Germanic languages have more Romance and Latin borrowings than vice-versa, not to mention English that has replaced most of its initial Germanic vocabulary by a Romance-Latin one.
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
"<<Romance did not just add all the Latin and Germanic elements into a double language, this would have been too much for the simple people. Romance reduced (halved) the convolute of the two highly synthetic and complex languages into a new language family with less complex grammar and with vocabularies more based on Latin than on Germanic. >>
What are the sources of this nonsense? "
_______________________________________________
Please refer to the begining of the thread.
What are the sources of this nonsense? "
_______________________________________________
Please refer to the begining of the thread.
<<not to mention English that has replaced most of its initial Germanic vocabulary by a Romance-Latin one. >>
What is meant by "initial Germanic vocabulary"?
English maintains its Germanic core vocabulary almost intact. English dialects (such as Northern English English) even more so.
<<Germanic languages have more Romance and Latin borrowings than vice-versa>>
This is true, but Romance languages have more germanic grammar borrowings than vice versa (--English has '0' Romance/Latin grammatical features). Grammatically, Romance languages are more like Germanic languages than like Latin.
What is meant by "initial Germanic vocabulary"?
English maintains its Germanic core vocabulary almost intact. English dialects (such as Northern English English) even more so.
<<Germanic languages have more Romance and Latin borrowings than vice-versa>>
This is true, but Romance languages have more germanic grammar borrowings than vice versa (--English has '0' Romance/Latin grammatical features). Grammatically, Romance languages are more like Germanic languages than like Latin.
<<English maintains its Germanic core vocabulary almost intact. English dialects (such as Northern English English) even more so. >>
65% of English vocabulary is Latin-Romance.
<<This is true, but Romance languages have more germanic grammar borrowings than vice versa (--English has '0' Romance/Latin grammatical features). Grammatically, Romance languages are more like Germanic languages than like Latin. >>
Romance Languages don't have grammatical borrowings from Germanic languages . That is absurd. English -s in plural names derives from French. Also for a long time it was considered not correct to place prepositions at the end of sentences , which is typical in Germanic languages but absent in Latin.
65% of English vocabulary is Latin-Romance.
<<This is true, but Romance languages have more germanic grammar borrowings than vice versa (--English has '0' Romance/Latin grammatical features). Grammatically, Romance languages are more like Germanic languages than like Latin. >>
Romance Languages don't have grammatical borrowings from Germanic languages . That is absurd. English -s in plural names derives from French. Also for a long time it was considered not correct to place prepositions at the end of sentences , which is typical in Germanic languages but absent in Latin.
<<Grammatically, Romance languages are more like Germanic languages than like Latin.
>>
Let's take Italian and German, two geographically close languages. Is really Italian closer to German grammatically? Let's see, Spanish is not noun inflected, German is. Spanish has many verb conjugations like Latin, German has only 5, pretty much like English. German has rigid word order, Italian hasn't. Adjectives are placed before the noun in German but in Italian adjectives are preceded by the nouns they modify, and so on. Really Romance languages have evolved with respect to Latin (pretty much like German with respect to Old Germanic or God knows what language existed before), but what is sure is the fact that still all aspects of Romance languages , including grammar, point to a Latin basis.
>>
Let's take Italian and German, two geographically close languages. Is really Italian closer to German grammatically? Let's see, Spanish is not noun inflected, German is. Spanish has many verb conjugations like Latin, German has only 5, pretty much like English. German has rigid word order, Italian hasn't. Adjectives are placed before the noun in German but in Italian adjectives are preceded by the nouns they modify, and so on. Really Romance languages have evolved with respect to Latin (pretty much like German with respect to Old Germanic or God knows what language existed before), but what is sure is the fact that still all aspects of Romance languages , including grammar, point to a Latin basis.
English -s in plural names is from Old English,not from French:wealh-wealhas,fugol-fugolas.
Low German has -s in plural names too:arbeider-arbeiders.West Frisian: ynwenner-ynwenners.
Latin and Italian has -i in plural names:filius-filii.
French eu=Dutch eu;German,Swedish ö;Danish,Norwegian ø.
Low German has -s in plural names too:arbeider-arbeiders.West Frisian: ynwenner-ynwenners.
Latin and Italian has -i in plural names:filius-filii.
French eu=Dutch eu;German,Swedish ö;Danish,Norwegian ø.
There is not a single Germanic language that uses -s as the only plural marker aside from English. Probably French and its influence played a role despite English already had this kind of inflection.
As for Latin, it has -i in plural names but also -s, it depends on the case. For example the second declension, plural: domini (nominative) domini (vocative) dominoS (acusative) dominorum(genitive) domini (dative) domini (ablative) . Perhaps do you pretend to demonstrate that -s as the plural marker in Romance languages derives from Germanic too?
As for Latin, it has -i in plural names but also -s, it depends on the case. For example the second declension, plural: domini (nominative) domini (vocative) dominoS (acusative) dominorum(genitive) domini (dative) domini (ablative) . Perhaps do you pretend to demonstrate that -s as the plural marker in Romance languages derives from Germanic too?
<<There is not a single Germanic language that uses -s as the only plural marker aside from English.>>
This is untrue.
Frisian, Dutch and Low Saxon languages also use -s (cf. Plattdeutsch naam ("name") > naams ("names") just like in English.
Dutch appel > appels ("apples")
French had no influence on English plural formation.
And Romance languages are partially germanic in their grammatical formations and constructions; and in their syntax.
You cannot use Modern German vs Modern Italian to determine this. That is unscientific. You must look at the origina and subsequent development of each language.
For instance, both English and Spanish use present participle for present progressive, but this is a parallel coincidental development in each language. Looking at the modern languages, one might mistakingly come to the wrong conclusion that this feature came to both from Indo-European, that English and Spanish inherited it. This would be false. See?
This is untrue.
Frisian, Dutch and Low Saxon languages also use -s (cf. Plattdeutsch naam ("name") > naams ("names") just like in English.
Dutch appel > appels ("apples")
French had no influence on English plural formation.
And Romance languages are partially germanic in their grammatical formations and constructions; and in their syntax.
You cannot use Modern German vs Modern Italian to determine this. That is unscientific. You must look at the origina and subsequent development of each language.
For instance, both English and Spanish use present participle for present progressive, but this is a parallel coincidental development in each language. Looking at the modern languages, one might mistakingly come to the wrong conclusion that this feature came to both from Indo-European, that English and Spanish inherited it. This would be false. See?
Leticia Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:38 pm GMT
... Perhaps do you pretend to demonstrate that -s as the plural marker in Romance languages derives from Germanic too? ....
________________________________________________
At least you will admitt that it doesn´t com from Latin. Why not consider Germanic as a source? Dutch, the original language of the Francs, uses until today -s as the plural marker: nouilles (pates) > noedels ("noodles/Nudeln")
... Perhaps do you pretend to demonstrate that -s as the plural marker in Romance languages derives from Germanic too? ....
________________________________________________
At least you will admitt that it doesn´t com from Latin. Why not consider Germanic as a source? Dutch, the original language of the Francs, uses until today -s as the plural marker: nouilles (pates) > noedels ("noodles/Nudeln")
Old Frisian,Old Saxon,Old English had plural endings -as.Maybe, French has -s plural endings borrowed from Old Frankish.This Germanic language or group of dialects was influenced by ingvaeonic germanic language or dialect Old Frisian."Olla vogala" in Old Frankish becomes "alle vogelen" in Middle Low Franconian and later-"alle vogels" in Dutch.
Maybe,Spanish,Portuguese plural endings -as,-os and Catalan,Occitan,Provençal endings -s were borrowed from Old Germanic dialects ( Vandals or Visigoths).
<<both English and Spanish use present participle >>
¿What doest it prove?
Both English and Spanish use -ed and -ado to denote imperfect past too.
<<At least you will admitt that it doesn´t com from Latin. Why not consider Germanic as a source? >>
No, I don't admitt it doesn't come from Latin because it would be absurd. It's well attested that plural -s of Romance languages derives from Latin. It's English that abandoned the rest of plural forms like -en due to the French influence. Visigoths didn't speak any Germanic language when they ruled the Roman provinces since they learnt English many centuries ago thence it's nonsensical to say that plural -s derives from "Old Germanic languages spoken by the Visigoths". Romance -s derives from the acusative -s .
¿What doest it prove?
Both English and Spanish use -ed and -ado to denote imperfect past too.
<<At least you will admitt that it doesn´t com from Latin. Why not consider Germanic as a source? >>
No, I don't admitt it doesn't come from Latin because it would be absurd. It's well attested that plural -s of Romance languages derives from Latin. It's English that abandoned the rest of plural forms like -en due to the French influence. Visigoths didn't speak any Germanic language when they ruled the Roman provinces since they learnt English many centuries ago thence it's nonsensical to say that plural -s derives from "Old Germanic languages spoken by the Visigoths". Romance -s derives from the acusative -s .
"Maybe,Spanish,Portuguese plural endings -as,-os and Catalan,Occitan,Provençal endings -s were borrowed from Old Germanic dialects ( Vandals or Visigoths)"
-- De plus en plus ridicule !
La Sardaigne n'a jamais été envahie par le moindre Germain, sa langue a évolué de façon autonome et pourtant ses pluriels sont en '-s'.
Pour la 1001e fois, ne confondez pas INFLUENCE et CONVERGENCE.
Le pluriel en '-s' était une virtualité présente dans les langues ouest-germaniques (en compétition avec les solution en '-n', '-r' et l'inflexion du radical). En néerlandais il est appliqué aux mots en '-l', '-r', '-tje' et autres.
En anglais, les pluriels en '-n' (bretheren, children) et par inflexion de la voyelle radicale (feet, mice, men) ont été réduits à une place marginale, le '-s' a été encouragé à s'étendre au contact du français (phénomène de convergence) mais s'il n'avait pas été déjà présent en vieil-anglais il ne se serait jamais généralisé.
Dans les Balkans et en Italie, les pluriels masculins sont en '-i'.
L'italien a influencé le serbo-croate? ou vice-versa?
Non. Cette convergence n'a été que la réalisation d'une solution déjà présente dans les 2 langues, pas l'effet d'une supposée 'influence'.
-- De plus en plus ridicule !
La Sardaigne n'a jamais été envahie par le moindre Germain, sa langue a évolué de façon autonome et pourtant ses pluriels sont en '-s'.
Pour la 1001e fois, ne confondez pas INFLUENCE et CONVERGENCE.
Le pluriel en '-s' était une virtualité présente dans les langues ouest-germaniques (en compétition avec les solution en '-n', '-r' et l'inflexion du radical). En néerlandais il est appliqué aux mots en '-l', '-r', '-tje' et autres.
En anglais, les pluriels en '-n' (bretheren, children) et par inflexion de la voyelle radicale (feet, mice, men) ont été réduits à une place marginale, le '-s' a été encouragé à s'étendre au contact du français (phénomène de convergence) mais s'il n'avait pas été déjà présent en vieil-anglais il ne se serait jamais généralisé.
Dans les Balkans et en Italie, les pluriels masculins sont en '-i'.
L'italien a influencé le serbo-croate? ou vice-versa?
Non. Cette convergence n'a été que la réalisation d'une solution déjà présente dans les 2 langues, pas l'effet d'une supposée 'influence'.
Visigoths were Germanic people and they spoke their Germanic dialects.French hadn't influenced Old English (fugol-fugalas,hugol-hugalas) or Old Frisian and Old Saxon.
Sorry, I made a mistake:
since they learnt LATIN (not English)many centuries ago
<<Visigoths were Germanic people and they spoke their Germanic dialects>>
Yes they were Germanic people, but they were in close contact with Rome as federati and when they invaded the Italian and Iberian peninsulae they no longer spoke their former Germanic language but Latin. Even more, I don't think they spoke that bad Latin since they had been in contact with Rome for centuries. Definitely they didn't speak Latin worse than other tribes of the Roman sphere.
since they learnt LATIN (not English)many centuries ago
<<Visigoths were Germanic people and they spoke their Germanic dialects>>
Yes they were Germanic people, but they were in close contact with Rome as federati and when they invaded the Italian and Iberian peninsulae they no longer spoke their former Germanic language but Latin. Even more, I don't think they spoke that bad Latin since they had been in contact with Rome for centuries. Definitely they didn't speak Latin worse than other tribes of the Roman sphere.