Роман тілдерінің жіктелуі мен даму тарихы

none

The internal classification of the Romance languages is a complex and sometimes controversial topic which may not have one single answer. Several classifications have been proposed, based on different criteria.

The comparative method used by linguists to build family language trees is based on the assumption that the member languages evolved from a single proto language by a sequence of binary splits, separated by many centuries. With that hypothesis, and the glottochronological assumption that the degree of linguistic change is roughly proportional to elapsed time, the sequence of splits can be deduced by measuring the differences between the members. However, the history of Romance languages, as we know it, makes the first assumption rather problematic. While the Roman Empire lasted, its educational policies and the natural mobility of its soldiers and administrative officials probably ensured some degree of linguistic homogeneity throughout its territory. Even if there were differences between the Vulgar Latin spoken in different regions, it is doubtful whether there were any sharp boundaries between the various dialects. On the other hand, after the Empire's collapse, the population of Latin speakers was separated—almost instantaneously, by the standards of historical linguistics—into a large number of politically independent states and feudal domains whose populations were largely bound to the land. These units then interacted, merged and split in various ways over the next fifteen centuries, possibly influenced by languages external to the family (as in the so called Balkan language area). In summary, the history of Latin and Romance speaking peoples can hardly be described by a binary branching pattern; therefore, one may argue that any attempt to fit the Romance languages into a tree structure is inherently flawed. In this regard, the genealogical structure of languages forms a typical linkage. On the other hand, the tree structure may be meaningfully applied to any subfamilies of Romance whose members did diverge from a common ancestor by binary splits. That may be the case, for example, of the dialects of Spanish and Portuguese spoken in different countries, or the regional variants of spoken standard Italian (but not the so called "Italian dialects", which are distinct languages that evolved directly from Vulgar Latin).

By applying the comparative method, some linguists have concluded that Sardinian became linguistically developed separately from the remainder of the Romance languages at an extremely early date. Among the many distinguishing features of Sardinian are its articles (derived from Latin IPSE instead of ILLE) and lack of palatalization of and before and other unique conservations such as domo ‘house’ (< domo). Sardinian has plurals in /s/ but post vocalic lenition of voiceless consonants is normally limited to the status of an allophonic rule, which ignores word boundaries (e. g. [k]ane 'dog' but su [ɡ]ane or su [ɣ]ane 'the dog'), and there are a few innovations unseen elsewhere, such as a change of /au/ to /a/. This view is challenged in part by the existence of definite articles continuing ipse forms (e. g. sa mar 'the sea') in some varieties of Catalan, best known as typical of Balearic dialects. Sardinian also shares develarisation of earlier /kw/ and /ɡw/ with Romanian: Sard. abba, Rum. apă 'water'; Sard. limba, Rom. limbă 'language' (cf. Italian acqua, lingua). According to this view, the next split was between Common Romanian in the east, and the other languages (the Italo Western languages) in the west. One of the characteristic features of Romanian is its retention of three of Latin's seven noun cases. The third major split was more evenly divided, between the Italian branch, which comprises many languages spoken in the Italian Peninsula, and the Gallo Iberian branch.

However, this is not the only view. Another common classification begins by splitting the Romance languages into two main branches, East and West. The East group includes Romanian, the languages of Corsica and Sardinia, and all languages of Italy south of a line through the cities of Rimini and La Spezia (see La Spezia–Rimini Line). Languages in this group are said to be more conservative, i. e. they retained more features of the original Latin. The West group split into a Gallo Romance group, which became the Oïl languages (including French), Gallo Italian, Occitan, Franco Provençal and Romansh, and an Iberian Romance group which became Spanish and Portuguese.

Linguists like Jean Pierre Chambon claim that the various regional languages did not evolve in isolation from their neighbours; on the contrary, they see many changes propagating from the more central regions (Italy and France) towards the periphery (Iberian Peninsula and Romania). These authors see the Romance family as a linkage rather than a tree like family, and insist that the Wave model is better suited than the Tree model for representing the history of Romance.

Part of the difficulties met in classifying Romance languages is due to the seemingly messy distribution of linguistic innovations across members of the Romance family. While this is a problem for followers of the dominant Tree model, this is in fact a characteristic typical of linkages and dialect continuums generally: this has been an argument for approaching this family with the tools based on the Wave model, including dialectology and Historical glottometry. What follows is a sample of some significant linguistic traits (innovations since Vulgar Latin) that run across the Romance linkage. The differences among Romance languages occur at all levels, including the sound systems, the orthography, the nominal, verbal, and adjectival inflections, the auxiliary verbs and the semantics of verbal tenses, the function words, the rules for subordinate clauses, and, especially, in their vocabularies. While most of those differences are clearly due to independent development after the breakup of the Roman Empire (including invasions and cultural exchanges), one must also consider the influence of prior languages in territories of Latin Europe that fell under Roman rule, and possible heterogeneity in Vulgar Latin itself. Romanian, together with other related languages, like Aromanian, has a number of grammatical features which are unique within Romance, but are shared with other non Romance languages of the Balkans, such as Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Macedonian, Serbo Croatian and Turkish. These include, for example, the structure of the vestigial case system, the placement of articles as suffixes of the nouns ( = "sky", = "the sky"), and several more. This phenomenon, called the Balkan language area, may be due to contacts between those languages in post Roman times.

Some Romance languages form plurals by adding (derived from the plural of the Latin accusative case), while others form the plural by changing the final vowel (by influence of Latin nominative plural endings, such as ) from some masculine nouns. Plural in : Portuguese, Galician, Spanish, Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian, Friulian, Romansh. Special case of French: Falls into the first group historically (and orthographically), but the final s is no longer pronounced (except in liaison contexts), meaning that singular and plural nouns are usually homophonous in isolation. Many determiners have a distinct plural formed by both changing the vowel and allowing in liaison. Vowel change: Italian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Romanian.

Some Romance languages use a version of Latin plus, others a version of magis. Plus derived: French , Italian , Sardinian , Piedmontese , Lombard , Ligurian , Neapolitan , Friulian , Romansh , Venetian In Catalan is exclusively used on negative statements in the Mallorcan dialect, and "" is the word mostly used. Magis derived: Galician and Portuguese (; medieval Galician Portuguese had both words: mais and chus), Spanish , Catalan , Venetian ( or , "too much") Occitan , Romanian .

Although the Classical Latin word for "nothing" is , the common word for "nothing" became in Italian (from neuter plural nulla, "no thing", or from nulla res; Italian also has the word ""), in Sardinian, in Spanish, Portuguese, and Galician (from (rem) natam, "thing born"; Galician also has the word ""), in French, in Catalan, and in Aragonese, in Occitan (from rem, "thing", or else from nominative res), in Romanian, in Romansh, in Venetian and Piedmontese, and in Lombard, and and in Friulian. Some argue that most roots derive from different parts of a Latin phrase nullam rem natam ("no thing born"), an emphatic idiom for "nothing". Meanwhile, Italian and Venetian niente and gnente would seem to be more logically derived from Latin ne(c) entem ("no being"), ne inde or, more likely, ne(c) (g)entem, which also explains the French cognate word néant. The Piedmontese negative adverb nen also comes directly from ne(c) (g)entem,
"Sixteen": Italian sedici, Catalan and Occitan setze, French seize, Venetian sédexe, Romansh sedesch, Friulian sedis, Lombard sedas / sedes, Franco Provençal sèze, Sardinian sèighi, Piedmontese sëddes (sëddes is borrowed from Lombard and replaced the original sëzze since the 18th century, such as the numbers from 11 to 16, onze but now óndes, dose but now dódes, trëzze but now tërdes, quatòrze but now quatòrdes, quinze but now quìndes). "Ten and six": Portuguese dezasseis or dezesseis, Galician dezaseis (decem ac sex), Spanish dieciséis (Romance construction: diez y seis), the Marchigiano dialect digissei. "Six over ten": Romanian șaisprezece (where spre derives from Latin super). Classical Latin uses the "one ten" pattern for 11–17 (ūndecim, duodecim, , septendecim), but then switches to "two off twenty" (duodēvigintī) and "one off twenty" (ūndēvigintī). For the sake of comparison, note that many of the Germanic languages use two special words derived from "one left over" and "two left over" for 11 and 12, then the pattern "three ten", "four ten", , "nine ten" for 13–19.

Some languages use their equivalent of 'have' as an auxiliary verb to form the compound forms (e. g. French passé composé) of all verbs; others use 'be' for some verbs and 'have' for others. 'have' only: Standard Catalan, Spanish, Romanian, Sicilian. 'have' and 'be': Occitan, French, Sardinian, Italian, Northern Italian languages (Piedmontese, Lombard, Ligurian, Venetian, Friulan), Romansh, Central Italian languages (Tuscan, Umbrian, Corsican) some Catalan dialects (although such usage is recessing in those). In the latter type, the verbs which use 'be' as an auxiliary are unaccusative verbs, that is, intransitive verbs that often show motion not directly initiated by the subject or changes of state, such as 'fall', 'come', 'become'. All other verbs (intransitive unergative verbs and all transitive verbs) use 'have'. For example, in French, J'ai vu or Italian ho visto 'I have seen' vs. Je suis tombé, sono caduto 'I have (lit. am) fallen'. Note, however, the difference between French and Italian in the choice of auxiliary for the verb 'be' itself: Fr. J'ai été 'I have been' with 'have', but Italian sono stato with 'be'. In Southern Italian languages the principles governing auxiliaries can be quite complex, including even differences in persons of the subject. A similar distinction exists in the Germanic languages, which share a language area; German, Dutch, Danish and Icelandic use 'have' and 'be', while English, Norwegian and Swedish use 'have' only (although in modern English, 'be' remains in certain relic phrases: Christ is risen, Joy to the world: the Lord is come). "Be" is also used for reflexive forms of the verbs, as in French j'ai lavé 'I washed [something]', but je me suis lavé 'I washed myself', Italian ho lavato 'I washed [something]' vs. mi sono lavato 'I washed myself'. Tuscan uses si forms identical to the 3rd person reflexive in a usage interpreted as 'we' subject, triggering 'be' as auxiliary in compound constructions, with the subject pronoun noi 'we' optional. If the verb employed is one that otherwise selects 'have' as auxiliary, the past participle is unmarked: si è lavorato = abbiamo lavorato 'we (have) worked'. If the verb is one that otherwise selects 'be', the past participle is marked plural: si è arrivati = siamo arrivati 'we (have) arrived'. + Verbal morphology for Latin cantō, cantāre – "to sing" – and the inherited words in several Romance languages Form ("to sing") Latin Nuorese Sardinian Italian Spanish Portuguese Languedocien Occitan Classical Catalan2 Milanese Lombard Romanian Bolognese Emilian French Infinitive cantāre cantare cantare cantar cantar 1 cantar cantar cantar a cânta cantèr chanter Past participle cantātum cantatu cantato cantado cantado cantat cantat cantad cântat cantè chanté Gerund cantandum cantande cantando cantando cantando cantant cantant cantand cântând cantànd chantant cantō canto canto canto canto cante cant canti cânt a3 cant chante cantās cantas canti cantas cantas cantas cantes càntet cânți t cant chantes cantat cantat canta canta canta canta canta canta cântă al canta chante cantāmus cantamus cantiamo cantamos cantamos cantam cantam cantom cântăm a cantän chantons cantātis cantates cantate cantáis cantais cantatz cantau cantev cântați a cantè chantez cantant cantant cantano cantan cantam cantan canten canten/canta cântă i cànten chantent cantem cante canti cante cante cante cant canta cânt a canta chante cantēs cantes canti cantes cantes cantes cantes càntet cânți t cant chantes cantet cantet canti cante cante cante cant canta cânte al canta chante cantēmus cantemus cantiamo cantemos cantemos cantem cantem cantom cântăm a cantaggna chantions cantētis cantetis cantiate cantéis canteis cantetz canteu cantev cântați a cantèdi chantiez cantent cantent cantino canten cantem canten canten canten/canta cânte i cànten chantent imperative cantā canta canta canta canta canta canta canta cântă canta chante imperative cantāte cantate cantate cantad cantai cantatz cantau cantev cântați cantè chantez 1 Also are all possible allophones of in this position, as well as deletion of the consonant.2 Its conjugation model is based according to the classical model dating to the Middle Ages, rather than the modern conjugations used in Catalonia, the Valencian Community or the Balearic Islands, which may differ accordingly.3 Conjugated verbs in Bolognese require an unstressed subject pronoun cliticized to the verb. Full forms may be used in addition, thus 'you (pl.) eat' can be a magnè or vuèter a magnè, but bare *magnè is ungrammatical. Interrogatives require enclitics, which may not replicate proclitic forms: magnèv? 'are you (pl.) eating?/do you (pl.) eat? '.