|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
<<What's the point of this thread? >>
I'd say that the main point now is to become the greatest thread in Antimoon history. With 1300+ posts, we're approaching the previous record holder "Vive Le Quebec Libre", which had 1754 posts.
"French, Spanish, English, German, Dutch whatever are all mixed, mongrel languages not one of them "pure" and thats what makes them so brilliant and interesting."
That is what I would call the end of science - everything is the same, all are equal, nothing matters...reminds me of big brother´s "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength"
<<"French, Spanish, English, German, Dutch whatever are all mixed, mongrel languages not one of them "pure" and thats what makes them so brilliant and interesting.">>
Are there any really "pure" languages out there? Perhaps: Basque, Icelandic, Faroese, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, Arabic, Ainu, Sanskrit, Korean, Hawaiian, Inuit, Finnish, Hungarian, or Estonian?
Are there any really "pure" languages out there? Perhaps: Basque, Icelandic, Faroese, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, Arabic, Ainu, Sanskrit, Korean, Hawaiian, Inuit, Finnish, Hungarian, or Estonian?
Of cause, "really pure languages" do not exist, I would even say that the state "really pure" is not defined. But there are differences in age, authenticity and origins.
G7 Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:40 am GMT
Of cause, "really pure languages" do not exist, I would even say that the state "really pure" is not defined. But there are differences in age, authenticity and origins. ___________________________ Basque, Icelandic, Faroese, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, Arabic, Ainu, Sanskrit, Korean, Hawaiian, Inuit, Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian, French, Spanish, English, German, Dutch, Greek, Latin, Japanese, Korean etc. are all not pure but have different ages.
Are there any really "pure" languages out there? Perhaps: Basque, Icelandic, Faroese, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, Arabic, Ainu, Sanskrit, Korean, Hawaiian, Inuit, Finnish, Hungarian, or Estonian?
Basque is not a pure language. More than 50% of its vocabulary is Latin or Spanish .
If french and English both are languages with majoritary latin vocabulary and mainly germanic syntax, why is that one is considered romance and the other germanic??
If french is a latin-germanic creole, is English is a much one? if not, why it is not? 70% of latinates is not enough? the percentage of latin words in french is not that much higher, maybe 85%. 15% more is enough to consider it a romance language but 70% not? syntaxically, is English syntax so much germanic than french syntax?
<<If french and English both are languages with majoritary latin vocabulary and mainly germanic syntax, why is that one is considered romance and the other germanic??
>> Again, it goes back to what part of vocabulary is latinate--not all levels of vocabulary are created equal ;) In English, latinate vocabulary is largely fluff, excess, superfluous. The vast majority of it is not necessary to the language, but is used to add synonyms to existing concepts. Syntactically English is germanic. There are no Latin or Italic syntactical features in English. The root of English is Proto-germanic. French is a Romance language because it evolved from an Italic language. It has germanic features, but it has a greater share of Italic features. It could not be classified as Germanic because its root is Italic. Even if it be deemed a "Latin-Germanic" mixed language as the title of this thread suggests, the Italic features and Latinate vocabulary tip the scale in favor of Romance for French. But it's interesting debate...
In English, latinate vocabulary is largely fluff, excess, superfluous.
If Latin vocabulary is superfluous try to write your message without any Latin derived words (of French ).
<<If Latin vocabulary is superfluous try to write your message without any Latin derived words (of French ). >>
You could also try to write a post in English with no Germanic words -- can that even be done at all?
i didn't say GErmanic words in English were superfluous. Do you really know what superfluous means? In fact if English received so many Latin words (in reality English has more Latin than French words) it was so because English needed them.
<<If Latin vocabulary is superfluous try to write your message without any Latin derived words (of French ). >>
____________________ Ahhh, since my post was not informal language, this is a challenge...I may have to craft a few words to fit the bill. Here is what might serve as a resolution if we had to make do without French words (I tried to use as many existing Modern English words that fit best [eg like 'bit' for 'part'] rather than using an older obsolete English word that fit better [eg. like 'deal' for 'part'] . Of course I have had to take liberty to form new words using English particles, but this is what would have happened in English given the absence of French. Again, it goes back to what bit of wordhoard is latined--not all layers of wordhoard are beshapen evenly ;) In English, latined wordstock is stourly fluff, beyond-striding, overflowish. The wide moredom (mordal) of it is not needworthy to the spokendom, but is brooked to fay samenames to fulstanding ongrasps. Wordwisingly English is germanic. There are no Latin or Italic wordwisedoings in English. The root of English is Ur-germanic. French is a Romance talk because it offolded from an Italic spokedom. It has germanic likeships (likenesses), but it has a greater share of Italic ilkships. It could not be bekinded as Germanic forthy its root is Italic. Even if it be deemed a "Latin-Germanic" mingled tongue as the headword of this thread upbrings, the Italic likeships and Latined wordhoard tip the scale in giveness (kindness, goodwill) of Romance for French. But it's lifecaring betalk (rede)... --mind you, my best attempt :\ I realize it is rather comical :)
<<i didn't say GErmanic words in English were superfluous. Do you really know what superfluous means? In fact if English received so many Latin words (in reality English has more Latin than French words) it was so because English needed them. >>
Well, of course not all Latinate words in English are superfluous, but of the 70% alluded to above in previous post the great majority of these ARE superfluous. Wis, English contains many essential or near essential indisposable Latinate words...that goes without saying, just look at my above post to see which ones they are |