Offshoots of Vulgar Latin>Normies and Gov say Dialects of Italian>Standard Italian is Florentine Tuscan >Romance Languages are just messed up Latin from Medieval times onward >Gen Z speaks Florentine-Latin language not actually Italian>Boomers speak Sicilian, Venitican, Vatican-Latin, Sardinian, Neapolitan or Genoan etc...>Italian is made up ethnicity>They are just ransacked Romans who built back up
The dialects come from vulgar Latin too, they are mutually intelligible to a considerable extend. The fact that there is no "official" Italian language that developed organically it's obvious since they were fragmented for most of history after the Roman Empire, so Latin morphed into vulgar Latin and then morphed into regional dialects spoken by various italicsUsing this same argument you can also argue that "Roman" was a made up ethnicity since Latin was chosen and imposed on other Italics who spoke other languages (some spoke Italic languages, some even spoke non Italic languages like Illyrian/Greek/Etruscan languages) before the Romans
>>18452665>Latin morphed into vulgar Latinit's to some extent the other way around, what we think of as latin was a sociolect offshoot of vulgar latin.
>>18452582And French is a coherent language because a king back in the day imposed the Paris dialect over the whole population. And Romania was conquered so hard they kept using the Roman language.It's normal, without a strong centralising authority everybody spoke local dialects.Nowadays media acts as that unifying force, and dialects are being lost
>>18452665Yeah, Rome was not an ethnicity, it was an empire.
>>18453694No, that would be the revolutionary French Republic who effectively erased every French dialect except one.
>>18454115I was taught that this was a brilliant and necessary reform for France while Franco and Mussolini suppressing minority dialects was an evil act of genocide.
>>18454137>>18454115While you can argue about the many different regional identities of spain and italy, with their history as their own republics/kingdoms constitute their own nations, the various "Patois" French dialects were really just product of feudalism, political fragmentation, and lack of standardization of gallo-romance. There was no such thing as a Berrinchon or Orleanais people separate from Parisian French, just frenchmen under the rule of the duke of orleans or the count of Berry. The only exceptions were the basque and the bretons since they did actually have their own languages separate from gallo-romance.
>>18453694>And Romania was conquered so hard they kept using the Roman languageNo it wasn't, the common language of Romania was a Serbo-Bulgarian creole dialect. Only a the small nomadic vlach communities still spoken vulgar latin.Romanian was imposed on the illiterate identity confused rural peasants in walachia by Romantist European nobility in the 18 century.
