Lloyd 1979, p. 120 Lloyd, Paul M. (1979). "On the Definition of 'Vulgar Latin': The Eternal Return". Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. 80 (2): 110–122. JSTOR43343254.
Lloyd 1979, pp. 110–122 Lloyd, Paul M. (1979). "On the Definition of 'Vulgar Latin': The Eternal Return". Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. 80 (2): 110–122. JSTOR43343254.
Lloyd 1979, p. 120 Lloyd, Paul M. (1979). "On the Definition of 'Vulgar Latin': The Eternal Return". Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. 80 (2): 110–122. JSTOR43343254.
Lloyd 1979, p. 122 Lloyd, Paul M. (1979). "On the Definition of 'Vulgar Latin': The Eternal Return". Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. 80 (2): 110–122. JSTOR43343254.
Herman 2000, p. 5 "Comparative scholars, especially in the nineteenth century … tended to see Vulgar Latin and literary Latin as two very different kinds of language, or even two different languages altogether … but [this] is now out of date" Herman, József (2000). Vulgar Latin. Translated by Wright, Roger. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN0-271-02001-6. OL42565M.
Marcus Tullius Cicero. Philippics. Speech 2, chapter 3. Archived from the original on 21 November 2022.
web.archive.org
Marcus Tullius Cicero. Philippics. Speech 2, chapter 3. Archived from the original on 21 November 2022.
wiktionary.org
en.wiktionary.org
In a few isolated masculine nouns, the s has been either preserved or reinstated in the modern languages, for example FILIUS ("son") > French fils, DEUS ("god") > Spanish dios and Portuguese deus, and particularly in proper names: Spanish Carlos, Marcos, in the conservative orthography of French Jacques, Charles, Jules, etc.[47]
