I had all those problem when I was learning French and Italian. I am native German-speaker.
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
Is it so germanic? : « I'm basing this on my own personal experience and those of my colleagues working at an Alliance française in Germany. If French is, as some claim, so germanic in nature (some have claimed that French is 50% germanic), then why.... [...] ».
Je me fais l'avocat du diable : les difficultés que rencontrent les germanophones dans l'apprentissage du français ne sont pas en soi une preuve de proximité/cousinage/influence/parallélisme etc (ni de l'inverse). Il suffirait a contrario de relever les innombrables obstacles qui freinent l'acquisition de l'allemand par les anglophones pour en déduire que ces deux langues relèvent de deux groupes linguistiques distincts — ce qui n'est pas le cas.
Je me fais l'avocat du diable : les difficultés que rencontrent les germanophones dans l'apprentissage du français ne sont pas en soi une preuve de proximité/cousinage/influence/parallélisme etc (ni de l'inverse). Il suffirait a contrario de relever les innombrables obstacles qui freinent l'acquisition de l'allemand par les anglophones pour en déduire que ces deux langues relèvent de deux groupes linguistiques distincts — ce qui n'est pas le cas.
""CID : « The title of this thread should read "What makes the Romance Languages Latin-Germanic mixtures" then. Why single out French, as it is only slightly more influenced by Germanic than the others. »
Absolument. Ce qui de toute manière aurait conduit à la même conclusion : les langues romanes sont... romanes ! "
This sounds like a concession or acknowledgement that Romance languages are German-Latin mixtures
Absolument. Ce qui de toute manière aurait conduit à la même conclusion : les langues romanes sont... romanes ! "
This sounds like a concession or acknowledgement that Romance languages are German-Latin mixtures
Guest : « This sounds like a concession or acknowledgement that Romance languages are German-Latin mixtures ».
T'as dû mal lire car c'est l'exact inverse.
T'as dû mal lire car c'est l'exact inverse.
Is it so germanic? Sun May 31, 2009 6:39 pm GMT
I'm basing this on my own personal experience and those of my colleagues working at an Alliance française in Germany. If French is, as some claim, so germanic in nature (some have claimed that French is 50% germanic), then why....
Do many Germans have difficulty with French word order?
Do many Germans misuse French reflexive pronouns?
.....
Interesting to see how such a "germanic" language would be so hard for German speakers to speak (not just to speak, but speak well).
Just a thought.
____________________________________
Dear guest,
the question is NOT, whether French belongs to Romance language group, it centainly does. The question was and is: is French (and are the other Romance langages) a true, 100%, descendant of Latin, like Greek is a true, 100%, descendant of Ancient Greek and modern German a 100% true descendant of Old German. Or did some kind of creolization process took place during the migration period and during the following centuries of heavy Germanic settlement in Europe and especially in what is today France?
I'm basing this on my own personal experience and those of my colleagues working at an Alliance française in Germany. If French is, as some claim, so germanic in nature (some have claimed that French is 50% germanic), then why....
Do many Germans have difficulty with French word order?
Do many Germans misuse French reflexive pronouns?
.....
Interesting to see how such a "germanic" language would be so hard for German speakers to speak (not just to speak, but speak well).
Just a thought.
____________________________________
Dear guest,
the question is NOT, whether French belongs to Romance language group, it centainly does. The question was and is: is French (and are the other Romance langages) a true, 100%, descendant of Latin, like Greek is a true, 100%, descendant of Ancient Greek and modern German a 100% true descendant of Old German. Or did some kind of creolization process took place during the migration period and during the following centuries of heavy Germanic settlement in Europe and especially in what is today France?
Well, of course some mixture, or as you put it, "creolization" , would occur when you have an empire collapsing, being overrun by hordes of tribes from the outside. I think that goes without saying.
Has anyone postulated that Romance languages were just the inverse? That they are 100% pure descnedants of Latin?
I never thought of them this way,,,,
Has anyone postulated that Romance languages were just the inverse? That they are 100% pure descnedants of Latin?
I never thought of them this way,,,,
" and modern German a 100% true descendant of Old German. "
Do you really think that modern German is a true descendant of old German?..."
Once again the old same "purity" germanic obsessions when it concerns German things...
Ouest, you are German, no?
Do you really think that modern German is a true descendant of old German?..."
Once again the old same "purity" germanic obsessions when it concerns German things...
Ouest, you are German, no?
German is from Old German.
English is from Old English.
Greek is from Ancient Greek (we just say Ancient instead of Old)
French is from Old French
Italian is from Old Italian
Spanish is from Old Spanish..
I dont really see the point of the person who was going on about all this 100% stuff. French is 100% from Old French. Whats your point? Are you trying to say that French isnt from Classical Latin? If you are, please try to make a better comparison between modern and old forms of a language.
Comparing Old German to Modern German isnt at all the same thing as comparing Classical Latin to Modern French. You should know that by now. ;)
English is from Old English.
Greek is from Ancient Greek (we just say Ancient instead of Old)
French is from Old French
Italian is from Old Italian
Spanish is from Old Spanish..
I dont really see the point of the person who was going on about all this 100% stuff. French is 100% from Old French. Whats your point? Are you trying to say that French isnt from Classical Latin? If you are, please try to make a better comparison between modern and old forms of a language.
Comparing Old German to Modern German isnt at all the same thing as comparing Classical Latin to Modern French. You should know that by now. ;)
"Dear guest,
the question is NOT, whether French belongs to Romance language group, it centainly does. The question was and is: is French (and are the other Romance langages) a true, 100%, descendant of Latin, like Greek is a true, 100%, descendant of Ancient Greek and modern German a 100% true descendant of Old German. Or did some kind of creolization process took place during the migration period and during the following centuries of heavy Germanic settlement in Europe and especially in what is today France? "
---- Im going to use Ouest's logic here.
Russian:
Old Church Slavonic: literary language, not really spoken.
Old East Slavic language: a language higly influenced by Old Church Slavonic, though this was the true spoken language.
Modern Russian derives from Old East Slavonic.
French:
Classical Latin: literary language, not spoken by the masses
Vulgar Latin: the spoken form of Latin, highly different than Classical Latin in its phonology and morphology.
Modern French derives from Vulgar Latin.
Using Ouest's logic, of course French isnt a direct descendent of Classical Latin, just as Russian isnt directly from Old Church Slavonic. However, to go as far as to say that because French isnt directly from a form of Latin that no other language on earth is directly from, while German and Greek are "pure" is absolutely ridiculous.
That's like me saying that French isnt pure since its not directly from Turkish. Youre comparing apples and oranges Ouest. French is just as much a product of old French as High German is a product of Old High German. Any twit could figure that out.
the question is NOT, whether French belongs to Romance language group, it centainly does. The question was and is: is French (and are the other Romance langages) a true, 100%, descendant of Latin, like Greek is a true, 100%, descendant of Ancient Greek and modern German a 100% true descendant of Old German. Or did some kind of creolization process took place during the migration period and during the following centuries of heavy Germanic settlement in Europe and especially in what is today France? "
---- Im going to use Ouest's logic here.
Russian:
Old Church Slavonic: literary language, not really spoken.
Old East Slavic language: a language higly influenced by Old Church Slavonic, though this was the true spoken language.
Modern Russian derives from Old East Slavonic.
French:
Classical Latin: literary language, not spoken by the masses
Vulgar Latin: the spoken form of Latin, highly different than Classical Latin in its phonology and morphology.
Modern French derives from Vulgar Latin.
Using Ouest's logic, of course French isnt a direct descendent of Classical Latin, just as Russian isnt directly from Old Church Slavonic. However, to go as far as to say that because French isnt directly from a form of Latin that no other language on earth is directly from, while German and Greek are "pure" is absolutely ridiculous.
That's like me saying that French isnt pure since its not directly from Turkish. Youre comparing apples and oranges Ouest. French is just as much a product of old French as High German is a product of Old High German. Any twit could figure that out.
If you were to consider German's history, compared to French's history (in stages), youd end up with the following:
Modern High German Modern French
Middle High German Middle French
Old High German Old French
West Germanic Proto Gallo-Roman, Proto-Romance
Proto Germanic Vulgar Latin
Classical Latin
Old Latin
Italic Languages
The development of the two languages shows that Modern German is a direct product of Old High German, which is a direct product of West Germanic, which in itself is a direct product of Proto Germanic.
French is a direct product of Old French, which (if you go back far enough, over a thousand years) is a product of very ancient Italic languages.
Its only because of complicated social upheavals and language culture that Romance languages have many more steps in their development than Germanic languages do. Greek has a long and complex history as well (going all the way back to Linear B). I really dont understand this whole "one language is true and 100%", thats just a very badly infomed personal opinion.
Modern High German Modern French
Middle High German Middle French
Old High German Old French
West Germanic Proto Gallo-Roman, Proto-Romance
Proto Germanic Vulgar Latin
Classical Latin
Old Latin
Italic Languages
The development of the two languages shows that Modern German is a direct product of Old High German, which is a direct product of West Germanic, which in itself is a direct product of Proto Germanic.
French is a direct product of Old French, which (if you go back far enough, over a thousand years) is a product of very ancient Italic languages.
Its only because of complicated social upheavals and language culture that Romance languages have many more steps in their development than Germanic languages do. Greek has a long and complex history as well (going all the way back to Linear B). I really dont understand this whole "one language is true and 100%", thats just a very badly infomed personal opinion.
<<Vulgar Latin: the spoken form of Latin, highly different than Classical Latin in its phonology and morphology.
>>
If Vulgar Latin is so sufficiently different from Classical Latin, as to for all intents and purposes be a different language, then why not call it a different language with a different name? Is it because it's believed to be a descendant of the Classical?
Is Latin the only language to have this queer phenomenon? How much does koine differ from Classical Greek? --in comparable respects as Vulgar Latin from Classical Latin?
I'm no expert, but koine appears to be simply a next stage in the evolution of Greek...
Many languages, past and present, have had spoken and literary versions, yet the literary versions never seem like different languages--they seem to be nothing more than a more logical, more conservative version of the selfsame tongue.
>>
If Vulgar Latin is so sufficiently different from Classical Latin, as to for all intents and purposes be a different language, then why not call it a different language with a different name? Is it because it's believed to be a descendant of the Classical?
Is Latin the only language to have this queer phenomenon? How much does koine differ from Classical Greek? --in comparable respects as Vulgar Latin from Classical Latin?
I'm no expert, but koine appears to be simply a next stage in the evolution of Greek...
Many languages, past and present, have had spoken and literary versions, yet the literary versions never seem like different languages--they seem to be nothing more than a more logical, more conservative version of the selfsame tongue.
To CID:
If you want to over-simplify all this, yeah, Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin are two completely different languages (we might as well classify one in the Sino-tibetan language family...that might make some people on this forum happy). But for the sake of some accuracy, look at the facts:
Latin in its early forms goes back to around 200-300 BCE. The age of "Classical Latin" is anywhere from 1BCE to 1 CE. This is the form of Latin that people still study to this day, relatively unchanged. Was Classical Latin spoken? Yes, without doubt it was spoken. Was it spoken in its written form (since thats all we have today, its not like the ancient Romans left us tape recordings and CD's of their normal conversations)? Probably not in all situations. We even know that Cicero, who wrote in a Latin that we study probably spoke quite differently (we see quite a lot of differences in his formal writing and his informal correspondance, differences that go beyond just word choice).
Classical Latin was a very higly stylised, formal and rigid form of Latin. It was the Latin that was written. In antiquity, the Romans strived to produce a literature as glamorous and elegant as the Greeks. Their statesmen wanted to project this image of power, which was reflected in "old Roman values". This culture bred the rigidness of Classical Latin. To put it blunty, people wanted to show off and put their absolute best foot forward lingusitically speaking. Everything in Ancient Rome was done top down. Whatever a small group of elites wanted, they did, and the masses followed (for the most part). The spoken language, however, did change and evolve. Most linguists agree that this change had already set in during the late classical period and kept going. English's spoken form is not the same as it was 400 years ago, not at all. Chaucer's English, spoken, would be very difficult (if not impossible) for someone to understand today.
The spoken form of Latin, which probably started out identical to Classical Latin, eventually was so different from the rigid written form in each region of the empire, that one could start to call these dialects of Latin the precursors of modern romance languages.
It's not like the Romans just woke up one day and said, "Hey, lets just speak a totally screwed up form of Latin, just for the hell of it!" All this evolution and change took place over a thousand years! One reason that Classical Latin kept its form, almost unchanged was because it was considered a written lingua franca and still held enormous prestige (especially among Romans of Late Antiquity who were always longing for the "glory days" of the Empire).
We see quite similar situations (alebit not the exact same of course) in other languages. Imagine if English had kept Shakespeare's way of writing as its standard throughout the ages? Wouldnt you be speaking a form of English that is quite different than the written word? Because of the socio-political culture that developped in post antiquity, people kept forcing the written language to follow the spoken language. When we write formally, we do not write as we speak (at least we're encouraged not to). There are standards that we are expected to uphold. If you listened to recordings of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, youd probably say "who the hell talks like that anymore?" No one does, but older forms of language still carry weight (and even that "older" form is only 1 or 2 hundred years old, not thousands).
By just saying that languages have a literary and spoken form, and they tend to be similar is too simplistic.
Classical Latin is a stage in the evolution of Latin. It's a stage that learned people have decided to preserve, while the spoken language moved on and on.
I wish people would recognise that this is not linguistic theory. It is accepted fact. Romance languages did NOT evolve directly from Classical Latin. If we believed that, we would be eliminating almost 700 years of history. A lot can happen in 700 years.
If you want to over-simplify all this, yeah, Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin are two completely different languages (we might as well classify one in the Sino-tibetan language family...that might make some people on this forum happy). But for the sake of some accuracy, look at the facts:
Latin in its early forms goes back to around 200-300 BCE. The age of "Classical Latin" is anywhere from 1BCE to 1 CE. This is the form of Latin that people still study to this day, relatively unchanged. Was Classical Latin spoken? Yes, without doubt it was spoken. Was it spoken in its written form (since thats all we have today, its not like the ancient Romans left us tape recordings and CD's of their normal conversations)? Probably not in all situations. We even know that Cicero, who wrote in a Latin that we study probably spoke quite differently (we see quite a lot of differences in his formal writing and his informal correspondance, differences that go beyond just word choice).
Classical Latin was a very higly stylised, formal and rigid form of Latin. It was the Latin that was written. In antiquity, the Romans strived to produce a literature as glamorous and elegant as the Greeks. Their statesmen wanted to project this image of power, which was reflected in "old Roman values". This culture bred the rigidness of Classical Latin. To put it blunty, people wanted to show off and put their absolute best foot forward lingusitically speaking. Everything in Ancient Rome was done top down. Whatever a small group of elites wanted, they did, and the masses followed (for the most part). The spoken language, however, did change and evolve. Most linguists agree that this change had already set in during the late classical period and kept going. English's spoken form is not the same as it was 400 years ago, not at all. Chaucer's English, spoken, would be very difficult (if not impossible) for someone to understand today.
The spoken form of Latin, which probably started out identical to Classical Latin, eventually was so different from the rigid written form in each region of the empire, that one could start to call these dialects of Latin the precursors of modern romance languages.
It's not like the Romans just woke up one day and said, "Hey, lets just speak a totally screwed up form of Latin, just for the hell of it!" All this evolution and change took place over a thousand years! One reason that Classical Latin kept its form, almost unchanged was because it was considered a written lingua franca and still held enormous prestige (especially among Romans of Late Antiquity who were always longing for the "glory days" of the Empire).
We see quite similar situations (alebit not the exact same of course) in other languages. Imagine if English had kept Shakespeare's way of writing as its standard throughout the ages? Wouldnt you be speaking a form of English that is quite different than the written word? Because of the socio-political culture that developped in post antiquity, people kept forcing the written language to follow the spoken language. When we write formally, we do not write as we speak (at least we're encouraged not to). There are standards that we are expected to uphold. If you listened to recordings of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, youd probably say "who the hell talks like that anymore?" No one does, but older forms of language still carry weight (and even that "older" form is only 1 or 2 hundred years old, not thousands).
By just saying that languages have a literary and spoken form, and they tend to be similar is too simplistic.
Classical Latin is a stage in the evolution of Latin. It's a stage that learned people have decided to preserve, while the spoken language moved on and on.
I wish people would recognise that this is not linguistic theory. It is accepted fact. Romance languages did NOT evolve directly from Classical Latin. If we believed that, we would be eliminating almost 700 years of history. A lot can happen in 700 years.
Good analysis Joshqc. Just to add, Old Church Slavonic is still a written language today, mainly for the Orthodox Church, but no one speaks it anymore. It's a highly stylized and rigid form of our slavic language from which modern Russian has its roots, but is very different from.
Also, Sanskrit had a very similar situation to Latin. Sanskrit was the written lingua franca for centuries and centuries while the spoken forms of the language grew ever further away from it. For a long time, many people wrote in Sanskrit even though the vast majority of people couldnt speak it.
Also, Sanskrit had a very similar situation to Latin. Sanskrit was the written lingua franca for centuries and centuries while the spoken forms of the language grew ever further away from it. For a long time, many people wrote in Sanskrit even though the vast majority of people couldnt speak it.
Very right Russia. Sanskrit was the classical written language that was preserved in its old form, though the spoken languages (Prakrit and Apabhramsha) eventually became so distant from Sanskrit that modern languages like Hindi emerged. Unlike Latin and the Romance languages, the documentation Sanskrit's demise as a spoken language has been well-documented. If this linguistic phenomenon is so "queer", then why are we seeing it repeated in other parts of the world? I would love to hear an expert in Chinese talk about the preservation of classical forms of language while spoken languages evolved away. I would like to hear a Finnish expert talk about the huge differences between spoken and written Finnish. It's clear to me that some languages evolve in a straight line, while others have a bumpy ride. This is not due to the nature of the language, but moreso to the society and culture that they are spoken in.
So if Hindi can develop from its older forms, which in turn developed from much older forms of evolved Sanskrit, which in turn evolved from Classical Sanskrit, then why cannot French evolve from Old French, Gallo-Roman, Vulgar Latin and Classical Latin? It seems odd for one language family to be "allowed" its evolution and another to have it denied by people.
So if Hindi can develop from its older forms, which in turn developed from much older forms of evolved Sanskrit, which in turn evolved from Classical Sanskrit, then why cannot French evolve from Old French, Gallo-Roman, Vulgar Latin and Classical Latin? It seems odd for one language family to be "allowed" its evolution and another to have it denied by people.