the Romanfh Language. 143 
As to the nature of this language, it may now be ad- 
vanced, with fome degree of confidence, that the Cia- 
lover owes its origin to a mixture of the Tufcan and of 
the dialed of the Celtic fpoken by the Lepontii; and 
that the introduction of the vulgar Roman affeded it in 
fome degree, but particularly gave rife to the Lading the 
vocabulary of which, as any one may be convinced 
by infpeding a few lines of the bible, hath a great 
affinity with that of the Latin tongue. But thefe affer- 
tions reft merely upon hifiorical evidence ; for as to the 
Cialover , all that it may have retained of the Tufcan or 
Roman, is fo much disfigured by an uncouth pronuncia- 
tion and a vague orthography, that all etymological en- 
quiries are thereby rendered intricate and unfatisfadory. 
And as to the Ladin, although its derivation be more 
manifeft, yet we are equally at a lofs from what period 
or branch of the Latin tongue to trace its real origin ; for 
I have found, after many tedious experiments, that even 
the vocabulary, in which the refemblance is moft evi- 
dent, differs equally from the claffical purity of tully, 
c jls ap,., and sallust, as it does from the primitive Latin 
of the twelve tables, of ennius, and the columna roftra- 
lis of duillius, which hath generally been thought the 
parent of the Gallic Romance; as alfo from the trivial 
language of varro, vegetius, and columella. May 
we not from this circumftance infer, that, as is the cafe 
in all vernacular tongues, the vulgar dialed of the Ro- 
mans, the Jermo ufualis , rufticus , pedejlris , ( h ) of which 
(b) Conf, Mem. des Infcrip, tom. xxiv. p. 608. 
there 
