Talk:Late Latin

Latin High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Mid‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Served as reconstructed proto-romance!?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, the article says:

Being a written language, Late Latin is not identifiable with Vulgar Latin. The latter during those centuries served as proto-Romance, a reconstructed ancestor of the Romance languages.

I'm nobody's linguist and I'm not quite sure how to fix this, but it seems to me that saying an actual spoken language "served as" a reconstructed proto-lanaguage is a bass-ackwards way of thinking about it. I wonder if there's a usual way of talking about a proposed correspondence between an actual spoken language and a reconstruction that would be more accurate here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.213.99 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Almost no info about language

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find it strange that this article contains almost no information about the actual language. There is no discussion about phonetics or morphology, no section explaining the evolution of the language. No examples of writing of the time. The section about how different authors define the period, particularly the definition of “media” and “infima” is exhaustingly long-winded… ~2026-27485-48 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Add topic