|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
Guest Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:16 am GMT
So, what DOES makes french a latin-germanic mixed language? Perhaps someone can summarise this theory.
____________________________________________
Dear guest,
good idea, here is a brief summary:
starting point is,
1) that French (as a most clear example of the Romance language family) has almost nothing to do with Latin except vocabulary. There must be an explanation for the fact that modern Greek, German, Russian etc. are relatively close to their ancestor languages Ancien Greek, Old Germanic, Old Slavic etc., while especially French (as well as Romance languages in general) are drastically different from Latin. A creolization process is assumed by Stephane Goyette (see citation below)
2) that Latin was spoken and understood by the masses in the former Roman Empire as late as 400 - 600 AC (see citation of József Herman below). Therefore, there must have been a rapid transition from sythetic Latin to analytic early French between 400 and 800 (treaty of Verdun, concile of Tours). Greg´s theory of a ancient language (vulgar Latin) spoken by the masses parallel to the classical Latin spoken by elites since the begining of the Roman empire seems obsolete.
3) exactly during the transition from Latin to French (and Romace in general) there was a massive invasion and settlement of Germanic warriors and settlers (migration period). They obviously tried learn Latin but didn´t succeed. The result was a pseudo-Latin language with many Latin and some Germanic vocabulary and a new, simplified (analytic) grammar full of germanisms. 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
citations:
1)
Stéphane Goyette, university of Ottawa:
The emergence of the Romance languages from Latin: A case for creolization effects.
This thesis aims to ascertain whether or not the phenomenon known as creolization played a role in the emergence of the Romance language from Latin. Creolization and normal language change differ in terms of their respective effects upon inflectional morphology: normal language change yields morphological loss and morphological creation through grammaticization. Creolization cause inflectional morphology to be severely reduced. Thus, the hypothesis tested would predict that the transition from Latin to Romance would involve an unusually high degree of morphological loss and an absence of creation of new inflectional morphology. Comparison with another language, whose external history precludes its having been creolized, Greek, is used to ascertain whether Romance shows an unusual pattern of morphological loss.. Comparison is first made between the fate of Latin nominal declension in Romance and Classical Greek declension in Modern Greek. It is found that declension was almost wholly eliminated in Romance but is preserved largely unscathed in Modern Greek. A similar fate befell adjectival declension. Likewise, the synthetic comparatives and superlatives of Latin did not survive into Romance, but those of Classical Greek survived into Modern Greek. Comparison of the two verb systems yields a similar result: whereas Romance severely reduced Latin verbal morphology (most importantly, the passive), Modern Greek has preserved the greater part of Classical Greek verbal morphology unscathed. If one adds to this a complete absence of any morphological creation in the emerging Romance languages, one is forced to conclude that creolization must indeed have played a role in the history of Romance. In conclusion, some examination is made of other alleged instances of creole-influenced language change, all of which are found wanting: some suggestions are made regarding methodology. Likewise, the implications of this conclusion, to linguists and especially Romance linguists, are presented.
Full text available at URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10393/9059
2)
József Herman:
"It seems certain that in the sixth century, and quite likely into the early parts of the seventh century, people in the main Romanized areas could still largely understand the biblical and liturgical texts and the commentaries (of greater or lesser simplicity) that formed part of the rites and of religious practice, and that even later, throughout the seventh century, saints' lives written in Latin could be read aloud to the congregations with an expectation that they would be understood. We can also deduce however, that in Gaul, from the central part of the eighth century onwards, many people, including several of the clerics, were not able to understand even the most straightforward religious texts."
How we explain the non-explained question:
why all the romance language did evoluate in the same direction, with the same evolutions, from latin the various romance variants if the evolution was made during independently in all regions, after the fall of the roman empire, whatever they had been hevily germanized or not at all...?
I short, how your theory explains that Wallon, French, occitan, Italian, Piemontese, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, etc... all knew similar evolutions? while they were part of different kingdoms, lead by different peoples and separated by hundreds of kilometers??
<<How we explain the non-explained question: >>
This is a good question, however, an answer to this question is not essential to the explanation about why Romance languages are mixes of Latin and Germanic. Some questions are never answered and remain total mysteries. That is just a fact of life.
Look at the theory of biological Evolution. It is rife with such unanswered questions, yet few would dare to debunk it today. There are many areas where one could hurl dissentions and bring up skepticisms, but that does not stop it. It is accepted by Scientific communities around the world nonetheless.
If we had to answer all questions to everything we'd never get anywhere. We'd still be trying to explain why the wheel works so well, or why fire is hot ;)
<<Oui, mais celui soyez injustifié car il ne contient aucune valeur au fil qui est au sujet de Français >>
Threads do occasionally drift astray. At least we're still atlking about languages -- some threads seem to drift into topics like weather, snowstorms, global warming, etc.
<<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. >>
A further effect of blending two languages, after the simplification of grammar, is a burst in grammatical innovations. This is kinda like a response mechanism in an effort to "fill the void" so to speak.
The new features are most likely just a result of this synergistic blending.
<<A further effect of blending two languages, after the simplification of grammar, is a burst in grammatical innovations. This is kinda like a response mechanism in an effort to "fill the void" so to speak.
The new features are most likely just a result of this synergistic blending. >>
I am referring to the blending of Old English and Old Norse. Sorry, I didn't make that clear in my post.
guest Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:32 pm GMT
How we explain the non-explained question:
why all the romance language did evoluate in the same direction, with the same evolutions, from latin the various romance variants if the evolution was made during independently in all regions, after the fall of the roman empire, whatever they had been hevily germanized or not at all...?
I short, how your theory explains that Wallon, French, occitan, Italian, Piemontese, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, etc... all knew similar evolutions? while they were part of different kingdoms, lead by different peoples and separated by hundreds of kilometers??
______________________________________
1) nobody knows the degree of Germanic settlement in Europe during and after the migration period
2) Lombards settled in masses in Italy, and since the language reference was traditionally in Italy, Romance could habe spread into the complete area that formerly was the Roman empire.
3) Goths, Lombards, Franks, Vandals, Burgunians, Turingians, Bavarians, Alemanni etc. were not "different peoples and separated by hundreds of kilometers" but several branches of one unity, the Germanic peoples speaking one kind of language and having one single culture.
<<why all the romance language did evoluate in the same direction, with the same evolutions>>
This is indeed an odd predicament, but it is not one that is totally isolated. We see the same trending in other language groups which diverge, and yet show parallel, though wholly independent evolutions.
Take the extant germanic languages to byspel: The proto Germanic language shows no i/j mutation (as attested by Gothic and early Old High German). Yet in all living germanic languages these features developed independently of one another on the selfsame model--at different times and to varying degrees. If one were to view germanic languages in their Medieval or Modern state, one could easily assume that the umlauting was a common feature present in the ancestor language at the root level since it's presence is seen in all. The fact, however, is that it is merely a byspel of parallel coincidental evolution in North and West germanic tongues.
The same can be said in regards to the development of germanic z before stressed syllables into r. Coincidence.
I'm not saying though that all similarities between Romance languages are due to independent coincidental evolution, but it's not an argument since it can be ruled out on the basis of the above.
" 1) nobody knows the degree of Germanic settlement in Europe during and after the migration period "
Oh, I thought that you said that it was much higher in northern France than in the rest of France, and I think of the rest of the former roman empire, in places like Portugal or southern Italy?
Your actual position means that you expect that germanic settlements were as much important in those places than in northern France? No? or you don't hink so?
" 2) Lombards settled in masses in Italy, and since the language reference was traditionally in Italy, Romance could have spread into the complete area that formerly was the Roman empire. "
I thought your point was that french was formed by the Franks that learned badly latin. Saying that french is coming from and Italian that has formed itself by the influence of Lombards on Italian latin is a complete different theory... I must say I'm sure sure to understand anymore your point of view.
Especially because you just recently said that classical latin was spoken all around the roman empire until a very late date (until at least the end of the empire), and that romance languages formed themselves long time after (500 to 800)... I don't see what relation you make with the influence of lombards in Italy: why "Lombardish latin-germanic creolel" would have gave birth of french and all other romance languages since it was supposed (in your own claims) to have happened after the fall of the roman empire, in a time when the territory of modern France was under Frankish rule, and Iberian peninsula under the already latinized wisigoths ?? Italian peninsula had no hierarchical domination on these territories at those times/
Or does it mean that you think that romance was born long before the fall or roman empire, and became spread in all the empire because it was the main oral language of the empire?
" 3) Goths, Lombards, Franks, Vandals, Burgunians, Turingians, Bavarians, Alemanni etc. were not "different peoples and separated by hundreds of kilometers" but several branches of one unity, the Germanic peoples speaking one kind of language and having one single culture. "
Why do you explain in that case that the modern germanic languages, supposed to come from a very homogenous cultural group are so diverse? so much diverse that are actuall the romance languages together?? why different germanic peoples (wisigots are definitly not the same as the Franks, they were moving in all the Roman empire for loing time before to settle in Iberia and southern France) would have manage to create VERY homogenous languages, while germanic people that did not move into the roman empire (the ones that stayed in the modern germanic nations) gave birth to very diverses languages, especially in syntax (the thing that is supposed to be the mark of germanicness of romance languages in your "theory")... while romance syntax is very homogenous...
I thought your point was that french was formed by the Franks that learned badly latin. Saying that french is coming from and Italian that has formed itself by the influence of Lombards on Italian latin is a complete different theory...
_______________
Not French, it is Italian that has formed itself by the influence of Goth, Lombards and Franks on Italian latin. In general, the areas where different Romance languages and dialects are spoken correspond to medieval realms where different Germanic peoples settled. E.g.:
Realm of the language/dialect
Burgunds Franco-Provencal
Franks langue d´Oil, Walloon
Goths+Franks langue d´Oc/Catalan
Visigoths Spanish
Suebes Portugese
Lombards Lombardic, Northern Italian
" Not French, it is Italian that has formed itself by the influence of Goth, Lombards and Franks on Italian latin "
OK, I'm glad to see that you finnally changed your point of view. It is a good thing to do when we find ourselves in front of a wall of illogisms. to abandon a idea when it become full of contradictions and too difficult consequences to explain. It is better apply a scientific approach instead, changing ideas, instead of of hanging so hardly to a fixed idea.
(let's remind us your original idea that you tried to defend, depiste the numerous illogical points that most of us noticed:
"Some time ago there was a discussion about what makes French Latin and whether or not modern French (langue d´oil) can be considered as some kind of Germano-Latin mixed language (creole) built during Merovingian and Carolinian early middle ages by a close and long lasting contact between Romans and Germanic Francs in what is actually Northern and Eastern France and Belgium "
Well, now it seems obvious that your point is that french is coming from proto-Italian. How proto-Italian formed itself, and why is another question. I have personally no opinion on that. We saw here various interpretations:
1. It would be coming from vulgar latin, the oral form of latin (traditional explanation)
2. It would be coming from Proto-romance, an Italic language distinct to latin that existed in parralel with it, in oral use only
3. It would formed itself by the evolution of classical latin in contact with Goths, Lombards and Franks in Italy before the fall of the empire.
well, it would be better to recentrate the disscussion on these three hypothesis, and not on "what makes french a frankish -latin mix?..."
we could reformulate another topic "What are the origins of proto-Italian, and so of all the romance languages?"
What I would like you precise is when do you think the transition from latin to romance happened in Italy? After or before the fall of the empire? Logically it would be quite e long time before, to allow the new romance language to spread in the rest of the empire as the main oral language?, No? what do you think?
" In general, the areas where different Romance languages and dialects are spoken correspond to medieval realms where different Germanic peoples settled. E.g.: "
Does it mean that you think that each one of these germanic people created its own creole of "germano-latin" starting from latin, or that proto-romance language already existed, coming from Italy (as you said above), spread by the roman empire (whatever it has formed itself wit creolisation or not in Italy)
The high degree of similarities between all the romance languages, in both syntax and gramar let us think that they have a high probability to have a common ancestor that has all these caracteristics that is not classical latin. It seems a bit difficult to imagine that latin would have evoluated in all those independent kingdoms in the same direction directly from latin, no?
The most logical supposition is that all evoluated from common proto-romance (from Italy), and did evoluated their own way because they were part of different political entities and not because different germanic people were supposed to have settle in each part (it is an observation that we make in all linguistical hisory, even in relatively short periods: for exemple french spoken in Wallonia (I don't speak of Walloon but modern french has some different features in Belgium, that have nothing to see with any different "ethnic" background dating back to the invasion times, as soon as you pass the modern border of the two countries) . What I want to say is that dialects usually tend to converge more when they are part of a common political entity, and diverge when they are in different political entities
"In general, the areas where different Romance languages and dialects are spoken correspond to medieval realms where different Germanic peoples settled. E.g.:
Realm of the language/dialect
Burgunds Franco-Provencal
Franks langue d´Oil, Walloon
Goths+Franks langue d´Oc/Catalan
Visigoths Spanish
Suebes Portugese
Lombards Lombardic, Northern Italian"
Well, wisigoths were know as being already romanized when they arrived in Iberia. How could we explain that their speech could have created Spanish by creolization of latin-germanic since they did not speak a germanic language anymore?
|