Divergence-time estimation in Indo-European

References

1. Adamik, Béla
   2015 The periodization of Latin: An old question revisited. InGerd 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]
2. Adams, James N.
   2007 The regional diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511482977
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511482977 [Google Scholar]
3. Adams, James N.
   2013 Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511843433
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511843433 [Google Scholar]
4. Adams, James N.
   2016 An anthology of informal Latin, 200 BC–AD 900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139626446
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139626446 [Google Scholar]
5. Agard, Frederick B.
   1984 A course in Romance linguistics: A diachronic view, vol.21. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. André, Jacques
   1991 Le vocabulaire latin de l’anatomie. Paris: Belles Lettres.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Banniard, Michel
   2013 The transition from Latin to the Romance languages. InMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages: Contexts, vol.21, 6–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996.003
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996.003 [Google Scholar]
8. Baxter, William H. & Alexis Manaster Ramer
   2000 Beyond lumping and splitting. InApril M. S. McMahon & R. Larry Trask (eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics, vol.11, 167–188. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Becker, Lidia
   2014 La protohistoire médiévale des langues romanes. InAndre Klump, Johannes Kramer & Aline Willems (eds.), Manuel des langues romanes, 261–286. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302585.261
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302585.261 [Google Scholar]
10. Blank, Andreas
    1997 Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110931600
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110931600 [Google Scholar]
11. 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. Science337(6097). 957–960. 10.1126/science.1219669
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219669 [Google Scholar]
12. 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
    2013 Corrections and clarifications. Science342(6165). 957–960. 10.1126/science.342.6165.1446‑a
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6165.1446-a [Google Scholar]
13. Bromham, Lindell
    2019 Six impossible things before breakfast: Assumptions, models, and belief in molecular dating. Trends in Ecology & Evolution34(5). 474–486. 10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.017 [Google Scholar]
14. Bromham, Lindell
    2022 Meaning and purpose: Using phylogenies to investigate human history and cultural evolution. Biological Theory181. 284–302. 10.1007/s13752‑022‑00401‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-022-00401-5 [Google Scholar]
15. 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 moderne831. 248–263.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Buchi, Éva & Wolfgang Schweickard
    (eds.) 2015 Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman: Genèse, méthodes et résultats, vol.11. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110313482
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110313482 [Google Scholar]
17. Buchi, Éva & Wolfgang Schweickard
    (eds.) 2016 Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman: Pratique lexicographique et réflexions théoriques, vol.21. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110453614
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110453614 [Google Scholar]
18. Buchi, Éva & Wolfgang Schweickard
    (eds.) 2020 Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman: Entre idioroman et protoroman, vol.31. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110654264
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110654264 [Google Scholar]
19. 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]. InJosé Enrique Gargallo Gil & Maria Reina Bastardas i Rufat (eds.), Manual de lingüística románica, 81–119. Barcelona: Ariel.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Cathcart, Chundra Aroor
    2018 Modeling linguistic evolution: A look under the hood. Linguistics Vanguard4(1). 1–11. 10.1515/lingvan‑2017‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0043 [Google Scholar]
21. Cathcart, Chundra Aroor, Gerd Carling, Filip Larsson, Niklas Johansson & Erich R. Round
    2018 Areal pressure in grammatical evolution: An Indo-European case study. Diachronica35(1). 1–34. 10.1075/dia.16035.cat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.16035.cat [Google Scholar]
22. Chang, Will, Chundra Aroor Cathcart, David P. Hall & Andrew J. Garrett
    2015 Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language91(1). 194–244. 10.1353/lan.2015.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0005 [Google Scholar]
23. Clackson, James P. T.
    2016 Latin as a source for the Romance languages. InAdam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 3–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
24. 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]
25. Coseriu, Eugenio
    2008 Lateinisch – Romanisch: Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen zum sogenannten Vulgärlatein und zur Entstehung der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. Edited byHansbert Bertsch.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Coseriu, Eugenio & Reinhard Meisterfeld
    2003 Geschichte der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft: Von den Anfängen bis 1492, vol.11. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Dardel, Robert de
    1985 Le sarde représente-t-il un état précoce du roman commun?Revue de Linguistique romane491. 263–269.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Desnitskaja, Agnija
    1982 Lat. bucca. InMaria Winkelmann, & Otto Braisch (eds.), Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburtstag, 237–245. Bern: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
29. DÉRomBuchi, Éva & Wolfgang Schweickard
    DÉRom = Buchi, Éva & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.) 2008– Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman. Nancy: Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française (ATILF).
    [Google Scholar]
30. Dworkin, Steven N.
    2016a Do Romanists need to reconstruct Proto-Romance? The case of the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman (DÉRom) project. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie132(1). 1–19. 10.1515/zrp‑2016‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2016-0001 [Google Scholar]
31. Dworkin, Steven N.
    2016b Lexical stability and shared lexicon. InAdam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 577–587. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0032
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0032 [Google Scholar]
32. Ernout, Alfred & Antoine Meillet
    1959 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck 4th edn.
    [Google Scholar]
33. 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 Linguistics17(2). 191–230. 10.1515/joll‑2018‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0006 [Google Scholar]
34. Fabreti, Luiza Guimarães & Sebastian Höhna
    2021 Convergence assessment for Bayesian phylogenetic analysis using MCMC simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution13(1). 77–90. 10.1111/2041‑210X.13727
    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13727 [Google Scholar]
35. Ferguson, Charles A.
    1959 Diglossia. Word151. 325–340. 10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702 [Google Scholar]
36. Ferri, Rolando & Philomen Probert
    2010 Roman authors on colloquial language. InEleanor Dickey & Anna Chahoud (eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin, 12–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511763267.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763267.004 [Google Scholar]
37. Findell, Martin & Paul Heggarty
    2023 IE-CoR: English. 10.5281/zenodo.8089434
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8089434 [Google Scholar]
38. Finegan, Edward
    2009 English. InBernard Comrie (ed.), The world’s major languages, 59–85. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Garrett, Andrew J.
    2006 Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: Phylogeny and chronology. InPeter Forster & Colin A. Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 139–151. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Garrett, Andrew J.
    2018 New perspectives on Indo-European phylogeny and chronology. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society162(1). 25–38.
    [Google Scholar]
41. 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 Biology66(1). 57–73. 10.1093/sysbio/syw060
    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw060 [Google Scholar]
42. Gray, Russell D. & Quentin D. Atkinson
    2003 Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature4261(6965). 435–439. 10.1038/nature02029
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02029 [Google Scholar]
43. Gray, Russell D. & Fiona M. Jordan
    2000 Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature405(6790). 1052–1055. 10.1038/35016575
    https://doi.org/10.1038/35016575 [Google Scholar]
44. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    2002 Indo-European and its closest relatives. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Hall, Robert A., Jr.
    1950 The reconstruction of Proto-Romance. Language26(1). 6–27. 10.2307/410406
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410406 [Google Scholar]
46. Hall, Robert A., Jr.
    1974 External history of the Romance languages. New York: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Hall, Robert A., Jr.
    1976 Proto-Romance phonology. New York: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank
    2021 Glottolog 4.5. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. 10.5281/zenodo.5772642
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5772642 [Google Scholar]
49. Hartmann, Frederik
    2023 Germanic phylogeny. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198872733.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198872733.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
50. 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 America111(29). E2957–E2966. 10.1073/pnas.1319091111
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319091111 [Google Scholar]
51. Heggarty, Paul
    2021 Cognacy databases and phylogenetic research on Indo-European. Annual Review of Linguistics71. 371–394. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011619‑030507
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030507 [Google Scholar]
52. 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. Science381(6656). eabg0818. 10.1126/science.abg0818
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg0818 [Google Scholar]
53. Herman, József
    2000 Vulgar Latin. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Hillis, David M., Tracy A. Heath & Katherine St. John
    2005 Analysis and visualization of tree space. Systematic Biology54(3). 471–482. 10.1080/10635150590946961
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150590946961 [Google Scholar]
55. Höhna, Sebastian, Michael J. Landis & Tracy A. Heath
    2017 Phylogenetic inference using RevBayes. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics57(1). 6.16.1–6.16.34. 10.1002/cpbi.22
    https://doi.org/10.1002/cpbi.22 [Google Scholar]
56. 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 Biology65(4). 726–736. 10.1093/sysbio/syw021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw021 [Google Scholar]
57. Hoinkes, Ulrich
    2003 Prinzipien der genealogischen Klassifikation der romanischen Sprachen. InGerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte, 124–137. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110146943.1.1.124
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110146943.1.1.124 [Google Scholar]
58. 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 Evolution33(12). 3314–3316. 10.1093/molbev/msw196
    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw196 [Google Scholar]
59. Jäger, Gerhard
    2019 Computational historical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics45(3–4). 151–182. 10.1515/tl‑2019‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0011 [Google Scholar]
60. Janda, Richard D. & Brian D. Joseph
    2003 On language, change, and language change: Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 3–180. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch [Google Scholar]
61. Janson, Tore
    1979 Mechanisms of language change in Latin. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Jud, Jakob
    1917 Probleme der altromanischen Wortgeographie. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie381. 1–98. 10.1515/zrph.1917.38.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zrph.1917.38.1.1 [Google Scholar]
63. Kassian, Aleksei, George Starostin, Anna V. Dybo & Vasiliy Chernov
    2010 The Swadesh wordlist. Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства41. 46–89.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Kendall, David B.
    1948 On the generalized “birth-and-death” process. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics19(1). 1–15. 10.1214/aoms/1177730285
    https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730285 [Google Scholar]
65. 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 Sciences2761. 2703–2710. 10.1098/rspb.2009.0408
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0408 [Google Scholar]
66. Klinkenberg, Jean-Marie
    1999 Des langues romanes: Introduction aux études de linguistique romane. Paris: Duculot 2nd edn. 10.3917/dbu.klink.1999.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.klink.1999.01 [Google Scholar]
67. 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 Sciences119(32). e2112853119. 10.1073/pnas.2112853119
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112853119 [Google Scholar]
68. Kühner, Mary K. & Joseph Felsenstein
    1994 A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Molecular Biology and Evolution11(3). 459–468. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040126
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040126 [Google Scholar]
69. Leonard, Jr., Clifford S.
    1980 Comparative grammar. InRebecca R. Posner (ed.), Trends in Romance linguistics and philology: Romance comparative and historical linguistics, 23–42. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110814101.23
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110814101.23 [Google Scholar]
70. Lewis, Paul O.
    2001 A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology50(6). 913–925. 10.1080/106351501753462876
    https://doi.org/10.1080/106351501753462876 [Google Scholar]
71. Lloyd, Paul M.
    1979 On the definition of “Vulgar Latin”: The eternal return. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen80(2). 110–122. 10.2307/43343254
    https://doi.org/10.2307/43343254 [Google Scholar]
72. Löfstedt, Einar
    1959 Late Latin. Oslo: Aschehoug.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Loporcaro, Michele
    2005 La sillabazione di muta cum liquida dal latino al romanzo [The syllabification of muta cum liquida from Latin to Romance]. InSándor 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. 10.1515/9783110944532.419
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110944532.419 [Google Scholar]
74. Mańczak, Witold
    1974 La langue romane commune: latin vulgaire ou latin classique?Revue Romane91. 218.
    [Google Scholar]
75. Mańczak, Witold
    1977 Le latin classique: Langue romane commune. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
    [Google Scholar]
76. Mańczak, Witold
    1978 Le problème de la langue romane commune. InAlberto Varvaro (ed.), XIV congresso internationale di linguistica e filologia romanza, vol.21, 61–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.9.ii05lep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.9.ii05lep [Google Scholar]
77. Mańczak, Witold
    1980 Do Romance languages originate from Pompeian Latin?Lingua Posnaniensis231. 145–149.
    [Google Scholar]
78. Mańczak, Witold
    1987a Origine des langues romanes: dogme et faits. InJózsef 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. 10.1515/9783111652313.181
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111652313.181 [Google Scholar]
79. Mańczak, Witold
    1987b Où en est la discussion concernant l’origine des langues romanes?Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny341. 257–263.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Mańczak, Witold
    1991 Nouvelle classification des langues romanes. Revue Romane261. 14–23.
    [Google Scholar]
81. Mańczak, Witold
    1994a La déclinaison romane provient-elle du protoroman ou du latin classique?Vox Romanica531. 17–23.
    [Google Scholar]
82. Mańczak, Witold
    1994b Protoroman et origine des langues romanes. Lingvisticæ Investigationes. International Journal of Linguistics and Language Resources18(2). 365–369. 10.1075/li.18.2.07man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.18.2.07man [Google Scholar]
83. Mańczak, Witold
    1994c Réactions diverses au problème de l’origine des langues romanes. Revue Romane291. 123–129.
    [Google Scholar]
84. Mańczak, Witold
    1998 Le protoroman est-il une langue soeur du latin classique?InLouis 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]
85. Mańczak, Witold
    2006 Latin vulgaire et latin archaïque. InCarmen 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]
86. Mańczak, Witold
    2007 Le latin vulgaire est-il une langue soeur du latin classique?InDavid A. Trotter (ed.), Actes du XXIV Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, vol.21, 527–532. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110923582.527
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110923582.527 [Google Scholar]
87. Mańczak, Witold
    2013 Une linguistique romane sans latin vulgaire est-elle possible?InCesáreo Casanova & Emilie Calvo (eds.), Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas, vol.41, 597–602. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110299953.597
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110299953.597 [Google Scholar]
88. 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 Biology70(6). 1232–1255. 10.1093/sysbio/syab020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syab020 [Google Scholar]
89. Meier, Harri
    1940 Über das Verhältnis der romanischen Sprachen zum Lateinischen. Romanische Forschungen54(2). 165–201.
    [Google Scholar]
90. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm
    1920 Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg: Carl Winter 3rd edn.
    [Google Scholar]
91. Muller, Henri François
    1921 When did Latin cease to be a spoken language in France?Romanic Review121. 318–334.
    [Google Scholar]
92. Murray, Robert W. & Naomi Cull
    1994 Proto-Romance and the origin of the Romance languages. Lingvisticæ Investigationes. International Journal of Linguistics and Language Resources18(2). 371–376. 10.1075/li.18.2.08mur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.18.2.08mur [Google Scholar]
93. 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 B70(3). 545–566. 10.1111/j.1467‑9868.2007.00648.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00648.x [Google Scholar]
94. Nichols, Johanna
    1994 The spread of language around the Pacific Rim. Evolutionary Anthropology3(6). 206–215. 10.1002/evan.1360030607
    https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.1360030607 [Google Scholar]
95. OLDGlare, Peter G. W.
    OLD = Glare, Peter G. W. (ed.) 2012 Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2nd edn.
    [Google Scholar]
96. Palmer, Leonard R.
    1954 The Latin language. London: Faber & Faber.
    [Google Scholar]
97. Pawley, Andrew
    2007 Locating Proto Oceanic. InMalcolm 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 Linguistics2nd edn.
    [Google Scholar]
98. Posner, Rebecca R.
    1996 The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
99. Pulgram, Ernst
    1958 The tongues of Italy: Prehistory and history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674435094
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674435094 [Google Scholar]
100. Rama, Taraka
     2018 Three tree priors and five datasets: A study of the effect of tree priors in Indo-European phylogenetics. Language Dynamics and Change8(2). 182–218. 10.1163/22105832‑00802005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00802005 [Google Scholar]
101. Ringe, Donald A.
     2022 What we can (and can’t) learn from computational cladistics. InThomas Olander (ed.), The Indo-European language family: A phylogenetic perspective, 52–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108758666.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108758666.004 [Google Scholar]
102. 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 Evolution4(2). 1–16. 10.1093/jole/lzz005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzz005 [Google Scholar]
103. 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 Biology61(6). 973–999. 10.1093/sysbio/sys058
     https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys058 [Google Scholar]
104. 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 America116(21). 10317–10322. 10.1073/pnas.1817972116
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817972116 [Google Scholar]
105. Savelyev, Alexander & Martine Robbeets
     2020 Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family. Journal of Language Evolution5(1). 39–53. 10.1093/jole/lzz010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzz010 [Google Scholar]
106. Schuchardt, Hugo
     1866 Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins, vol.11. Leipzig: Teubner. 10.1017/CBO9781139629478
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139629478 [Google Scholar]
107. Selig, Maria
     2008 La naissance des langues romanes. Avignon: Université de Avignon. 10.4000/books.eua.2298
     https://doi.org/10.4000/books.eua.2298 [Google Scholar]
108. Stadler, Tanja
     2010 Sampling-through-time in birth-death trees. Journal of Theoretical Biology267(3). 396–404. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.09.010 [Google Scholar]
109. 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 Biology4471. 41–55. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.03.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.03.005 [Google Scholar]
110. Stefenelli, Arnulf
     1962 Die Volkssprache im Werk des Petron im Hinblick auf die romanischen Sprachen. Wien: Braumüller.
     [Google Scholar]
111. Stefenelli, Arnulf
     1996 Thesen zur Entstehung und Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachen / Formation et fragmentation des langues romanes. InGünter 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. 10.1515/9783110938364.73
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110938364.73 [Google Scholar]
112. Stefenelli, Arnulf
     2003 Die lateinische Basis der romanischen Sprachen. InGerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte, 530–544. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110146943.1.5.530
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110146943.1.5.530 [Google Scholar]
113. Straka, Georges
     1953 Observations sur la chronologie et les dates de quelques modifications phonétiques en roman et en français prélittéraire. Revue des langues romanes711. 247–307.
     [Google Scholar]
114. Straka, Georges
     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 romane201. 249–267.
     [Google Scholar]
115. Swiggers, Pierre
     2001 De Prague à Strasbourg: Phonétique et phonologie du français chez Georges Gougenheim et Georges Straka. Modèles linguistiques43(3). 21–44. 10.4000/ml.1459
     https://doi.org/10.4000/ml.1459 [Google Scholar]
116. TLL
     TLL = 1900– Thesaurus linguae latinae. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
117. Tovar, Antonio
     1964 A research report on Vulgar Latin and its local variations. Kratylos91. 113–134.
     [Google Scholar]
118. Trudgill, Peter
     2011 Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
119. Väänänen, Veikko
     1981 Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck 3rd edn.
     [Google Scholar]
120. Väänänen, Veikko
     1983 Le problème de la diversification du latin. InWolfgang Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Sprache und Literatur (Sprachen und Schriften), vol.291, 480–505. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110847024‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847024-009 [Google Scholar]
121. Vallejo, José M.
     2012 Del proto-indoeuropeo al proto-romance [From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Romance]. Romance Philology66(2). 449–467. 10.1484/J.RPH.5.100847
     https://doi.org/10.1484/J.RPH.5.100847 [Google Scholar]
122. Varvaro, Alberto
     1991 Latin and Romance. InRoger Wright (ed.), Latin and the Romance languages in the early Middle Ages: Fragmentation or restructuring?, 44–51. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
123. Varvaro, Alberto
     2013 Latin and the making of the Romance languages. InMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages: Contexts, vol.21, 6–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996.002 [Google Scholar]
124. Versteegh, Kees
     2022 The ghost of Vulgar Latin: History of a misnomer. Historiographia Linguistica48(2–3). 205–227. 10.1075/hl.00091.ver
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.00091.ver [Google Scholar]
125. Vincent, Nigel
     2016 Continuity and change from Latin to Romance. InJames N. Adams & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Early and late Latin, 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316450826.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316450826.002 [Google Scholar]
126. Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Alexandra Sarafoglou & Balazs Aczel
     2022 One statistical analysis must not rule them all. Nature6051. 423–425. 10.1038/d41586‑022‑01332‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01332-8 [Google Scholar]
127. Warnock, Rachel C. M. & April M. Wright
     2020 Understanding the tripartite approach to Bayesian divergence time estimation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108954365
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954365 [Google Scholar]
128. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog
     1968 Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. InWinfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
129. Weiss, Michael
     2020 Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press 2nd edn.
     [Google Scholar]
130. Wittoch, Zdeněk
     1984 La naissance des langues romanes, le latin vulgaire et le latin classique. Philologica Pragensia271. 41–47.
     [Google Scholar]
131. 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 Systematics53(1). 251–273. 10.1146/annurev‑ecolsys‑102220‑030855
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102220-030855 [Google Scholar]
132. Wright, Roger
     2011 Romance languages as a source for spoken Latin. InJames P. T. Clackson (ed.), A companion to the Latin language, 59–79. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444343397.ch5
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343397.ch5 [Google Scholar]
133. Yang, Ziheng & Bruce Rannala
     1997 Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: A Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. Molecular Biology and Evolution14(7). 717–724. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025811
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025811 [Google Scholar]