the language spoken by immigrants in those same provinces. And yes, they probably all spoke Latin.

As a historian you should let the linguists decide if there's enough evidence or not.

Not likely. Linguists have their own way to bend historical evidence. :twisted: