Iberian Spanish vs Latin American Spanish (and a few more qst about Catalan

parc

I'm getting Pimsluer Spanish audio tapes but they are in Latin American Spanish

Is there a massive difference? I think I'd prefer to learn Castillian with the Iberian accent. Is there any similar tapes to Pimsluer that deals with this?

Also how do the different dialects of Castillian differ (differs like Scotish English differs to London English I suppose)?

And finally, I know Catalan is a seperate language but is it that different from Castillian Spanish?

Aard

From the Puerto Ricans I know, Latin Spanish is pronounced differently from Castillian. Some words and of course idioms differ too. They say the difference is like American versus British English.

Catalan is quite a different language to Spanish. You may get words here and there, but that's about it. I imagine the difference is like that between Spanish and French or Italian.

Kamchatka1

Interesting read about the different varieties of Spanish used around the world (if you can tolerate the fairly poor English used on this site):

http://www.spanish-in-the-world.net


An interesting site to get started with:

http://www.studyspanish.com

parc

That first link is interesting. Second one is good, I know it already cheers

pepefloyd

parc wrote: »

I'm getting Pimsluer Spanish audio tapes but they are in Latin American Spanish

Is there a massive difference? I think I'd prefer to learn Castillian with the Iberian accent. Is there any similar tapes to Pimsluer that deals with this?

Also how do the different dialects of Castillian differ (differs like Scotish English differs to London English I suppose)?

And finally, I know Catalan is a seperate language but is it that different from Castillian Spanish?

Catalan and "Castillian Spanish" don't have any similitude.

I'd recommend you to learn Latin American Spanish, I always find very odd to hear non-native spanish speakers trying to speak with Spanish (from Spain) accent, it just doesn't sound natural at all.

I am pie

At least for Argentine spanish they use 'Vos' instead of 'Tu' , also the pronunciation is different. 'C' and 'Z' are closer to the english pronunciations. 'll' (double L) is pronounced quite like the english 'j'

For Vos instead of Tu have a look here for an explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voseo

parc

pepefloyd wrote: »

Catalan and "Castillian Spanish" don't have any similitude.

I'd recommend you to learn Latin American Spanish, I always find very odd to hear non-native spanish speakers trying to speak with Spanish (from Spain) accent, it just doesn't sound natural at all.

Are you a native Spanish speaker from Spain or Latin America?

I was actually thinking this the other day. Most of my foreign friends speak with an American English type accent. Like pronouncing their "Rs" in words

eg. "Ireland" - sounds like "Island" in British received pronunciation. If I heard them speaking in a British RP accent I would find it strange.

pepefloyd

parc wrote: »

Are you a native Spanish speaker from Spain or Latin America?

I was actually thinking this the other day. Most of my foreign friends speak with an American English type accent. Like pronouncing their "Rs" in words

eg. "Ireland" - sounds like "Island" in British received pronunciation. If I heard them speaking in a British RP accent I would find it strange.

I speak Latin American Spanish, Guatemalan to be precise. I guess if you learn Spanish (from Spain) and you speak to Spanish people they will find it normal, but if you speak to someone from latin america like me it would sound strange.

I have some friends that have learnt Spanish by travelling to different countries and they have some sort of "neutral" Spanish, I have also friends who have focused in learning Spanish just from one country and in those cases it doesn't sound natural.

southsiderosie

I learned Spanish in Central America and then lived in Spain for a while, and I don't think it is such a big deal either way. The 'castillian lisp' does sound odd to the vast majority of Spanish-speakers though. But regardless of what accent you learn, you would have to learn local idioms anyway. Comparatively I find Castilian Spanish to be more fussy and strict about vocabulary; in Latin America, they use more English words for new technologies (laptop vs. ordenador, for example). But I suppose that is to be expected in the land of Cervantes...

Interestingly, from what people on both sides of the Atlantic have told me, I think the most widely admired accent/manner of speaking in both Spain and Latin America is the Colombian accent.

Enkidu

parc wrote: »

And finally, I know Catalan is a seperate language but is it that different from Castillian Spanish?

Catalan is actually closer to French than Castillian Spanish. It has a much more complicated vowel system and has a consonant not found in other Romance languages (but is in Japanese, Russian and Yi).

dory

I spent nine months in different parts of Latin America and think I came home with a pretty neutral accent. I went and studied Spanish in college then after that and had no problem understanding the teachers (who were from Spain). I'd say go for it and you can adjust later if you want. Personally I prefer Latin American Spanish.

HalloweenJack

southsiderosie wrote: »

Interestingly, from what people on both sides of the Atlantic have told me, I think the most widely admired accent/manner of speaking in both Spain and Latin America is the Colombian accent.

Agreed.

I learnt my Spanish from Spanish nationals and also a brief stint living and studying in Spain but the easiest conversation I ever had with a native speaker was with a Colombian. He had a relatively slow pace (esp. compared to Spaniards) and the vocabulary had less Latin Americanisms than Argentine or Mexican Spanish.

parc

I read somewhere on here that some guy who studied spanish at college went to a region outside madrid and found it very hard to understand the people because they spoke so fast

pickarooney

Enkidu wrote: »

Catalan is actually closer to French than Castillian Spanish. It has a much more complicated vowel system and has a consonant not found in other Romance languages (but is in Japanese, Russian and Yi).

What's the consonant as a matter of interest? I can't really understand spoken Catalan but the written form is very easy to understand. It's not too different from Provençal.

scruff321

southsiderosie wrote: »

I learned Spanish in Central America and then lived in Spain for a while, and I don't think it is such a big deal either way. The 'castillian lisp' does sound odd to the vast majority of Spanish-speakers though. But regardless of what accent you learn, you would have to learn local idioms anyway. Comparatively I find Castilian Spanish to be more fussy and strict about vocabulary; in Latin America, they use more English words for new technologies (laptop vs. ordenador, for example). But I suppose that is to be expected in the land of Cervantes...

Interestingly, from what people on both sides of the Atlantic have told me, I think the most widely admired accent/manner of speaking in both Spain and Latin America is the Colombian accent.

Yes, Colombians speak excellent Spanish, likewise Peruvians speak very clear and dont use much slang. But then again i dont really buy into the whole good Spanish/ bad Spanish thing. They say Chileans speak terrible Spanish but for me i like it and have become accustomed to it. For me its a lot like the way we Irish speak English with lots of slang, idioms, expressions and different ways for saying something incomparison with the English or Yanks (i hate both accents!!) its what gives a language color and character which they certainly dont lack here in South America.

I also would agree with Southsiderosie just start learning whichever and the rest you can pick up or modify as you go along.

Enkidu

pickarooney wrote: »

What's the consonant as a matter of interest? I can't really understand spoken Catalan but the written form is very easy to understand. It's not too different from Provençal.

Sorry for the massive delay only noticed this now. It's usually written as tg, for example metge, the Catalan for doctor. It's the sound at the start of this word:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Pl-d%C5%BAwi%C4%99k-2.ogg

It's no wonder you find it easy to understand when written if you know Provençal, they used to be one language as recently as the 15th Century. In fact if you ignore the nation states of France and Spain, then it's really just a dialect continuum with Occitan on one end and Catalan on the other.

deirdremf

Aard wrote: »

....
Catalan is quite a different language to Spanish. You may get words here and there, but that's about it. I imagine the difference is like that between Spanish and French or Italian.

pepefloyd wrote: »

Catalan and "Castillian Spanish" don't have any similitude.
.....

I speak Catalan and Castillian Spanish, and to be honest they are very similar languages, and share huge amounts of vocabulary. The grammar is a bit different in certain ways, the personal verb-forms are the biggest difference. Because of a shared history, and huge numbers of Castillian speakers moving to Catalonia in the 20th century, they even share much of the same officialese and slang.
The literary languages are more different than the spoken languages, though.

I am sure that the difference vocabulary is much greater in Latin America, and cannot comment on that.

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

Sorry for the massive delay only noticed this now. It's usually written as tg, for example metge, the Catalan for doctor. It's the sound at the start of this word:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Pl-d%C5%BAwi%C4%99k-2.ogg

In the middle of a word, tg is pronounced much as J is in English. At the end of a word it is pronunced like CH in English. Your example is pronounced something like "MEH - jeh"

It's no wonder you find it easy to understand when written if you know Provençal, they used to be one language as recently as the 15th Century. In fact if you ignore the nation states of France and Spain, then it's really just a dialect continuum with Occitan on one end and Catalan on the other.

True, but the continuum really starts in Portugal to the west, in Belgium to the north, and in Sicily (and up through Italy) to the southeast.

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

In the middle of a word, tg is pronounced much as J is in English. At the end of a word it is pronunced like CH in English. Your example is pronounced something like "MEH - jeh"

True, it's just a little further back in the mouth than the English sound. All I mean is that that exact sound is quite rare.

True, but the continuum really starts in Portugal to the west, in Belgium to the north, and in Sicily (and up through Italy) to the southeast.

The entire continuum of Latin languages is spread out like that. However there is a sizeable gap between Spanish and the rest of the Latin languages since it descends from an older form of Latin than the others. Also Catalan, Occitan and French used to be one language for a few hundred years after Spanish had seperated from them.

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

True, it's just a little further back in the mouth than the English sound. All I mean is that that exact sound is quite rare.

I think you'll find there is variety from one dialect to another.

The entire continuum of Latin languages is spread out like that. However there is a sizeable gap between Spanish and the rest of the Latin languages since it descends from an older form of Latin than the others.[wtf???] Also Catalan, Occitan and French used to be one language for a few hundred years after Spanish had seperated from them.

Catalan almost certainly came over the Pyrenees from the north, but at a time when it would not have been very different from Spanish.
In the middle ages it was a much more important language than it is now, and there are plenty of references to Castilian speakers reading it (most unlikely today).
However, the political situation in Spain over the last 300 years, and particularly since the early 1900s, along with Spanish-speaking immigration into most Catalan speaking areas, have brought the languages closer together, particularly where vocabulary is concerned. Virtually all Catalan speakers are fluent in Spanish (except perhaps those over the border in France and in Alghero), which means that they generally use Spanish vocabulary when they don't know a word in Catalan.
As regards a sizeable gap between Spanish and the other Romance languages, I was told by a friend of mine who speaks Spanish, Catalan, Italian and French (all absolutely fluently) that "French isn't really a Romance language" - so for that person at least, that is where the sizeable gap is!!!

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

I think you'll find there is variety from one dialect to another.

True, maybe the sound is only in Barcelona, but it's marked out as a "cool" fact about Catalan in a few language encyclopedias. It's even in Catalan's IPA chart, so there must be something to it. (I hope, or else my language encyclopedias are lying to me!:))

Catalan almost certainly came over the Pyrenees from the north, but at a time when it would not have been very different from Spanish.

Spanish originated from the settlement of Hispania Ulterior by the upper class Roman population, due to the attempt to control Spain as a tactical advantage against Carthage, the upper class spoke a more archaic form of Latin. Catalonia was settled later by military class and working class Romans. This is the origin of the differences between Catalan and Spanish, I can give you a few references if you like. It's the classic explanation of the differences, again unless everything I've been reading is wrong.

Take a look at the Wikipedia page on Gallo-Romance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo-Romance_languages
You can see Catalan is grouped with French.

Maybe you've never heard this before, but I don't understand why the standard linguistic history should be greeted with a "wtf???"

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

Spanish originated from the settlement of Hispania Ulterior by the upper class Roman population, due to the attempt to control Spain as a tactical advantage against Carthage, the upper class spoke a more archaic form of Latin. Catalonia was settled later by military class and working class Romans. This is the origin of the differences between Catalan and Spanish, I can give you a few references if you like. It's the classic explanation of the differences, again unless everything I've been reading is wrong.

Spanish came into being in northern Spain, in a region dominated by Basque, in and around the present provinces of Burgos, La Rioja and Soria. I never heard of this area being particularly influenced by the Latin of Andalucia.

Regarding Catalan, I think you must distinguish between the original Roman settlement, and the conquest of the Marca Hispanica which brought the Langue d'Oc across the Pyrenees:

The Franks created the Marca Hispanica by conquering former Visigoth states which had been captured by the Muslims or had become allied with them.

Counties of Marca Hispania.


The first county to be conquered was Roussillon (with Vallespir) in around 760. In 785 the county of Girona (with Besalú) to the south of the Pyrenees was taken. Ribagorza and Pallars were linked to Toulouse and were added to this county around 790. Urgell and Cerdanya were added in 798. The first records of the county of Empúries (with Perelada) are from 812 but the county was probably under Frankish control before 800.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marca_Hispanica
This is the origin of the Catalan language, and the reason it is so similar to Occitan.

As regards Spanish, as I said it took shape in the middle of the northern part of the Iberian peninsula, immediately south/southwest of the Basque country. The earliest writings in Spanish are from a monastery in this region. The region was in the Tarraconense province, not Hispania Ulterior.

Spanish (español or lengua española), also known as Castilian (castellano or lengua castellana), is a Romance language in the Ibero-Romance group that evolved from several languages and dialects in central-northern Iberia around the 9th century[6] and gradually spread with the expansion of the Kingdom of Castile (present northern Spain) into central and southern Iberia during the later Medieval period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language
Regarding the latin of Hispania Ulterior, it may have developed into Mozarabic dialects after the Moorish invasions, but they were later replaced by Castilian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Linguistic_map_Southwestern_Europe.gif

Enkidu

Hmm, interesting thanks deirdremf I had some misunderstandings, thank you for being patient.:)

I've always heard Spanish being descended from a slightly older form of latin, due to it originating from a different class of settlers, hence its use of
"comer" instead of something like "manger" for to eat, or "habla" instead of something like "parler". Is this incorrect?

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

Hmm, interesting thanks deirdremf I had some misunderstandings, thank you for being patient.:)

I've always heard Spanish being descended from a slightly older form of latin, due to it originating from a different class of settlers, hence its use of
"comer" instead of something like "manger" for to eat, or "habla" instead of something like "parler". Is this incorrect?

Not sure of the origins of "comer", but as for "hablar":
fabular - fablar - hablar
i.e. f+séimhiú = h (which is silent)
for comer see:
http://etimologias.dechile.net/?comer

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

Not sure of the origins of "comer", but as for "hablar":
fabular - fablar - hablar
i.e. f+séimhiú = h (which is silent)
for comer see:
http://etimologias.dechile.net/?comer

Thanks, I think Catalan is more closely related to French historically and I've rechecked a few books and this is because Catalan and French descend from an more recent form of Latin than Spanish. However this probably reflects very little about how the languages appear today, given the long term contact between Spanish and Catalan.

Aard

Contact has a huge impact on languages, no matter how closely related they are - if at all. On a small scale, there's the Scandinavian languages: Danish and Swedish are closer historically, but are now not as mutually intelligible as Norwegian and Swedish, or Norwegian and Danish would be (thanks to Norway being under Denmark's and Sweden's control at various points in time, amongst other things of course). On a larger scale, while not exactly what we're talking about here but interesting nonetheless, is the "Sprachbund". This is essentially a group of languages in a given region that come to share traits due to second language learners bringing foreign constructions into the mother tongue and vice-versa. The Balkans is a nearby example, with three different families going on: greek, romance, and slavic. Not sure exactly what they share, but I know for example that Romanian puts its article at the end of a word, as (some/all of) its neighbours do.


Anyway, I guess how this relates to the thread is that even though Catalan may be historically closer to French or other languages, there's no doubt that the shere scale of Spanish would have had an effect on it. Even so far as to make it more intelligible with Spanish than French (though that wouldn't be hard, as mentioned, as French does all kinds of messed up non-romance stuff :P ).

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

Thanks, I think Catalan is more closely related to French historically and I've rechecked a few books and this is because Catalan and French descend from an more recent form of Latin than Spanish. However this probably reflects very little about how the languages appear today, given the long term contact between Spanish and Catalan.

I have no idea what you mean by this, but you have said it previously.
Could you explain it?

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean by this, but you have said it previously.
Could you explain it?

The Latin that would develop into Spanish came from a somewhat earlier stage in the Latin's development. A really good reference is:
A History of the Spanish language,
Second Edition,
Ralph Penny,
CUP.

Pages 10-13 discuss it.

Basically the form of the Latin language spread to Spain was about two hundred years older than that brought to Gaul by Caeser's conquest.

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

The Latin that would develop into Spanish came from a somewhat earlier stage in the Latin's development. A really good reference is:
A History of the Spanish language,
Second Edition,
Ralph Penny,
CUP.

Pages 10-13 discuss it.

Basically the form of the Latin language spread to Spain was about two hundred years older than that brought to Gaul by Caeser's conquest.

Those pages are on the internet, so I had a read.
To be honest, maybe you should read them a little more critically, as he hedges plenty.

"The pace of Latinisation is probably correlated ..."
"It is therefore likely ..."
"the Latin spoken must consequently have been ..."

These examples are all on page 9.
He also gives several lists of words to illustrate particular points, in several cases the Catalan coincides with Spanish & Portuguese. In some other examples, he doesn't give the Catalan, but if he did, it again coincides with the Spanish & Portuguese. Of course I appreciate that he is writing a history of Spanish, not of Iberian Romance; but you should be particularly careful not to extrapolate his findings to Catalan as a result.

Another point that he makes is that Latin was introduced early on into Eastern Spain - the region Catalan is in. Whatever language came over the Pyrenees into the Marca Hispanica, it found a Romance dialect there before it. So Catalan from the very start would have been (see, I can hedge too!) a mixed dialect, with features from both sides of the mountains.
In terms of phonetics, though, it is in fact very definitely an Iberian rather than a GalloRoman language: it shares bilabial V, rolled R, U rather than Ü, somewhat stacatto pronunciation with Spanish, and certain other features with Portuguese etc etc - and not that much with French.

I'm not by any means an expert on this topic, but as you can see, there is plenty of material there for discussion as to where Catalan fits into the scheme of things. Possibly it needs a classification of its own?

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

Those pages are on the internet, so I had a read.
To be honest, maybe you should read them a little more critically, as he hedges plenty.

"The pace of Latinisation is probably correlated ..."
"It is therefore likely ..."
"the Latin spoken must consequently have been ..."

That's just standard scientific writing though, not hedging. Even in books on the Celtic languages, they still say things like "This means Gaulish and Irish probably came from....Proto-Celtic", even though their descent from Proto-Celtic is the most widely accepted theory and given the recent computer studies using various genetic algorithms seems the only reasonable supposition. I did read the whole book carefully, but I don't see anything here beyond standard scientific tentativity, which you see even in physics textbooks about General Relativity. Even in atomic theory textbooks you see sentences like:
"Observations agree well with...the consequences of the atomic theory....it is then likely that matter is made of atoms."

The fact that it appears in a major textbook of the subject (as well as others, if you want them) shows it is the standard explanation. It's just written tentatively because science is written tentatively.

When there is genuine doubt, competing theories are presented. The "likely" and "correlated" is just standard scientific language.

but you should be particularly careful not to extrapolate his findings to Catalan as a result.

I'm not. I said "Spanish descends from an older form of Latin than the other Romance languages".

Another point that he makes is that Latin was introduced early on into Eastern Spain - the region Catalan is in. Whatever language came over the Pyrenees into the Marca Hispanica, it found a Romance dialect there before it. So Catalan from the very start would have been (see, I can hedge too!) a mixed dialect, with features from both sides of the mountains.
In terms of phonetics, though, it is in fact very definitely an Iberian rather than a GalloRoman language: it shares bilabial V, rolled R, U rather than Ü, somewhat stacatto pronunciation with Spanish, and certain other features with Portuguese etc etc - and not that much with French.

Computer reconsturctions of Catalan's descent, which take into account it's lexical structure, grammatical structure and phonetics group Catalan together with French ahead of Spanish. (Studies available if you want) This matches the standard linguistic classification from the comparative method, an account of which is given in most Indo-European texts. So I don't see why Catalan should be grouped with Spanish.

Your hedging is just assuming something, I don't think it's fair to equate it to a well worked out theory just because of the philosophical superficiality that both are tentative.

EDIT:
Firstly: I don't doubt that Catalan is effectively closer to Spanish now, but genetically it is more closely related to French.
Secondly: Every major textbook I've checked, for example the Cambridge language survey on the Romance languages (1996) says Spanish descends from older Latin. Yes, they use "maybe"s and "if"s, because we
don't have a time machine and can't know, but there is no other proposed theory that explains the facts and this theory fits all the evidence, which is what you desire in a scientific account.

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

That's just standard scientific writing though, not hedging. Even in books on the Celtic languages, they still say things like "This means Gaulish and Irish probably came from....Proto-Celtic", even though their descent from Proto-Celtic is the most widely accepted theory and given the recent computer studies using various genetic algorithms seems the only reasonable supposition.
...
The fact that it appears in a major textbook of the subject (as well as others, if you want them) shows it is the standard explanation. It's just written tentatively because science is written tentatively.

When there is genuine doubt, competing theories are presented. The "likely" and "correlated" is just standard scientific language.

Sorry, but my own background is in the sciences, and I can assure you that the use of this sort of language in the sciences is - in my experience - very different from it's use in the humanities.

I'm not. I said "Spanish descends from an older form of Latin than the other Romance languages".
....
Secondly: Every major textbook I've checked, for example the Cambridge language survey on the Romance languages (1996) says Spanish descends from older Latin. Yes, they use "maybe"s and "if"s, because we
don't have a time machine and can't know, but there is no other proposed theory that explains the facts and this theory fits all the evidence, which is what you desire in a scientific account.

So what is this dialect, how did it get to Burgos, who brought it there?

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

Sorry, but my own background is in the sciences, and I can assure you that the use of this sort of language in the sciences is - in my experience - very different from it's use in the humanities.

My background is the sciences also, but perhaps a different area. Regardless, I really don't understand what the argument is. I initially said Spanish descended from an earlier form of Latin than the other Romance languages, you initially greeted this with "wtf???" as if it was ridiculous nonsense. Now that you've seen it in a textbook, you are saying the author is unsure because he uses tentative language common to (at least) all reconstructions in linguistic textbooks and that this casts doubt on its truth. However the fact that it is given in a textbook as the explanation shows at least that it isn't "wtf???" nonsense.

deirdremf

Enkidu wrote: »

My background is the sciences also, but perhaps a different area. Regardless, I really don't understand what the argument is. I initially said Spanish descended from an earlier form of Latin than the other Romance languages, you initially greeted this with "wtf???" as if it was ridiculous nonsense. Now that you've seen it in a textbook, you are saying the author is unsure because he uses tentative language common to (at least) all reconstructions in linguistic textbooks and that this casts doubt on its truth. However the fact that it is given in a textbook as the explanation shows at least that it isn't "wtf???" nonsense.

I suppose that my original reaction was because I am fed up with people going on about Basque/Irish whatever being the "oldest" language in Europe.
In my book, all languages are equally old - except those such as Esperanto.
What I mean by that is that (until demonstrated otherwise) all languages descend from original human speech - whatever that was -, and they are all therefore no more than modern manifestations of that original speech.
That said, it's refreshing to find someone who can argue their point.

Last word on this subject: which dialect of Latin does the Italian of Lazio descend from, and how early was that dialect? (OK, not really a fair question, but still ...)

Enkidu

deirdremf wrote: »

I suppose that my original reaction was because I am fed up with people going on about Basque/Irish whatever being the "oldest" language in Europe.

Ah, this is understandable. Would you prefer the phrasing:
"Spanish descends from a variety of Latin which was common in the third century B.C., where as most other Romance languages descend from a variety of Latin common in the first century A.D."

Of course even this is "wrong" since it would leave Italian being the youngest Romance language in a completely artificial way.

Perhaps it would be best to say that Spanish was simply the western end of the Latin speaking area which kept much more of the traditional forms which were later dropped in other areas.

You are correct, in my opinion, for taking me to task on this. We can give incorrect impressions with loose language.

What I mean by that is that (until demonstrated otherwise) all languages descend from original human speech - whatever that was -, and they are all therefore no more than modern manifestations of that original speech.

I can see your point. All languages are but an evolution of the preceding stages, hence all the Romance languages are equal young or old forms of Latin. I'd just point out that monogenesis may not be true, it's still hotly debated, but I think your point would still stand. Even if there were multiple "first languages" there would still be no oldest speech.

Last word on this subject: which dialect of Latin does the Italian of Lazio descend from, and how early was that dialect? (OK, not really a fair question, but still ...)

I don't know actually, why? Although I can guess the point you're making and agree with it.

NiaDublin

Aard wrote: »

Catalan is quite a different language to Spanish. You may get words here and there, but that's about it. I imagine the difference is like that between Spanish and French or Italian.

Hi,
I'm Italian, and lived in Barcelona. Catalan and Spanish are different languages. In my opinion Catalan is closer to Italian than to Castillan Spanish when it comes to grammar and phonetics.

Regards,
Annamaria

NiaDublin

deirdremf wrote: »

Virtually all Catalan speakers are fluent in Spanish (except perhaps those over the border in France and in Alghero), which means that they generally use Spanish vocabulary when they don't know a word in Catalan.

It's rather the opposite. Catalan mothertongue people use Catalan vocabulary when they don't remember a word in "Castellano". They use Catalan most of the time.

NiaDublin

deirdremf wrote: »

, it is in fact very definitely an Iberian rather than a GalloRoman language: it shares bilabial V, rolled R, U rather than Ü, somewhat stacatto pronunciation with Spanish, and certain other features with Portuguese etc etc - and not that much with French.

Well, I don't know French, but I'd say that Catalan misses the "jota" sound of Spanish, and has the "g" sound similar to the Italian or French one. This is a very important difference.