|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
"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."
-- This is right. The Visigoths had been touring the whole Roman Empire for over hundred years before they finally settled in Hispania. As usual at that time, thay had been recruiting their troops all along the road, very few of them were of Germanic origin, except for a tiny leading caste.
"Definitely they didn't speak Latin worse than other tribes of the Roman sphere."
-- The point is that they never spoke Latin actually, but the alleged "vulgar Latin", which possibly was actually a quite different language and should rather be called "old Italian" (cf. Yves Cortez), a language that was substantially different from Latin, with a grammar natively closer to Germanic languages, and that was the real ancestor of all Romance languages.
Mr Cortez' hypothesis may seem exagerate and a bit too steep on various points, but it deserves to be examinated and debated:
http://yvescortez.canalblog.com/
Dans les Balkans et en Italie, les pluriels masculins sont en '-i'.
L'italien a influencé le serbo-croate? ou vice-versa?
Yes, Italian influenced Croatian Language. Do you know the Serenissima Republic of Venice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Croatia
In Venice they spoke (and some people still speak I guess) Venetian which is a gallo-italian language and uses -s , not -i to denote plural.
As for Yves Cortes I've read his blog and his theories are too speculative and unscientific to me. We all know which language were spoken in Italy when Rome was just a Latin city and didn't built any empire: celtic languages in the North, Greek in the south , and in Central Italy we have Etruscan (non Indoeuropean) on one hand and on the other hand, Latin, Umbrian, Oscan and Faliscan. So which of these candidates is the misterious "Proto Italian" from which Romance languages derive? I would like Cortez to say it clearly.
"In Venice they spoke (and some people still speak I guess) Venetian which is a gallo-italian language and uses -s , not -i to denote plural."
-- Absolutely wrong!
You are perhaps confusing with the clusters of Rheto-Romance languages (Friulan, Ladino, Rumantsch) scattered in the Southern Alpine region all along a sort of buffer zone between Italian and German. They indeed use -s, bear some similarities with Occitan and were earlier continued with the Franco-Provençal domain in Wallis, Switzerland (before it was germanized in modern times).
"celtic languages in the North, Greek in the south , and in Central Italy we have Etruscan (non Indoeuropean)"
-- In Italy, Celtic and Etruscan disappeared so swiftly and easily that it awakes suspicions they were only used by the ruling gentry while most of the people spoke Italic dialects. In the South, Greek was only used along the coasts, in some harbour towns (e.g. Naples was Greek while Pompei was Roman) (In France, Nice, Agde and Marseilles were also Greek trading posts in the beginning)
"Latin, Umbrian, Oscan and Faliscan"
-- don't forget Venetic, also related to the Italic family.
"So which of these candidates is the misterious "Proto Italian" from which Romance languages derive? I would like Cortez to say it clearly."
-- It would be fine to know, but not essential, and possibly pointless.
PARISIEN : « "Dj' el sai scrire, vos mi ploz houkî = Ich darf/kann es schreiben, Du kannst mich anrufen (cf. Je peux l' écrire, tu peux m'appeler) "
En italien, ça donnerait:
"[Io] lo so scrivere, [tu] mi puoi chiamare"
Conclusion: le wallon ressemble beaucoup à l'italien, est donc une langue romane méditerranéenne plus éloignée du germanique que le français standard... ».
Bien vu ! C'est désopilant de voir Ouest s'enfoncer un peu plus profondément à chaque avalanche d'objections...
Ouest : « greg and Parisien: you both argue that not only Walloon follows closely the Dutch/german/englisch word order, but that also other Romance languages like castillan, ordinary simple familiar French ("français familier") and toscan have frequently this construction. »
Je pense que tu nous a mal lus. En tout cas tu devrais lire le conseil que PARISIEN te destine quelques messages plus loin : il ne faut pas confondre **CONVERGENCE** et **INFLUENCE**. Autrement dit, ce n'est pas parce que deux phénomènes sont similaires qu'ils procèdent d'une cause unique. Par exemple, le dauphin et le requin sont deux espèces animales pisciformes, mais leur ichtyomorphie commune ne signifie pas que le dauphin est un poisson pour autant.
Ouest : « This only shows again that:
1) Walloon is indeed a truly Romance language. It is the Romance language that has preserved and shows most clearly its Germanic part of it´s ancestry. This contrasts to France, where standard French has been rebuilt by the Academie Francaise with the purpose to hide all Germanic heritage and to get artificially a Roman-Latin touch in it. »
C'est rigolo pour nous, mais ridicule pour toi.
Ouest : « 2) That ALL Romance language have been generated by a Germanic-Latin language contact and intermixing after the fall of the Roman empire - they ALL have partly Germanic vocabulary (blaco, blanc, bianco etc.) and partly Germanic Grammar. France, Lombardy and Catalania (= Gothland), Burgundia etc. even got German names ... ».
Quelle envolée lyrique !... Tu peux même fonder une religion délirante avec un tel **DOGME**. Je vois même la tête du clergé qui irait avec. Mais pour la linguistique, tu repasseras. Ite missa est.
"standard French has been rebuilt by the Academie Francaise with the purpose to hide all Germanic heritage and to get artificially a Roman-Latin touch in it"
-- MORT DE RIRE !
En réalité, le premier objectif de l'Académie a été de désitalianiser le français. Elle (Vaugelas en particulier) a fait un bon travail en remettant le français sur ses rails naturels, alors qu'il était depuis la fin du 16e siècle envahi d'italianismes, sous l'influence de snobs et de pédants qui —par ex.— voulaient mettre 'mensonge' au féminin pour faire comme en italien, ou supprimer la conjonction 'car' sous prétexte qu'elle n'avait pas d'équivalent en toscan.
Il y a des livres là-dessus, il suffit de savoir lire et d'être curieux pour s'informer.
Patricia Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:48 pm GMT wrote:
<<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.
AND_____________________________________
PARISIEN Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:34 pm GMT answered:
"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."
-- This is right. The Visigoths had been touring the whole Roman Empire for over hundred years before they finally settled in Hispania. As usual at that time, thay had been recruiting their troops all along the road, very few of them were of Germanic origin, except for a tiny leading caste.
"Definitely they didn't speak Latin worse than other tribes of the Roman sphere."
-- The point is that they never spoke Latin actually, but the alleged "vulgar Latin", which possibly was actually a quite different language and should rather be called "old Italian" (cf. Yves Cortez), a language that was substantially different from Latin, with a grammar natively closer to Germanic languages, and that was the real ancestor of all Romance languages.
_________________________________________________
t.m.h.o., both statements are correct. What I think is that this close language contact of Germanic peoples invading the Roman empire lead to a new mixed language we all call today "vulgar Latin" or at least to an increase of the distance between classical Latin and a pre-existing popular Latin.
PARISIEN Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:34 pm GMT answered:
The Visigoths had been touring the whole Roman Empire for over hundred years before they finally settled in Hispania. As usual at that time, thay had been recruiting their troops all along the road, very few of them were of Germanic origin, except for a tiny leading caste.
______________________________________________________
The second part of the last sentence is with very high probablity incorrect and shows the main reason of misunderstanding: since the conflict 1870 between Germany and France, Western European and especially French nationalistic propaganda has minimized the number of Germanics invading the Roman empire. Indeed, if one believes like PARISIEN that only "very few of them [i.e. the Goths and othe Germanic peoples] were of Germanic origin, except for a tiny leading caste", it is difficult to accept the possibility that massive Germanic-Latin language contact lead to the new language family of Romance languages.
In the mean time, historical science (archeology, linguistics, toponymology, etc.) has shown that the invading Germanics did not consist of just a "tiny leading caste", but that the Germanic settlement in Wetern Europe was "important". It is until today impossible to find out the exact numbers - Walther von Wartburg guessed that, in early middle ages, about 25% of the population of Northern France consisted of Germanic speaking Franks.
I agree with "Ouest" .For example,placename Aremberg near Valenciennes in France is of Germanic (Frankish) origin.Valencienne is not in Alsace or French Flanders,where most placenames are of germanic(german or flemish ) origin,it is to the south from Wallony,part of Belgium.
"For example,placename Aremberg near Valenciennes in France is of Germanic (Frankish) origin."
-- Very ill chosen example. Arenberg (not "Aremberg"), actually a neighbourhood of Wallers, and was renamed so in the 18th century when given to some noble family of German origin.
This notwithstanding, there are indeed very many toponyms of Germanic origin in the Northern half of France. Gambais, near Paris, was originally 'Wambek' (= 'Wambach') and you could easily find other instances by thousands. Those toponyms generally apply to small localities and come in clusters in areas that underwent intense Frankish settlements. They are very rare in the South, as well as in Northern Spain and in Italy, but ther are some also there (a known Italian example is Marengo, near Milan).
"Walther von Wartburg guessed that, in early middle ages, about 25% of the population of Northern France consisted of Germanic speaking Franks."
-- A wild guess but this is quite likely. Actual figure could be even higher.
But DNA can mix, social customs can mix, technical and artistical cultures can mix ; languages never do, other than marginally. It's all or nothing.
The closest thing to a "Latin-Germanic mixed language" would be English. Which is nevertheless a 100% Germanic language (or 95% if you prefer).
"since the conflict 1870 between Germany and France, Western European and especially French nationalistic propaganda has minimized the number of Germanics invading the Roman empire"
-- Most idiotic assumption of the week!
The lombard cities with the name that ends with "engo" (disinenza in engo) are all of German (Longobar) origins.
Sometime cities had in the past more than one name: one latin and one longobard. For example my parents town "Fombio", was named "Flumpum" in Latin and "Amfenengo" in Longobard language.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fombio
I repeat that the eritage of Lombard magration in Italy can be found in some words, but the Italian language is Neolatin at 100%.
A lot of Italian words with "anc", "alc", "eng", "arc", "anf", ect. are of germanic origins: banca, albergo, giardino, guardia ect.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_longobarda
Italian words of Germanic origin: borgo,nord,sud,est,ovest,guerra,elmo,stanga,banda,sapone,spola,renna,bianco,giardino and so on.
<<It's English that abandoned the rest of plural forms like -en due to the French influence.>>
-n/-en (< AS -n/-an) was never a common plural marker in Old English. It's not really a plural marker at all. It is the weak -n stem, which also shows up in oblique cases of OE nouns
Sing.
Nom. nama
Acc. naman
Dat. naman
Gen. naman
Plur.
Nom. naman
Acc. naman
Dat. namum
Gen. namena
When we look at reconstructed Proto Germanic forms it becomes more clear that the -n was never a plural marker but rather part of the word stem
Sing.
Nom. namanaz
Acc. namana
Dat. namani
Gen. namaniz
Plur.
Nom. namaniz
Acc. namanuniz
Dat. namanmiz
Gen. namano
The use of -n/-en as a plural marker in Modern Germanic languages is a suppletive extension of this original stem
<<Conclusion: le wallon ressemble beaucoup à l'italien, est donc une langue romane méditerranéenne plus éloignée du germanique que le français standard... ». >>
greg,
that is true, it may "resemble" italian, and Walloon may "resemble" Castilian in a certain feature, but you have not shown a definitive conclusion that the resemblance is related or cognate, or that each comes from Latin. As stated above, English and Spanish both use the present participle -ing/-ando/-iendo the same way, but the uses are not connected. The resemblance does not solidify in my mind, nor should it in anyone's mind, that it comes to each respective language through the selfsame means.
<<The closest thing to a "Latin-Germanic mixed language" would be English. Which is nevertheless a 100% Germanic language (or 95% if you prefer).
>>
No way
English is not a Latin mixed language!
You could argue that English lexicon is a French-AngloSaxon-Old Norse mix, but not the language itself
Wallon or French are better candidates for latin-German mixtures
|