|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
As you can see between the original post and the pseudo-English post, that there is no material difference between the two languages--they are both "English" (sort of).
Latinate words do not make a whole lot of difference as to the character of English, and English would still have the same feel were they not present at all.
Leasnam : « Latinate words do not make a whole lot of difference as to the character of English, and English would still have the same feel were they not present at all. »
Tout à fait contestable : « ♫ words do not make a whole lot of ♫ as to the ♫ of English, and English would still have the same feel were they not ♫ at all. » Mais ceci nous éloigne du sujet : le français.
<<Tout à fait contestable : « ♫ words do not make a whole lot of ♫ as to the ♫ of English, and English would still have the same feel were they not ♫ at all. »
>> If the musical notes are representing of the frensh word removed then it seems like English is not as dependent of latinates as I once thought
<<<<Tout à fait contestable : « ♫ words do not make a whole lot of ♫ as to the ♫ of English, and English would still have the same feel were they not ♫ at all. »
>> If the musical notes are representing of the frensh word removed then it seems like English is not as dependent of latinates as I once thought >> Yeah. Four words out of thirty. How would English fare without em.
A creole is a language whose vocabulary is massively borrowed from another one, but syntax remains unchanged . So English is a creole because vocabulary has a lot of Latin and French words. Languages don't change their syntax and if they would, only after vocabulary. So how come French is a Germanic creole when most of the vocabulary is still Latin? that's very unlikely, existing creoles don't follow that pattern: it's vocabulary what makes them creoles, not syntax.
Creolization is a matter of scientific dispute. In wikipedia you can find a differentiated article about different theories of creolization. The theory that fits best to the situation of the Germanic settlers immigrating en masse into declining Roman empire during the migration period is the imperfect L2 learning hypothesis that claims that a pidgin can be primarily the result of the imperfect L2 learning of the dominant lexifier language by the slaves. Research on naturalistic L2 processes has revealed a number of features of "interlanguage systems" that one also sees in pidgins and creoles:
invariant verb forms derived from the infinitive or the least marked finite verb form; loss of determiners or use as determiners of demonstrative pronouns, adjectives or adverbs; placement of a negative particle in preverbal position; use of adverbs to express modality; fixed single word order with no inversion in questions; reduced or absent nominal plural marking. Imperfect L2 learning is compatible with other approaches, notably the European dialect origin hypothesis and the universalist models of language transmission. Most of these features characterize the difference between Latin and French. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_language Based on 19th century intuitions, approaches underlying the imperfect L2 learning hypothesis have been followed up in the works of Schumann (1978), Anderson (1983), Seuren & Wekker (1986), Arends et al. (1995), Geeslin (2002), Hamilton & Coslett (2008).
<<A creole is a language whose vocabulary is massively borrowed from another one, but syntax remains unchanged . So English is a creole because vocabulary has a lot of Latin and French words. Languages don't change their syntax and if they would, only after vocabulary. So how come French is a Germanic creole when most of the vocabulary is still Latin? that's very unlikely, existing creoles don't follow that pattern: it's vocabulary what makes them creoles, not syntax. >>
I couldn't disagree more.. The definition of a creole has nothing to do with borrowed vocabulary. "a creolized language; a pidgin that has become the native language of a speech community. Compare pidgin." -- English is a creole because it is a blend of Anglo Saxon and Old Scandinavian languages and has lexical and grammatical aspects of both. English changed its syntax because of Norse language. There is not more vocabularie borrowing from Norse in English as Norse syntacts in English Vietnamese is a language with 60-70% lexical borrowing from Chinese, but is not creole. Vocabulary has nothing to see with creolsation. French has largely Latine and Romance vocabulary and has aspects of Celtic and Germanic such as phonologie. It is syntacts to make a language creole. Creoles has a more simple grammatic than the parent language
guest guest : « If the ♪ ♪ are ♪ of the frensh word ♪ then it seems like English is not as ♪ of ♪ as I once thought ».
On peut continuer indéfiniment.
So, what DOES makes french a latin-germanic mixed language? Perhaps someone can summarise this theory.
"English is a creole because it is a blend of Anglo Saxon and Old Scandinavian languages and has lexical and grammatical aspects of both. English changed its syntax because of Norse language. There is not more vocabularie borrowing from Norse in English as Norse syntacts in English "
I don't know if this theory is an adequate explanation for all the grammatical differences found in English that are not present in other Germanic languages. Some linguists have proposed that English has substratal features from the Brythonic Celtic languages. I don't whether that would make it a creole, but it's not a fanciful theory.
>> Some linguists have proposed tha English has substratal features from the Brythonic Celtic languages. I don't whether that would make it a creole, bu t's not a fanciful theory <<
That is a *very* fanciful theory. English has almost no influence from the Celtic languages.
If it's supposed that a group of adult learners normally impart some of the grammar from their native language onto an acquired language, especially in the days before mass print, radio, tv etc, then why it should it be so fanciful? It's been shown through genetic surveys that the English are still, in the majority, of indigenous pre-Anglo-Saxon origin.
<<If it's supposed that a group of adult learners normally impart some of the grammar from their native language onto an acquired language, especially in the days before mass print, radio, tv etc, then why it should it be so fanciful? It's been shown through genetic surveys that the English are still, in the majority, of indigenous pre-Anglo-Saxon origin. >>
les preuves? --- <<On peut continuer indéfiniment. >> Oui, mais celui soyez injustifié car il ne contient aucune valeur au fil qui est au sujet de Français
<<I don't know if this theory is an adequate explanation for all the grammatical differences found in English that are not present in other Germanic languages. >>
What are the grammatical differences you are referring to? If someone was to happen upon the English language today, as is, with no record of its history, I doubt that they would classify English as a Celtic language, or that it had Celtic influeces. |