What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language

<<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? >>

They were latinized, yes, but they had not given up their Visigothic speech. They were bilingual, speaking Gothic as a mother tongue and a broken form of Latin as a twainth language

<<OK, I'm glad to see that you finnally changed your point of view.>>

With no help from you of course.

<<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. >>

Could you please be a little more arrogant and condescending,,, just a little please

" Lombards Lombardic, Northern Italian "

And what about southern Italian? What germanic tribe did make the creolization of classical latin towards southern italian dialects?
What about central Italy? Why is Italian (Toscan variety from central Italy) syntaxically and lexically so close to french since they are supposed to have been formed independently by different germanic tribes??

<<And what about southern Italian? What germanic tribe did make the creolization of classical latin towards southern italian dialects?
What about central Italy? Why is Italian (Toscan variety from central Italy) syntaxically and lexically so close to french since they are supposed to have been formed independently by different germanic tribes?? >>
This tribe was Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths).

(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.
_____________________________
I would rather say that the genesis of Italian has many parallels with the genesis of Langue d´Oil:
French = Frankish-Roman convolute
Italian = Visigothic-Lombardic convolute
This was also the Hypothesis of the Renaissance linguists...

Well, Ouest I'm not sure at all to understand anymore what is your point of view, could you presice:

Do you suppose that the switch from classical latin to romance language took place in Italy before the fall of the empire, by the influence of Lombard and goths, and then spread itself in the rest of the empire (that could explain the strong similarities of romance languages in syntax that is not find in latin, and contrary to the germanic languages) ?

Or do you think that classical latin was spoken in all the regions of the roman empire until a quite late time, and then changed in each area under influence of each germanic ruler in different romance languages by a creaolization phenomenon.

Well, I would like to know, when and where the creolisation you often speak of happenened? If it happenend in each region, under different germanic peoples with different histories how do you explain that romance languages share together more syntax than germanic languages themselves ?

<<Well, I would like to know, when and where the creolisation you often speak of happenened? If it happenend in each region, under different germanic peoples with different histories how do you explain that romance languages share together more syntax than germanic languages themselves ? >>

Romance languages do not share more syntax among themselves than germanic languages when you look at them correctly.

For one who touts the vitues of logical thinking you should know this.

In order to analogize the Romance languages to Germanic, you have to narrow your field for Germanic.

The best comparison corresponding to Romance is the North Germanic branch, since all descend from a common ancestor roughly analogous to Vulgar Latin. (Inclusion for any descendants of Oscan-Umbrian with Romance would fit an All-Germanic classification, and there are no descendants of Osco-Umbrian)

When you look at how similar the syntax between Romance languages corresponds to the similarities among the Nordic languages, it is nothing to be amazed or wonder at. Romance and Nordic languages are groups with members that are very closely related.

" Romance languages do not share more syntax among themselves than germanic languages when you look at them correctly. "

Compare French and Italian syntax and then English and German and you'll understand. Not even need to speak about the vocabulary to notice that french and Italian are muche closer together than Egnlish and German.

<<" Romance languages do not share more syntax among themselves than germanic languages when you look at them correctly. "

Compare French and Italian syntax and then English and German and you'll understand. Not even need to speak about the vocabulary to notice that french and Italian are muche closer together than Egnlish and German. >>



Compare Norwegian to Swedish and YOU will understand.

English and German are not comparable to French-Italian. Norwegian and Swedish are.

Guest : « So, what DOES makes french a latin-germanic mixed language? Perhaps someone can summarise this theory. »

Oui, avec plaisir : vide total.





Guest : « Do you mean proof of the findings from the genetic survey? Here's the link to the one I'm referring to that was carried out in 2003. »

Désolé mais je ne suis pas l'auteur de la question à laquelle tu réponds : il s'agit d'un petit plaisantin anglophone au français plus que douteux.

De toute façon, l'aspect biologique n'a bien sûr aucune importance en linguistique puisque cette discipline s'occupe des langues humaines et non des hommes qui les parlent.





Ouest : « French (as a most clear example of the Romance language family) has almost nothing to do with Latin except vocabulary. »

Absolument ! Ce qui montre assez bien le caractère roman du fonds lexical français, compte non tenu des innombrables emprunts au grécolatin effectués sur une plage de plus de mille ans.





Ouest : « 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. »

On ne saurait mieux dire ! L'explication la plus plausible c'est que les langues romanes sont issues d'un ancêtre roman (italique mais non latin) qu'on peut appeler « ororoman », « paléoroman », « italien ancien » — comme on voudra du moment qu'on évite "latin vulgaire", "bas latin" etc.





Ouest : « Latin was spoken and understood by the masses in the former Roman Empire as late as 400 - 600 AC. »

Affirmation gratuite corroborée par aucun fait établi.





Ouest : « 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. »

Il ne s'agit pas de "ma" théorie mais de celle des romanistes, au rang desquels Yvez Cortez. D'autre part cette hypothèse est la moins "obsolète" de toutes puisqu'elle n'a fait l'objet d'aucune fétichisation multiséculaire, contrairement au latinocentrisme (monocentrisme habituel), et contrairement au bicentrisme latinogermanique qui n'est qu'un sous-dérivé vaguement exotique du dogme latinisant.





Ouest : « [...] 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). »

Le plus savoureux dans tes propos, Ouest, c'est que tu ne rends même pas compte de l'ironie mordante dont tu es à la fois l'auteur involontaire et la victime désignée. Comment peux-tu anéantir ton propre argument (les migrations barbares → un fait extralinguistique d'ailleurs) en le situant, non pas chronologiquement, mais par rapport à une hypothèse non démontrée (la fameuse "transmutation" providentielle du latin) dont la date est d'ailleurs totalement inconnue de ses partisans ?

" Compare Norwegian to Swedish and YOU will understand.


Norwegian and swedish are not the common relation between germanic languages. Not all germanic language show such closeness as swedish and norwegian does.



" English and German are not comparable to French-Italian. Norwegian and Swedish are. "

That exactly is my point. French-Italian relation is similar to norwegian-swedish one, much closer than another germanic relation such as English/German one. Which means that they are relation of two very close languages that directly derive from a common ancestor, a common ancestor that is much closer than both than latin is, especially in syntax.

In the ouest's vision, that explains that Italian and french were formed by a phenomenon of creolization of latin made from two backgrounds, in two places, by two deifferent people, in two different kingdoms (franks or goths/lombards), in different general conditions... And finally give birth to two languages whose similarity is comparable to the Norwegian/swedish relation... Is that possible?? Ouest?

<<De toute façon, l'aspect biologique n'a bien sûr aucune importance en linguistique puisque cette discipline s'occupe des langues humaines et non des hommes qui les parlent.>>

No, it's only a question of which languages would likely have provided a substratal influence to later ones that arrived in Britain (i.e. Germanic dialects of the Angles, Saxons etc), and how that might explain certain divergences from other Germanic languages.

<<That exactly is my point. French-Italian relation is similar to norwegian-swedish one, much closer than another germanic relation such as English/German one>>
Swedish and Norwegian in fact are standardized dialects of Scandinavian language.They are mutually intelligible.
French and Italian aren't mutually intelligible.

" Swedish and Norwegian in fact are standardized dialects of Scandinavian language.They are mutually intelligible.
French and Italian aren't mutually intelligible "


why didn't you tell that to CID?
He was the one who said:

"English and German are not comparable to French-Italian. Norwegian and Swedish are. "



by the way, even if Italian and French are not 100% intelligible, as a french speaker myself I can assure you that I understand about 90% of written Italian and about 60-70% of oral Italian without neve having learned it.

The fact is the major romance languages (Italian, Spanish, French) are much closer together than the major germanic languages are (German, English, Swedish).

Of course Swedish and Norwegian, being part of the same sub-groups show more similarities... but romance languages of the same group show those similarities without being part of the same sub-group.

<<Of course Swedish and Norwegian, being part of the same sub-groups show more similarities... but romance languages of the same group show those similarities without being part of the same sub-group. >>

You use the term "subgroup" which you have not defined.

There are two very weighty terms here: *Branch* and *Subgroup*

Germanic languages have two extant Branches: North and West

Romance Languages have ONE Branch: Latinic (Latin-Faliscan)

Each Germanic Branch has Subgroups:
North: East & West
West: High, Low, Anglo-Frisian (Ingvaeonic)

Romance has Subgroups too: Latin, Sardinian, Italo-Western, Eastern


You cannot compare the Germanic *Family* to the Romance *Group*, you can only compare Germanic Family to Italic Family (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian); Germanic Groups to Romance Group

An analogous comparison to Romance (including Sardinian) would be either: North Germanic, West Germanic

French to Italian would be equivalent to Danish-Faroese (still within North Germanic Group)