For many years now we Portuguese have been told many falsities of the origins of our language and the below three extracts are one of the most popular forms of such deceits. Extract 1: “Historically, Portuguese, which developed from the Vulgar Latin brought to the Iberian Peninsula by its Roman conquerors, could be distinguished from the parent tongue before the 11th century.” Extract 2: “Portuguese belongs to the Romance group of languages. The Romance languages evolved from Latin as a result of the military victories of the Romans and their subsequent political and cultural domination.” Extract 3: “Embora a Península Ibérica fosse habitada desde muito antes da ocupação romana, pouquíssimos traços das línguas faladas por estes povos persistem no português moderno.” Extract 3 English translation: Even though the Iberian peninsula has been occupied from early times prior the Roman occupation, very little traces of the spoken language from these peoples has persisted in modern Portuguese. What the propagators of such lies don't want you know is that it was Rome which was occupied by Gallic peoples and culture during the 4th century B.C. Way before any Roman Empire ever existed. The false premise that the Portuguese language derives from Vulgar Latin and the Romans is based on an imaginary complete cultural conquest and occupation of the Western side of the Iberian peninsula, that is, Lusitania. This imaginary conquest and occupation is the main basis for the falsity that the Portuguese language derives from something called Vulgar Latin and not Gallic-Celtic. The other is the imaginary term Vulgar Latin. Lets analyze the above misleading extracts more closely. •First of all note that the above extracts mention no dates for such a conquest of ancient Lusitania and therefore the region of modern day Portugal. No date of this so called conquest is given in the extract because if a date were given one could refer to historical sources so as to verify its authenticity. As it turns out we’re not even given the century of such a conquest. •Secondly, we are not told what language the people of that region spoke prior to this supposed Roman conquest. They certainly did speak another language so what was it? Once again we are left none the wiser. •Then we are told that our language derives from something called Vulgar Latin. What is Vulgar Latin? The article leaves the reader none the wiser. Did Vulgar Latin just pop up out of no where? Believe it or not it looks like it did. Vulgar Latin is actually an imaginary term for a language that never existed. The term “Vulgar Latin” as a proper language has never been recorded by any ancient author or any independent authority. So what is Vulgar Latin you ask, where did such a language derive from, in which part of Italy was it spoken? Keep reading and you’ll see. •The article then tries to hide its false message by saying that even before the 11th century the Portuguese language could be distinguished from its supposed parent tongue, that is, Vulgar Latin. Well what do know folks, by some miracle from the 11th century onwards and possibly earlier, the Portuguese language was able to be distinguished from its so-called Roman parent language - Vulgar Latin. The truth of point one is that the Romans did invade the Iberian peninsula but not the Iberian peninsula as we understand it to be today. The Iberia of the Roman times was only the Eastern side bordering the Mediterranean Sea. As the Romans ventured towards the Western side they were defeated by our Lusitanian general Viriato. If one reads Polybius’ account in 200 B.C about our peninsula one will realize that the concept of the term “Iberia” to the Romans only meant the Eastern side of the peninsula bordering the Mediterranean Sea and not the Western portion on the Atlantic side – our side. Polybius, The Histories, III.37.10 “The remaining part of Europe beyond the Pyrenees reaching to its western end and to the Pillars of Hercules is bounded on the one side by the Mediterranean and on the other side by the outer sea, that portion whic his washed by the Mediterranean as far as the Pillars of Hercules being called Iberia, while that part which lies along the Outer or Great Sea has no general name as it has only recently come under our notice, but is all densely inhabited…” So when the Romans say they conquered the Iberian peninsula it only referred to the thin portion on the Eastern side of the peninsula. In other words, the modern concept of Iberia is not the same as the historical concept of Iberia. For example, when the Roman general Publius reached Iberia with his fleet it was only on the Mediterranean side and not on the Atlantic side – our side. Many modern authors choose, sometimes purposely, not to understand this and make the Roman invasion of Iberia as an event which encompassed the whole peninsula including our side on the Atlantic, hence incorrectly applying Spain’s Iberian Mediterranean history onto us Atlantic Lusitanian Celtic Portuguese. This is how many writers propagate the falsity of a Roman conquest over Lusitania and the Portuguese people. Some authors even go as far as using events which occurred in the other Iberia near the Black Sea, modern day Armenia and Georgia, to our own peninsula far away towards the West. The truth is that one of our heroic Lusitanian-Celtic generals, Viriato by name, was able to defeat the Roman aggressors and was able to obtain a peace treaty with Rome which was ratified by the Roman senate in exchange for us liberating many of their soldiers that were captured in battle. This peace treaty recognized the Western portion of the peninsula – Lusitania as an independent nation and ally of Rome and this is the real history many so-called historians choose to ignore. A modern example of such a historical falsity would be applying the history of the American presence in the southern portion of the Korean peninsula in what is South Korea to that of the northern portion – North Korea which has remained largely untouched by the American aggressors. Further more, one needs to recognize that the Romans didn’t change the culture or the language of the people they suppressed to any great extent. The Greeks, Assyrians, and Palestinians were all under Roman rule for many centuries yet they all preserved their languages to this day. Ancient Illyria – modern Albania, was one of the closest empires to the Romans which was placed under Roman control and they too were allowed to preserve their original language – modern day Albanian. Did the Germans lose their Germanic language when they were subjugated by the Romans? No they didn’t, the German language still survives till this day. On the other hand, we’re asked to believe that the furthest of all nations (Lusitania) from the Roman Empire, which managed to defeat the Romans and obtain a peace treaty somehow lost its original Celtic-Galician language. Only fools and novices in the subject of history would fall for such absurdities. Now lets move on to this Vulgar Latin. What is Vulgar Latin? Here’s what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about Vulgar Latin: “spoken form of non-Classical Latin from which originated the Romance group of languages. Vulgar Latin was primarily the speech of the middle classes in Rome and the Roman provinces; it is derived from Classical Latin but varied across Roman-occupied areas according to the extent of education of the population, communication with Rome, and the original languages of the local populations. As the Roman Empire disintegrated and the Christian Church became the chief unifying force in southern and western Europe, communication and education declined and regional variation in pronunciation and grammar increased until gradually, after about 600, local forms of Vulgar Latin were no longer mutually intelligible and were thereafter to be considered separate Romance languages. As the ancestor of the Romance languages, Vulgar Latin is also sometimes called Proto-Romance, although Proto-Romance most often refers to hypothetical reconstructions of the language ancestral to the modern Romance languages rather than to the Vulgar Latin that is known from documents. Written materials in Latin almost always make use of Classical Latin forms; hence, written documentation of Vulgar Latin is uncommon. Modern knowledge of the language is based on statements of Roman grammarians concerning "improper" usages, and on a certain number of inscriptions and early manuscripts, "lapses" in the writings of educated authors, some lists of "incorrect" forms and glossaries of Classical forms, and occasional texts written by or for persons of little education. Beyond this, early texts in the Romance languages (beginning in the 9th century) often throw light on earlier usages. All of these sources, used with some caution, have made it possible to piece together the structure and vocabulary of Vulgar Latin with some exactness. Among the most useful texts in or containing Vulgar Latin are the Peregrinatio Etheriae ("Pilgrimage of Etheria"), apparently written in the 4th century by an uneducated Spanish nun, and the Appendix Probi ("Appendix of Probus"), a list of correct and incorrect word forms dating perhaps from as early as the 3rd century.” The first portion which I’ve highlighted is the part which says that Vulgar Latin is derived from Classical Latin. But what is Classical Latin? We’ll get to that later. The second highlighted portion is the part which says that “after about 600, local forms of Vulgar Latin were no longer mutually intelligible and were thereafter to be considered separate Romance languages”. So let me get this right, by the year 600 A.D the different forms of this Vulgar Latin were so different depending in which region you found yourself in that they were to be considered “separate Romance languages”. In other words, since Portuguese is considered to be one of these Romance languages, the Portuguese language was already separate and therefore distinguishable from its so-called parent from the year 600 A.D onwards. We’ll keep this point in mind and move ahead. The third highlighted portion says that the “Vulgar Latin is also sometimes called Proto-Romance, although Proto-Romance most often refers to hypothetical reconstructions of the language ancestral to the modern Romance languagesr” Now this is where it starts getting interesting. It’s saying that Vulgar Latin can sometimes be called Proto-Romance (another invented term?) and that, wait for it, Proto-Romance, in other words Vulgar Latin, most often refers to “hypothetical reconstructions” of the language ancestral to modern Romance languages – that is French, Portuguese and Spanish. Wait a damn minute! It’s saying that Vulgar Latin is a hypothetical reconstruction of such languages like Portuguese. This is what I call being given the run around. In other words, they want us to believe that the Portuguese language is derived from something called Vulgar Latin which is in itself derived from such languages as Portuguese! So Vulgar Latin is merely a hypothetical reconstruction based on our very own Gallic-Portuguese language. That’s like mugging a guy for his money and then lending it back to him. Now that we understand that Vulgar Latin is just an invention based on our very own language we take note of the next highlighted portion of the article. “written documentation of Vulgar Latin is uncommon. Modern knowledge of the language is based on statements of Roman grammarians concerning "improper" usages, and on a certain number of inscriptions and early manuscripts, "lapses" in the writings of educated authors, some lists of "incorrect" forms and glossaries of Classical forms,” It says that written documentation of Vulgar Latin is uncommon. Of course it’s uncommon…it’s a falsity. The next highlighted passage says : “early texts in the Romance languages (beginning in the 9th century) often throw light on earlier usages.” The above extract once again shows that it is in fact Vulgar Latin which derives from languages like Portuguese to “piece together the structure and vocabulary of Vulgar Latin” It should now be plain to see how the concept of something called Vulgar Latin as being the parent language of Portuguese is a bogus claim. To top it off, the last but not least, highlighted portion of the text explaining Vulgar Latin goes on to tells us that “Among the most useful texts in or containing Vulgar Latin are the Peregrinatio Etheriae ("Pilgrimage of Etheria"), apparently written in the 4th century by an uneducated Spanish nun.” So this supposedly Roman parent language of the Portuguese language derives most of its terms from a document written by someone not in Rome or Italy but where of all places – right in our peninsula! And here we have the misleading tactics used to deceive people that languages such as Portuguese, a Gallic-Celtic based language, derives from the Vulgar Latin of the Romans. This of course explains the last point which says that the Portuguese language was distinguishable even before the 11th century. Of course it was, it was simply called Celtic or Galego in our own language. The reality is that the Portuguese language is just what the title itself says it is – the original language of the Galicians and the Gallic otherwise known as Celtic.