On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:55:29 +0100, R A Brown wrote:

>  On 22/09/2010 10:10, Peter Bleackley wrote:
>  [...]
>  >  We could postulate that their Chinese wives learned Latin
>  >  out deference to their husbands
>  Even more unlikely, I think.  The Chinese are somewhat proud
>  of their history&  their ancient language.  I really think
>  for Latin to have survived most of the mothers would have
>  had to have been regular Latin speakers.

I think so, too.  The Chinese are very proud of their heritage;
it tells a lot that two conquests of China by foreign élites
failed to make a dint on Chinese - rather than leading to the
development of a "Sino-Mongolian" or "Sino-Manchu", it effected
in the conquerors being assimilated to Chinese culture such that
one century later, nothing could be made out that the country
had been conquered from outside (save, of course, some written

>  >  - alternatively, they could speak a Sino-Latin pidgin to
>  >  each other, and the children could grow up speaking a
>  >  creole,
>  That had occurred to me, but ....
>  >  but I think that's a little way from what Jörg had in
>  >  mind.
>  Not Jörg!  He'd rather not have Latin speakers in China at
>  all, methinks.  It's _Anthony Miles_ who wants them there -
>  and, yes, a creole is not what he has in mind (unless I've
>  misunderstood him).

While I *hate* to play the bouncer here, I feel that there is
hardly any way a Sino-Romance language could be reconciled
with the known history of the world.  The last thing we need
is another Channel Island Siouxan!  A Sino-Romance conlang
certainly is an interesting linguistic experiment - but I
just don't see how it could come into existence short of a
Roman conquest of China, and even that, unlikely as it is,
probably wouldn't have led to a Sino-Romance language any more
than the Roman conquests of Greece and Egypt led to Graeco-
Romance and Aegypto-Romance.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf