What is meant by Vulgar Latin? Try to explain it and you run into a terminological nest of hornets, with broad historical complications. In short, there are a few paragraphs from Wikipedia that shorten the definition up.
1. It means variation within Latin (socially, geographically, and chronologically) that differs from the perceived Classical literary standard. As such, it typically excludes the language of the more educated, upper-classes which, although it does include variation, comes closest to the perceived standard.
2. It means the spoken Latin of the Roman Empire. Classical Latin represents the literary register of Latin. It represented a selection from a variety of available spoken forms. The Latin brought by Roman soldiers to Gaul, Iberia or Dacia was not identical to the Latin of Cicero, and differed from it in vocabulary, syntax, and grammar. By this definition, Vulgar Latin was a spoken language and “late” Latin was used for writing, its general style being slightly different from earlier “classic” standards.
3. It means the hypothetical ancestor of the Romance languages (”Proto-Romance”). This is a language which cannot be directly known apart from through a few graffiti inscriptions; it was Latin that had undergone a number of important sound shifts and changes, which can be reconstructed from the changes that are evident in its descendants, the Romance vernaculars.
4. In an even more restrictive sense, the name Vulgar Latin is sometimes given to the hypothetical proto-Romance of the Western Romance languages: the vernaculars found north and west of the La Spezia-Rimini Line, France, and the Iberian Peninsula; and the poorly attested Romance speech of northwestern Africa. According to this hypothesis, southeastern Italian, Romanian, and Dalmatian developed separately.
5. “Vulgar Latin” is sometimes used to describe the grammatical innovations found in a number of late Latin texts, such as the fourth century Itinerarium Egeriae. Egeria’s account of her journey to Palestine and Mt. Sinai; or the works of St Gregory of Tours. Since written documentation of Vulgar Latin forms is scarce; these works are valuable to philologists mainly because of the occasional presence of variations or errors in spelling that provide some evidence of spoken usage during the period in which they were written.
If in general, Vulgar Latin is the language of the common people, who are the common people? There are 2 schools of thought when it comes to this question. One believe holds that since its inception, Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin ran similar parallels, from the very beginning of time (the Roman Empire) through Archaic, Pre-Classical, Classical, and Post-Classical times all the way to the end. The other hypothesis is a bit more convincing. It holds that Latin began as one language, prisca latinitas, or primitive Latin, with little or no class distinction. This theory seems just a bit more convincing because Roman society in the beginning was small in numbers and its territorial claims were limited to Rome and small, surrounding areas.
According to the graffiti of Pompeii, which partially reads, “abiat Venere Bompeiiana iratam qui hoc laeserit/ habeat venerem Pompeiianam iratam qui hoc laeserit” or “let him who damages this have the anger of the Venus of Pompeii,” 3 conclusions could be drawn:
1). Latin was still used up to the beginning of the 8th century.
2). The language was still rather uniform and similar throughout the Western part of the Empire.
3). Many features found on the tagged-up walls of Pompeii show distinct characteristics that would later be found in later Romance languages.
A possible reason for the continual existence of Vulgar Latin could be supplied by Gregory of Tours, a Roman Historian. He wrote in a highly “non-Classical” style characterized by its grammar-less style and simple, if not barbaric, wording. A highly possible reason for this choice of writing style could be that he wanted to reach as many people as possible with his teachings and writings. An example of some of his works are followed, with the “correct” forms just after:
Spectante matri meae (while my mother was looking on)
The correct construction would be, “spectanti matre mea.” His tendency to interchange final –e and –i are apparent. (This correction I got from a book; I don’t know Latin )
It should also be noted that contemporaries like Pope Gregory the Great of Italy and Isidore of Seville wrote in highly Classical forms of Latin with little or no signs of Vulgar Latin.
Exact dates and times are hard to put down for special events in the course of Vulgar Latin, obviously because those that spoke the “dialect” weren’t as educated as the ones that spoke the other dialect, Classical. And with the adventures of the explorers, who weren’t the “upper class” and thus spoke Vulgar Latin, they brought their language to lands like France and Iberia and over time they mixed with many of the languages already in existence, like the language of the Franks in France and Mozarabic in Hispania, to form the respective languages of today.
