|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
" Equivalent of "blanc" in modern German stille exist: it´s "blank" meaning shiny, blank, metallic white "
Not in the same meaning
The fact is "blanc/blanco/bianco, etc" are said "white/Weiß/Wit, etc." in most germanic languages.
The same way "guerre/guerra/guerra" are said "krieg/Krig/Orlaag/war"
Ouest, leasnam, the question was not clamin that there is/or there isn't some cognates of those words in modern or older forms of germanic languages.
That there exist some cognates of blanc/blanco/bianco or guerre/guerra in germanic languages doesn't make debate here, their meanings are quite slightly different (and in the case of "werra" the imediate link is not obvious to the profane. This is not surprising to find cognates in indo-European languages of different groups. This is not meaning that they nessecerally come on from the other (whatever in what way).
we don't know in that precise cases what is the truth, many other case of words present in french or the other romance languages that are supposed to came from franksih by latinocentrist linguists because they weren't find in classical latin lexical without strong evidences for it.
And, once again, if they are coming from Frankish, then is asking the question (stil unanswered) how did this vocabulary conquested other romance languages in a very similar ways, but did not affected the germanic languages in similar ways, (when they were actually more easily subject of integrating a word coming from another germanic language)
While the romance languages, for exemple the portuguese "branco" integrated it, being from a different linguistic group, and not having been under any frankish colonization, but from already latinized visigotic one ?
As for Gammar the idea is much more hard to imagine. How did for exemple Lusitania region's classical latin (modern portugal) did converge into Portuguese, a language with a very similar syntaxical to modern french, Italian or Spanish* (despite some minor differences, but compared to classical latin syntax it converged in a very similar way to all the other romance languages) being so much farther from direct germanic influences?
*Supposed in your theory to be of germanic origins
When we were looking at the strong differences (that yourself took long time to put under light) concerning the differences between all the romance languages and latin structures and syntax, HOW could we explain that the romance languages inversely show very similar strutures (you can look again the the declaration of human rights I posted to realize what I am saying): lost of declensions/similar word orders/same kind of conjugative systems/etc.. While in the same time the Germanic languages have more variations on this point (just have to look at English, German or Scandinavian gramatical systems) German has cases, on the other way english has a very simplified syntax.
It is just quite absurd to imagine that a various group of languages (the quite unknown old germanic languages that spoke the numerous various invaders before they entered the roman empire) made evoluated classical latin the same way from Portugal to northern France... This this one of the main interrogation that your theory ask.
It is much easier and logical to envisage that those languages descent not from classical latin but fom another common romance language alreadly spoken in Rome, that already had those similar characteristics in structure/gramar/word order/conjugaison, etc.
Ouest : « Equivalent of "blanc" in modern German stille exist: it´s "blank" meaning shiny, blank, metallic white. »
Merci, on avait compris. Mais au risque de me répéter, ça n'est pas le sujet de ce salon : on est ravi de savoir que l'étymon indo-européen <blanc> est toujours présent dans les langue germaniques actuelles, mais ce qui nous occupe ici c'est sa longue histoire au sein de la famille romane. De la même façon, on est heureux d'apprendre que It <bianco> & Es <blanco> se traduisent par Al <weiß> & No <hvit> — et non moins réjouis de constater que Al & No <blank> c'est Es <brillante> & It <lucido>.
Leasnam : « And can you do nothing, when you have been beaten, but to make attacks on the credibility those who have set you straight? I'm disappointed greg. I thought you'd make a better lawyer than that. »
Par pitié, épargne-nous cette sensiblerie de mauvais aloi. Puisque tu penses que des arguments linguistiques ont démontré la fausseté de la thèse romanocentrée, aurais-tu l'amabilité de nous les rappeler ?
Leasnam : « Btw, greg, don't ask for proofs anymore, because it is clear than when they are handed to you you are unable to receive them. »
Nous ne partageons pas la même conception du mot <preuve>. Si tu en as vu une, merci de nous la faire partager.
Leasnam : « bartleby.com is a more reputable source than you. »
Une telle remarque venant de toi, tu m'en vois flatté.
Leasnam : « There is nothing that will convince you, because you are determined to believe a lie. »
Dis-moi, la prochaine étape c'est le bûcher à sorcières ou tu vas enfin te décider à **travailler** et ta rhétorique et ta linguistique ?
Leasnam : « And it's not so "remarkable" that the germanic root *BLANK appears in most Romance languages. That is common. I remind you of the near ubiquitous "Nation" in the germanic languages. (yawn) ».
Je te retourne le bâillement : on s'ennuie ferme à répéter toujours les mêmes choses, en effet... Mais bon c'est pour la bonne cause, alors allons-y !
Tu ne peux mettre sur un même plan <blanc> et <nation> pour plusieurs raisons :
1] pour les langues germaniques, l'association <signifiant> / {signifié} est réalisée pour <nation> / {nation}, mais pas pour <blanc> / {blanc} ; cette association est réalisée dans les deux cas pour la quasi-totalité des langues romanes ;
2] l'emprunt de <nation> par les langues germaniques est attesté : soit via les langues romanes (français → anglais, par ex.), soit par emprunt direct au médiolatin ; en revanche il n'est pas démontré que <blanc> ait jamais été emprunté par les langues romanes (et encore moins emprunté au paléogermanique).
Leasnam : « Not only German, but continues in several germanic languages. Here is the full lay-out: [...] ».
J'espère que tu as bien lu ce que tu as pris la peine d'écrire : les langues germaniques diffèrent quant au signifié de l'étymon <blanc>. Ce n'est pas le cas des langues romanes dont le signifié ne varie point.
Détail croustillant : Al <blank> n'est pas An <white>.
"This this one of the main interrogation that your theory ask. "
It's not difficult to imagine that Latin languages have elements from neighboring languages like German and vice versa. All of this hair splitting, is it really necessary? C'mon folks, let's be civil and reasonable. My only hope is that political bad-feelings are not involved because that might cloud the judgements of some..
"It is much easier and logical to envisage that those languages descent not from classical latin but fom another common romance language alreadly spoken in Rome, that already had those similar characteristics in structure/gramar/word order/conjugaison, etc. "
Just be sure that what you're asking you're willing also to do. You're asking us to envisage something reasonably, without proof, which is what is being requested on the other side too.
Je souscris sans réserve aux propos de guest guest dont il me pardonnera de mettre en exergue les points saillants :
« This is not surprising to find cognates in indo-European languages of different groups. This is not meaning that they nessecerally come on from the other (whatever in what way). »
« we don't know in that precise cases what is the truth [...] ».
« And, once again, if they are coming from Frankish, then is asking the question (stil unanswered) how did this vocabulary conquested other romance languages in a very similar ways, but did not affected the germanic languages in similar ways, (when they were actually more easily subject of integrating a word coming from another germanic language) ».
« It is just quite absurd to imagine that a various group of languages (the quite unknown old germanic languages that spoke the numerous various invaders before they entered the roman empire) made evoluated classical latin the same way from Portugal to northern France... This this one of the main interrogation that your theory ask. »
« It is much easier and logical to envisage that those languages descent not from classical latin but fom another common romance language alreadly spoken in Rome, that already had those similar characteristics in structure/gramar/word order/conjugaison, etc. »
Comme ces réflexions sont rédigées en anglais, il est permis d'espérer que Ouest en Leasnam en saisissent la portée.
<<Je te retourne le bâillement : on s'ennuie ferme à répéter toujours les mêmes choses, en effet... Mais bon c'est pour la bonne cause, alors allons-y !
Tu ne peux mettre sur un même plan <blanc> et <nation> pour plusieurs raisons :
1] pour les langues germaniques, l'association <signifiant> / {signifié} est réalisée pour <nation> / {nation}, mais pas pour <blanc> / {blanc} ; cette association est réalisée dans les deux cas pour la quasi-totalité des langues romanes ;
2] l'emprunt de <nation> par les langues germaniques est attesté : soit via les langues romanes (français → anglais, par ex.), soit par emprunt direct au médiolatin ; en revanche il n'est pas démontré que <blanc> ait jamais été emprunté par les langues romanes (et encore moins emprunté au paléogermanique).
>>
But that's just the point greg. The difference is a matter of *when* the loan occurred. Had it been just a few hundred years later, we would have positive hard-evidence (--if such a thing as hard-evidence in linguistics even exists. Can one even *prove* that English borrowed "nation" from anywhere? It still has to be accepted by faith with reason and the greatest likelihood) of the borrowing and we wouldn't even be having this stupid debate (again, for the 10th time on antimoon :)
You mentioned earlier something about the "same old arguments"...yeah, I feel ya ;-)
<<J'espère que tu as bien lu ce que tu as pris la peine d'écrire : les langues germaniques diffèrent quant au signifié de l'étymon <blanc>. Ce n'est pas le cas des langues romanes dont le signifié ne varie point.
Détail croustillant : Al <blank> n'est pas An <white>. >>
Because the Romance languages are more closely related to each other, having diverged nearer to the present time than Germanic. For the common Romance, one only need to go back a millennium and a half or so. But for Germanic, almost 3-4 millennia back is necessary to find the common ground.
Besides, the existence of synonyms for *BLANK in the germanic languages also allowed for the word to shift and settle into other senses. Honestly though greg, there is no huge stretch to go from "white" > "bright" > "grey" and back and forth again...
Just compare the germanic word for "blue", depending on language and dialect of germanic, it could range anywhere from "deep swarthy black" to "yellow". This is commonplace in linguistics. I don't have a problem with it...
<<Because the Romance languages are more closely related to each other, having diverged nearer to the present time than Germanic. For the common Romance, one only need to go back a millennium and a half or so. But for Germanic, almost 3-4 millennia back is necessary to find the common ground.
>>
That is absolutely correct! The fact that the word has the same connotation in the Romance languages is support for it being a recent loan--the different languages having not time enough for it to diverge in meaning. Excellent.
guest greg Mon May 11, 2009 11:49 pm GMT
« It is much easier and logical to envisage that those languages descent not from classical latin but fom another common romance language alreadly spoken in Rome, that already had those similar characteristics in structure/gramar/word order/conjugaison, etc. »
______________________________________
To me, it is much easier and logical to envisage that those languages descent not from classical latin but fom another common romance language newly created during the early middle ages *and possibly already 2-3 centuries before the fall of Rome* by Germano-Latin language contact, that gave birth to those similar characteristics in structure/gramar/word order/conjugaison, etc. »
humanitarian Mon May 11, 2009 9:17 pm GMT
1000 posts is surely enough for this abortion of a thread. Let it die.
______________________________________
Let them have some fun.
Les langues germaniques n'ont rien changé dans le Latin parlé sur le territoire de la France, il faut vous résilier à constater que le français comporte très peu de germanique en lui. Vous n'avez qu'à le comparer à l'allemand, son voisin de l'est et vous n'y trouverez rien en commun. Le français est une sorte de Latin moderne ayant évolué au contact des différents peuples qui sont venus se greffer aux population qui parlaient déjà un dialecte de latin populaire.
On peut donc dire que le français a tout autant modifié sa structure au Moyen-Âge avec la disparition des cas à l'écrit et l'oral et des diphtongaisons à l'oral, qui font que les francophones d'aujourd'hui ne peuvent même pas lire et comprendre un texte de français du XVe siècle par exemple, donc il ne faut chercher très loin, la langue a évolué rapidement mais elle demeure tout autant latine à sa base.
The posts about French are the most crowded. Are ther eonly French here????
<<
The posts about French are the most crowded. Are ther eonly French here???? >>
Some French are trying to deny the fact,that French is Latin-Germanic mixed language .Maybe that is the reason?
<<Some French are trying to deny the fact,that French is Latin-Germanic mixed language .Maybe that is the reason? >>
Look, the French are to be commended in taking a stand and defending it to the end. Bravo! So what if French is LatinGerman mix? They are deserving of our respect.
Lobo : « On peut donc dire que le français a tout autant modifié sa structure au Moyen-Âge avec la disparition des cas à l'écrit et l'oral et des diphtongaisons à l'oral, qui font que les francophones d'aujourd'hui ne peuvent même pas lire et comprendre un texte de français du XVe siècle par exemple, donc il ne faut chercher très loin, la langue a évolué rapidement mais elle demeure tout autant latine à sa base. »
Disons « romane » ou « italique » plutôt que « latine » — c'est plus sûr !... ☻
Indians are the really whites because the Aryans descend from them so they are genetically superior. Ethnic whites are ugly, especially northern European who have disgusting features. The men look all like idiotic drunkards with red cheek and skin showing veins, they are very hairy becuase of quite cold and windy climates. The women are hairy too and look like fat-cellulite sluts. They stink too.
Indians will be the dominant race over false whites.
<<Indians are the really whites because the Aryans descend from them so they are genetically superior. Ethnic whites are ugly, especially northern European who have disgusting features. The men look all like idiotic drunkards with red cheek and skin showing veins, they are very hairy becuase of quite cold and windy climates. The women are hairy too and look like fat-cellulite sluts. They stink too.
Indians will be the dominant race over false whites. >>
Wrong thread perhaps? I think this might go under "Are Italians relly {really} white"?
|