Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 41:1 (2024) ► pp.1–45

Divergence-time estimation in Indo-European

The case of Latin

ORCID logo | University of California, Los Angeles
Divergence-time estimation is one of the most important endeavors in historical linguistics. Its importance is matched only by its difficulty. As Bayesian methods of divergence-time estimation have become more common over the past two decades, a number of critical issues have come to the fore, including model sensitivity, the dependence of root-age estimates on uncertain interior-node ages, and the relationship between ancient languages and their modern counterparts. This study addresses these issues in an investigation of a particularly fraught case within Indo-European: the diversification of Latin into the Romance languages. The results of this study support a gradualist account of their formation that most likely began after 300  CE. They also bolster the view that Classical Latin is a sampled ancestor of the Romance languages (i.e., it lies along the branch leading to the Romance languages).
Keywords: Indo-European, Latin, Vulgar Latin, Romance, Bayesian phylogenetics, divergence-time estimation, linguistic ancestry
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Three issues
    • 1.2The diversification of Latin
    • 1.3Main claims
    • 1.4Outline
  • 2.Previous research
    • 2.1Tree topology
      • 2.1.1Results from Bayesian phylogenetic studies
    • 2.2Divergence times
      • 2.2.1Results from Bayesian phylogenetic studies
    • 2.3The ancestry question
      • 2.3.1What is direct ancestry?
      • 2.3.2The sibling hypothesis
      • 2.3.3The most-recent common ancestor hypothesis
      • 2.3.4The sampled-ancestor hypothesis
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Clock models
    • 3.2Character models
    • 3.3Tree models
      • 3.3.1Fossilized birth-death models
      • 3.3.2Episodic models
    • 3.4Model comparison
    • 3.5Posterior predictive simulation
    • 3.6Software
  • 4.Data
    • 4.1The age of Classical Latin
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Model sensitivity
    • 5.2Model comparison
    • 5.3Divergence times
    • 5.4Tree topology
    • 5.5Model adequacy
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Tree topology
    • 6.2Divergence times
    • 6.3The diversification of Latin and Roman history
    • 6.4The ancestry question redux
      • 6.4.1The distribution of basic vocabulary in Latin
      • 6.4.2Shared archaisms in Romance
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 16 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22031.gol
References (133)
References
Adamik, Béla. 2015. The periodization of Latin: An old question revisited. In Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), Latin linguistics in the early 21st century: Acts of the 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala, June 6th–11th, 2011, 640–652. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Adams, James N. 2007. The regional diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. An anthology of informal Latin, 200 BC–AD 900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Agard, Frederick B. 1984. A course in Romance linguistics: A diachronic view, vol. 21. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
André, Jacques. 1991. Le vocabulaire latin de l’anatomie. Paris: Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Banniard, Michel. 2013. The transition from Latin to the Romance languages. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages: Contexts, vol. 21, 6–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, William H. & Alexis Manaster Ramer. 2000. Beyond lumping and splitting. In April M. S. McMahon & R. Larry Trask (eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics, vol. 11, 167–188. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Becker, Lidia. 2014. La protohistoire médiévale des langues romanes. In Andre Klump, Johannes Kramer & Aline Willems (eds.), Manuel des langues romanes, 261–286. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 1997. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco R., Philippe Lemey, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill, Alexander V. Alekseyenko, Alexei J. Drummond, Russell D. Gray, Marc A. Suchard & Quentin D. Atkinson. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337(6097). 957–960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Corrections and clarifications. Science 342(6165). 957–960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bromham, Lindell. 2019. Six impossible things before breakfast: Assumptions, models, and belief in molecular dating. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34(5). 474–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Meaning and purpose: Using phylogenies to investigate human history and cultural evolution. Biological Theory 181. 284–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchi, Éva, Carmen González Martín, Bianca Mertens & Claire Schlienger. 2015. L’étymologie de FAIM et de FAMINE revue dans le cadre du DÉRom. Le français moderne 831. 248–263.Google Scholar
Buchi, Éva & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.). 2015. Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman: Genèse, méthodes et résultats, vol. 11. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.). 2016. Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman: Pratique lexicographique et réflexions théoriques, vol. 21. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.). 2020. Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman: Entre idioroman et protoroman, vol. 31. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cano González, Ana María. 2007. Del latín vulgar a los primeros romances: Aparición del romance en las escrituras [From Vulgar Latin to the first Romance languages: The appearance of Romance languages in the written record]. In José Enrique Gargallo Gil & Maria Reina Bastardas i Rufat (eds.), Manual de lingüística románica, 81–119. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra Aroor. 2018. Modeling linguistic evolution: A look under the hood. Linguistics Vanguard 4(1). 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra Aroor, Gerd Carling, Filip Larsson, Niklas Johansson & Erich R. Round. 2018. Areal pressure in grammatical evolution: An Indo-European case study. Diachronica 35(1). 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Will, Chundra Aroor Cathcart, David P. Hall & Andrew J. Garrett. 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language 91(1). 194–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James P. T. 2016. Latin as a source for the Romance languages. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 3–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1954. El llamado ‘latín vulgar’ y las primeras diferenciaciones romances [ So-called ‘Vulgar Latin’ and the beginnings of the diversification of the Romance languages ]. Montevideo: Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
. 2008. Lateinisch – Romanisch: Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen zum sogenannten Vulgärlatein und zur Entstehung der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. Edited by Hansbert Bertsch.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio & Reinhard Meisterfeld. 2003. Geschichte der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft: Von den Anfängen bis 1492, vol. 11. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Dardel, Robert de. 1985. Le sarde représente-t-il un état précoce du roman commun? Revue de Linguistique romane 491. 263–269.Google Scholar
Desnitskaja, Agnija. 1982. Lat. bucca. In Maria Winkelmann, & Otto Braisch (eds.), Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburtstag, 237–245. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
DÉRom = Buchi, Éva & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.). 2008–. Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman. Nancy: Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française (ATILF).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Steven N. 2016a. Do Romanists need to reconstruct Proto-Romance? The case of the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman (DÉRom) project. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 132(1). 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b. Lexical stability and shared lexicon. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 577–587. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Antoine Meillet. 1959. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck 4th edn.Google Scholar
Eskhult, Josef. 2018. Vulgar Latin as an emergent concept in the Italian Renaissance (1435– 1601): Its ancient and medieval prehistory and its emergence and development in Renaissance linguistic thought. Journal of Latin Linguistics 17(2). 191–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabreti, Luiza Guimarães & Sebastian Höhna. 2021. Convergence assessment for Bayesian phylogenetic analysis using MCMC simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 13(1). 77–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 151. 325–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferri, Rolando & Philomen Probert. 2010. Roman authors on colloquial language. In Eleanor Dickey & Anna Chahoud (eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin, 12–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Findell, Martin & Paul Heggarty. 2023. IE-CoR: English. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 2009. English. In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The world’s major languages, 59–85. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew J. 2006. Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: Phylogeny and chronology. In Peter Forster & Colin A. Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 139–151. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
2018. New perspectives on Indo-European phylogeny and chronology. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 162(1). 25–38.Google Scholar
Gavryushkina, Alexandra, Tracy A. Heath, Daniel T. Ksepka, Tanja Stadler, David Welch & Alexei J. Drummond. 2016. Bayesian total-evidence dating reveals the recent crown radiation of penguins. Systematic Biology 66(1). 57–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Russell D. & Quentin D. Atkinson. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 4261(6965). 435–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Russell D. & Fiona M. Jordan. 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature 405(6790). 1052–1055. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 2002. Indo-European and its closest relatives. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1950. The reconstruction of Proto-Romance. Language 26(1). 6–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1974. External history of the Romance languages. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
1976. Proto-Romance phonology. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank. 2021. Glottolog 4.5. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Frederik. 2023. Germanic phylogeny. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Tracy A., John P. Huelsenbeck & Tanja Stadler. 2014. The fossilized birth-death process for coherent calibration of divergence-time estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(29). E2957–E2966. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heggarty, Paul. 2021. Cognacy databases and phylogenetic research on Indo-European. Annual Review of Linguistics 71. 371–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heggarty, Paul, Cormac Anderson, Matthew Scarborough, Benedict King, Remco Bouckaert, Lechosław Jocz, Martin Joachim Kümmel, inter alia & Russell D. Gray. 2023. Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages. Science 381(6656). eabg0818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herman, József. 2000. Vulgar Latin. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Hillis, David M., Tracy A. Heath & Katherine St. John. 2005. Analysis and visualization of tree space. Systematic Biology 54(3). 471–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhna, Sebastian, Michael J. Landis & Tracy A. Heath. 2017. Phylogenetic inference using RevBayes. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics 57(1). 6.16.1–6.16.34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhna, Sebastian, Michael J. Landis, Tracy A. Heath, Bastien Boussau, Nicolas Lartillot, Brian R. Moore, John P. Huelsenbeck & Fredrik Ronquist. 2016. Revbayes: Bayesian phylogenetic inference using graphical models and an interactive model-specification language. Systematic Biology 65(4). 726–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoinkes, Ulrich. 2003. Prinzipien der genealogischen Klassifikation der romanischen Sprachen. In Gerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte, 124–137. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Wen, Guifang Zhou, Melissa Marchand, Jeremy R. Ash, David Morris, Paul van Dooren, Jeremy M. Brown, Kyle A. Gallivan & Jim C. Wilgenbusch. 2016. TreeScaper: Visualizing and extracting phylogenetic signal from sets of trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33(12). 3314–3316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2019. Computational historical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 45(3–4). 151–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Brian D. Joseph. 2003. On language, change, and language change: Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 3–180. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janson, Tore. 1979. Mechanisms of language change in Latin. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Jud, Jakob. 1917. Probleme der altromanischen Wortgeographie. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 381. 1–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kassian, Aleksei, George Starostin, Anna V. Dybo & Vasiliy Chernov. 2010. The Swadesh wordlist. Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 41. 46–89.Google Scholar
Kendall, David B. 1948. On the generalized “birth-and-death” process. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 19(1). 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitchen, Andrew, Christopher Ehret, Shiferaw Assefa & Connie J. Mulligan. 2009. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2761. 2703–2710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klinkenberg, Jean-Marie. 1999. Des langues romanes: Introduction aux études de linguistique romane. Paris: Duculot 2nd edn. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koile, Ezequiel, Simon J. Greenhill, Damián E. Blasi, Remco R. Bouckaert & Russell D. Gray. 2022. Phylogeographic analysis of the Bantu language expansion supports a rainforest route. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(32). e2112853119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühner, Mary K. & Joseph Felsenstein. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Molecular Biology and Evolution 11(3). 459–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Jr., Clifford S. 1980. Comparative grammar. In Rebecca R. Posner (ed.), Trends in Romance linguistics and philology: Romance comparative and historical linguistics, 23–42. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Paul O. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology 50(6). 913–925. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Paul M. 1979. On the definition of “Vulgar Latin”: The eternal return. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 80(2). 110–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löfstedt, Einar. 1959. Late Latin. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2005. La sillabazione di muta cum liquida dal latino al romanzo [The syllabification of muta cum liquida from Latin to Romance]. In Sándor Kiss, Luca Mondin & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Latin et langues romanes: Études de linguistique offertes à József Herman à l’occasion de son 80ème anniversaire, 419–430. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1974. La langue romane commune: latin vulgaire ou latin classique? Revue Romane 91. 218.Google Scholar
. 1977. Le latin classique: Langue romane commune. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
. 1978. Le problème de la langue romane commune. In Alberto Varvaro (ed.), XIV congresso internationale di linguistica e filologia romanza, vol. 21, 61–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. Do Romance languages originate from Pompeian Latin? Lingua Posnaniensis 231. 145–149.Google Scholar
. 1987a. Origine des langues romanes: dogme et faits. In József Herman (ed.), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif: Actes du Ier Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Pécs, 2–5 septembre 1985), 181–188. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987b. Où en est la discussion concernant l’origine des langues romanes? Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 341. 257–263.Google Scholar
. 1991. Nouvelle classification des langues romanes. Revue Romane 261. 14–23.Google Scholar
. 1994a. La déclinaison romane provient-elle du protoroman ou du latin classique? Vox Romanica 531. 17–23.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Protoroman et origine des langues romanes. Lingvisticæ Investigationes. International Journal of Linguistics and Language Resources 18(2). 365–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994c. Réactions diverses au problème de l’origine des langues romanes. Revue Romane 291. 123–129.Google Scholar
. 1998. Le protoroman est-il une langue soeur du latin classique? In Louis Callebat (ed.), Latin vulgaire, latin tardif IV: Actes du 4ᵉ colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Caen, 2–5 septembre 1994, 29–34. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
. 2006. Latin vulgaire et latin archaïque. In Carmen Arias Abellán (ed.), Latin vulgaire, latin tardif VII: Actes du VIIèᵐᵉ Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, 443–448. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.Google Scholar
. 2007. Le latin vulgaire est-il une langue soeur du latin classique? In David A. Trotter (ed.), Actes du XXIV Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, vol. 21, 527–532. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Une linguistique romane sans latin vulgaire est-elle possible? In Cesáreo Casanova & Emilie Calvo (eds.), Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas, vol. 41, 597–602. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, Michael R., Dori L. Contreras, Michael A. Sundue, Nathalie S. Nagalingum, Cindy V. Looy & Carl J. Rothfels. 2021. Inferring the total-evidence timescale of Marattialean fern evolution in the face of model sensitivity. Systematic Biology 70(6). 1232–1255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meier, Harri. 1940. Über das Verhältnis der romanischen Sprachen zum Lateinischen. Romanische Forschungen 54(2). 165–201.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1920. Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg: Carl Winter 3rd edn.Google Scholar
Muller, Henri François. 1921. When did Latin cease to be a spoken language in France? Romanic Review 121. 318–334.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. & Naomi Cull. 1994. Proto-Romance and the origin of the Romance languages. Lingvisticæ Investigationes. International Journal of Linguistics and Language Resources 18(2). 371–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, Geoff K. & Russell D. Gray. 2008. Dated ancestral trees from binary trait data and their application to the diversification of languages. Journal of The Royal Statistical Society, Series B 70(3). 545–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1994. The spread of language around the Pacific Rim. Evolutionary Anthropology 3(6). 206–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OLD = Glare, Peter G. W. (ed.). 2012. Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2nd edn.Google Scholar
Palmer, Leonard R. 1954. The Latin language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 2007. Locating Proto Oceanic. In Malcolm D. Ross, Andrew Pawley & Meredith Osmond (eds.), The lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The culture and environment of ancestral Oceanic society: The physical environment, vol. 21, 17–34. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 2nd edn.Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca R. 1996. The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pulgram, Ernst. 1958. The tongues of Italy: Prehistory and history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rama, Taraka. 2018. Three tree priors and five datasets: A study of the effect of tree priors in Indo-European phylogenetics. Language Dynamics and Change 8(2). 182–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald A. 2022. What we can (and can’t) learn from computational cladistics. In Thomas Olander (ed.), The Indo-European language family: A phylogenetic perspective, 52–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, Andrew M. & Simon Y. W. Ho. 2019. Influence of the tree prior and sampling scale on Bayesian phylogenetic estimates of the origin times of language families. Journal of Language Evolution 4(2). 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronquist, Fredrik, Seraina Klopfstein, Lars Vilhelmsen, Susanne Schulmeister, Debra L. Murray & Alexandr P. Rasnitsyn. 2012. A total-evidence approach to dating with fossils, applied to the early radiation of the hymenoptera. Systematic Biology 61(6). 973–999. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill & Johann-Mattis List. 2019. Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116(21). 10317–10322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savelyev, Alexander & Martine Robbeets. 2020. Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family. Journal of Language Evolution 5(1). 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1866. Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins, vol. 11. Leipzig: Teubner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selig, Maria. 2008. La naissance des langues romanes. Avignon: Université de Avignon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stadler, Tanja. 2010. Sampling-through-time in birth-death trees. Journal of Theoretical Biology 267(3). 396–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stadler, Tanja, Alexandra Gavryushkina, Rachel C. M. Warnock, Alexei J. Drummond & Tracy A. Heath. 2018. The fossilized birth-death model for the analysis of stratigraphic range data under different speciation modes. Journal of Theoretical Biology 4471. 41–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefenelli, Arnulf. 1962. Die Volkssprache im Werk des Petron im Hinblick auf die romanischen Sprachen. Wien: Braumüller.Google Scholar
. 1996. Thesen zur Entstehung und Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachen / Formation et fragmentation des langues romanes. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik: Latein und Romanisch: Historisch-vergleichende Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, vol. 2/11, 73–90. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Die lateinische Basis der romanischen Sprachen. In Gerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte, 530–544. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straka, Georges. 1953. Observations sur la chronologie et les dates de quelques modifications phonétiques en roman et en français prélittéraire. Revue des langues romanes 711. 247–307.Google Scholar
. 1956. La dislocation linguistique de la Romania et la formation des langues romanes à la lumière de la chronologie relative des changements phonétiques. Revue de Linguistique romane 201. 249–267.Google Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre. 2001. De Prague à Strasbourg: Phonétique et phonologie du français chez Georges Gougenheim et Georges Straka. Modèles linguistiques 43(3). 21–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
TLL = 1900–. Thesaurus linguae latinae. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tovar, Antonio. 1964. A research report on Vulgar Latin and its local variations. Kratylos 91. 113–134.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko. 1981. Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck 3rd edn.Google Scholar
. 1983. Le problème de la diversification du latin. In Wolfgang Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Sprache und Literatur (Sprachen und Schriften), vol. 291, 480–505. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallejo, José M. 2012. Del proto-indoeuropeo al proto-romance [From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Romance]. Romance Philology 66(2). 449–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varvaro, Alberto. 1991. Latin and Romance. In Roger Wright (ed.), Latin and the Romance languages in the early Middle Ages: Fragmentation or restructuring?, 44–51. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2013. Latin and the making of the Romance languages. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages: Contexts, vol. 21, 6–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Versteegh, Kees. 2022. The ghost of Vulgar Latin: History of a misnomer. Historiographia Linguistica 48(2–3). 205–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 2016. Continuity and change from Latin to Romance. In James N. Adams & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Early and late Latin, 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Alexandra Sarafoglou & Balazs Aczel. 2022. One statistical analysis must not rule them all. Nature 6051. 423–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warnock, Rachel C. M. & April M. Wright. 2020. Understanding the tripartite approach to Bayesian divergence time estimation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, Michael. 2020. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press 2nd edn.Google Scholar
Wittoch, Zdeněk. 1984. La naissance des langues romanes, le latin vulgaire et le latin classique. Philologica Pragensia 271. 41–47.Google Scholar
Wright, April M., David W. Bapst, Joëlle Barido-Sottani & Rachel C. M. Warnock. 2022. Integrating fossil observations into phylogenetics using the fossilized birth-death model. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 53(1). 251–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Roger. 2011. Romance languages as a source for spoken Latin. In James P. T. Clackson (ed.), A companion to the Latin language, 59–79. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Ziheng & Bruce Rannala. 1997. Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: A Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14(7). 717–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar