|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
Even though the rough classification above (sorry, I'm on a conference call...zzzz) is a good way to estimate a comparison, it is not exactly a best fit.
Take for instance the West branch of Germanic, containing English, German, Dutch. This Group is less closely related than all of the Romance languages, because the Common ancestor is older than the diversing of "orolatin". North Germanic is a better fit, even though there are fewer members, because it shows very consevative byspels (Icelandic & Faroese) a more moderate (Norwegian) and progressive (Danish, Swedish)
Behaps in all honesty, Romance might fit somewhere in between Norht Germanic and West, but wis closer to North in relation to each other
the question is not how we name the groups, if we call them families, groups, sub-groups or whatever...
The question is that when we observe the romance languages, such as French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, etc. that in ouest's "theory" are supposed to have been formed independently from creolization phenomenons of classical latin by the influence of different germanic peoples (supposed to have settles heavily the whole roman empire) when trying to speak latin.
As he said previously:
" In general, the areas where different Romance languages and dialects are spoken correspond to medieval realms where different Germanic peoples settled"
we can resume his point of view as this:
"Burgunds speaking latin = Franco-Provencal
Franks speaking latin = langue d´Oil, Walloon
Goths+Franks speaking latin = langue d´Oc/Catalan
Visigoths speaking latin = Spanish
Suebes speaking latin = Portugese
Lombards speaking latin = Lombardic, Northern Italian "
etc."
This is where I want to point out the variation between modern germanic languages, to point out that the germanic languages that concerned the invasions periods where various (not even speaking of the the peoples of the great invasions that where not germanic), not all from the same sub-group, but from the whole extended germanic family (which shows greater similarity than the romance languages that they were supposed to have give birth of, following ouest's theory)
- gothic, vandal, and burgondian were east germanic languages
- Frankish and lombardic were west germanic languages
How these languages from these different groups (that yourself Leasnam considered that they can't be compared with romance language because of their diversity: "You cannot compare the Germanic *Family* to the Romance *Group* ") could have led classical latin to evoluate into very similar romance languages ?
(that have the same kind of relation that have north germanic languages; "analogous comparison to Romance (including
Sardinian) would be either North Germanic or West Germanic")...
While in ouest "theory" they were supposed to have been formed by the "creolization" of classical latin thanks to those tribes speaking germanic languages from various groups (and even some non-germanic such as the Huns for exemple, as well as long-time litinized goths)
If Ouest theory was the reality, we should observe into romance languages at least as much diversity than between a west and a east germanic language (and probably much more because each language, even if it is coming from a same point evoluate differently in different areas of kingdoms, and we don't take in account here the level of germanization that I think Ouest suppose to have been higher in northern France than in Spain or Italy)
The whole concept of "romance languages" would probably never had spread itsef since we would be facing languages that would hardly appeared to be related...
The thing I wanted to point out is that it is not the case: French, Spanish or Italian have much closer relation together than would have had a west germanic language with a north or east germanic language, without having been united since the fall of the roman empire by a common political entity.
The most logical explanation is that those languages all have a common romance language as common denominator (not latin), a language that would have been spread by the roman empire itself in its territories BEFORE its falling, and those language began to diverge into independant languages as soon they bacame part of separate political entities.
It seems very unprobable that classical latin itself directly "creolized" in similar directions, giving birth to similar languages, with the impact of different germanic-speaking people speaking germanic languages from different sub-groups (or whatever you call them), in different political entities, with different social conditions, etc...
Does it have to be one or the other?
* Germanic creolisation upon Old Italian => Romance languages
OR
* Germanic creolisation upon individual Romance dialects corresponding to regional variations/accents
can't it be some of both?
"Does it have to be one or the other?
* Germanic creolisation upon Old Italian => Romance languages
OR
* Germanic creolisation upon individual Romance dialects corresponding to regional variations/accents "
In Ouest's "theory", the main leading idea was that classical latin was syntaxically too difficult or too different to the germanic invaders to learn it properly. Following this idea the so-called "creolisation" is an attempt to simplificate the latin syntax to follow a more germanic-like one (curiously the modern romance language show syntaxical features that are at once different to latin AND to modern germanic languages, but similar between them)
As soon as the classical latin would have already change its structure for a proto-romance, syntaxically simplier for germanic people there would be no need for another "creolisation"... in what direction this one would have been made?
If your idea is to suppose that the local germanic language of the rulers could have been some impact on the romance variant spoken in each place (in terms of "accents" as you said) that is another question that has nothing to see with being called a "creolization". this terma has been in my opinion too much used in this thread that many people is tented to think that "creolization" just means "having some influence on.." That is of course much more complicated.
"can't it be some of both? "
I tend to think that we should also envisage that there wasn't none.
<<As soon as the classical latin would have already change its structure for a proto-romance>>
I see...
What impetus would cause a wending toward simplification from latin to proto-romance? Indeed, that is the natural trend for all IE languages. any additional nudge?
Might the entire process have occured step-wise? Beginning with internal simplification (a "phase 1"), followed by a further break-down assisted by germanic speakers ("phase 2") worthing a simpler grammar, then even once again perhaps?
I can see the logic behind the "Ouest" theory. It may even be able to explain the divergence that occurred in terms of pronunciation of some romance languages leading to an Italian/Spanish pronunciation similarity vs the French standard pronunciation. I'm not saying that French is a Germanic language as many others in the forum seem to proclaim. It seems logical that its divergent pronunciation away from the Spanish/Italian style could be due to in its origins of the "Ouest" theory. It explains why two neighboring countries such as France and Spain can get to the point that their national languages (Castilian and French (Parisien dialect)) for monolingual speakers has become unintelligible in spoken form. Yes they would be able to read each others language, but the spoken language is another story. That can also be said between Castilian Spanish and European Portuguese (I am excluding L.A Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese due to the fact that their pronunciation is much more intelligible than the European standard) since there were different Germanic tribes that influenced pronunciation according to the "Ouest" theory that lead to the spoken standard European Portuguese (Lisboa sotaque) to be unintelligible to Castilian Spanish for monolinguals. I exclude Italian for intelligibility purposes since I've been told in this forum that there are Northern Italian dialects that are intelligible with French.
guest guest : « the question is not how we name the groups, if we call them families, groups, sub-groups or whatever... »;
Exact.
Leasnam : « Germanic languages have two extant Branches: North and West
Romance Languages have ONE Branch: Latinic (Latin-Faliscan) ».
La Romanie se subdivise en plusieurs ensembles :
http://digilander.libero.it/alpdn/Wartburg/LineaLaSpeziaRimini.jpg
http://occitanet.free.fr/imatges/romania.gif
http://www.romaniaminor.net/mapes/romania.swf
ENSEMBLE OCCIDENTAL
Groupe septentrional, dont les langues d'Oïl.
Groupe central, dont les langues d'Oc, les langues gasconnes, les langues catalanes (majoritairement "ibériques") et les langues gallo-italiennes (au nord de la ligne Massa/Senigallia).
Groupe méridional (ou "ibérique"), dont le castillan et le portugais.
Groupe oriental (Autriche, Bavière méridionale, Hongrie occidentale à la fin de l'Antiquité).
Groupe ultraméditerranéen (Maghreb antique).
ENSEMBLE ORIENTAL
Groupe occidental (ou "italique"), dont le toscan et le campanien.
Groupe central, dont l'illyro-roman (ou roman d'Illyrie).
Groupe oriental, dont le roumain.
À rapprocher de la famille germanique : http://lenguasgermanicas.tripod.com/germanico1.gif (carte où le germanique oriental antique ne figure pas).
guest guest : « [...] the romance languages, such as French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, etc. that in ouest's "theory" are supposed to have been formed independently from creolization phenomenons of classical latin by the influence of different germanic peoples (supposed to have settles heavily the whole roman empire) when trying to speak latin.
[...]
"Burgunds speaking latin = Franco-Provencal
Franks speaking latin = langue d´Oil, Walloon
Goths+Franks speaking latin = langue d´Oc/Catalan
Visigoths speaking latin = Spanish
Suebes speaking latin = Portugese
Lombards speaking latin = Lombardic, Northern Italian "
etc." »
Très juste. Exposer simplement la "théorie" de Ouest suffit amplement pour discerner l'aporie qui en est la conclusion directe. Sans parler de l'absence criante de toute analyse proprement et authentiquement linguistique qui caractérise le légo trop simpliste que nous proposent les créolomanes. Ouest est un bicentriste latinogermanique qui a oublié que son "germanique" est en fait une multitude de langues paléogermaniques a priori très différentes (et dont on ne sait quasiment rien). Et il ne veut pas voir que le "latin vulgaire" dont il suppose l'existence n'est qu'un sympathique fantôme.
JGreco : « I can see the logic behind the "Ouest" theory. It may even be able to explain the divergence that occurred in terms of pronunciation of some romance languages leading to an Italian/Spanish pronunciation similarity vs the French standard pronunciation. »
Il y a quand même deux petits problèmes :
1] la grande majorité des spécificités phonologiques du français est postérieure aux Invasions barbares (et en tout cas contemporaines de l'ancien français classique) ;
2] il existe des similarités morphologiques castillan/français qui s'opposent aux particularismes toscans → formation du pluriel des substantifs, par exemple.
JGreco : « I can see the logic behind the "Ouest" theory. It may even be able to explain the divergence that occurred in terms of pronunciation of some romance languages leading to an Italian/Spanish pronunciation similarity vs the French standard pronunciation. »
I'll translate the two problems that greg noticed:
- The great majority of french's phonological specificities happened after the barbaric invasions (contemporary to the old classic french)
- There exist some morphological similarities castillan(spanish)/french that oppose themselves to the Toscan (Italian) particularisms; pluriel's formation of the substantives, as exemple.
I would like to add that french and Spanish (castillan) are grouped in the western group, while Italian is not.
this mean that, outside of the purial formation (with -s), that we don't find in Italian, there are also a lot of orthography similarities between french and Spanish, that doesn't exist in Italian concerning many basic words:
fr/sp/it
est / esta / è (ps: french and italian prononciation similar)
que / que / che
qui / quien / chi (ps: french and Italian pronounciation similar)
en / en / in
si / si / se
de / de / di
bien / bien / bene
mal / mal / male
libre / libre / libero
autres / otros / altri
se / se / si
etc.
<<guest guest : « the question is not how we name the groups, if we call them families, groups, sub-groups or whatever... »;
Exact.
>>
Well yes and no. I'm not all up in arms about what you call what, but it IS important that you compare like things to equivalent like things. THAT is important ;)
To compare romance language to germanic is to compare romance to the dialects of German, Dutch and Frison (Frison represents Rumanian language)
so for a correct examination, if Scandianvian language did not exists up to today, and English does not also exists, and whole germanic family compise German, Dutch and Frison then is a equal comparison This is how closely the romance language are being
fr/ sp /it
not <<si>>, but oui / si / se
" fr/ sp /it
not <<si>>, but oui / si / se "
NO !! please...
si / si / se means "if"
"if" in french is "si", like in spanish, but it is "se" in Italian.
"oui" in french means "yes", and also "si" in negative questions:
in that case, for "yes": fr/sp/it
"oui" and "si" / "si" / "si"
many non-french speakers tend to think that "yes" is always said "oui" in french, but that is only for affirmations to a positive question.
" Well yes and no. I'm not all up in arms about what you call what, but it IS important that you compare like things to equivalent like things. THAT is important ;)
Well, the objective of the "comparision" was especially to demonstrate that the groups called "romance" and "germanic" were NOT comparable in terms of diversity in each of these families/groups/etc !
This was exactly what I wanted to point out! that romance languages are a much more homogenous family than the whole germanic family, and that to have comparable situation we should compare only one germanic sub-group such as northern or western germanic languages...
And this is a main problem in the heart of Ouest "theory": How one single language spread in diverse parts of the roman empire (classical latin) could have been "creolized" in a homogenous group of language (romance languages), different from latin (ps: latin itself IS NOT considered a romance language), but similar together;
if the external factors of creolization were themselves germanic languages coming from different sud-groups inside this family (so, in the case of gothic/frankish for exemple showing very probably much stronger differences than French and Castillan...
The question is, where the important similarities exist between french and Castillan are coming from when they are not coming from classical latin?? In OUest theory it is supposed to be coming from germanic languages, especially from Frankish in one case and gothic in the other... two languages that are "genetically" very distant together in the germanic family would have gace birth to two languages much closer in the romance family... These IS a big problem to OUest's theory. I would like to know his explanation.
<<The question is, where the important similarities exist between french and Castillan are coming from when they are not coming from classical latin?? In OUest theory it is supposed to be coming from germanic languages, especially from Frankish in one case and gothic in the other... two languages that are "genetically" very distant together in the germanic family would have gace birth to two languages much closer in the romance family... These IS a big problem to OUest's theory. I would like to know his explanation. >>
I would tend to agree with you. I would also like to know what specific Germanic features they were, because it is mightly as you say for them to be *distinct* features to each Germanic strain; however, on the other hand, they may have been features shared between Frankish and Gothic. The only way to ascertain this is to *identify* each feature individually and examine them. I would be interested to know myself.
In addition to this, it is possible that language contact=>creolisation brings about a "common sense" syntax from "complicated/illogical-type" syntax. That is another mightlihood. For instance, both latin and Old English share a rigid and illogical word order, however on the side of English, contact with another language (Old Norse) has brought about a very relaxed common-sense type of word order, which coincidentally is very similar to that of Romance.
I would be curious if this is a reliable pattern of development--to see perhaps an experiment where Russian--in contact with another language might also bring about the same conclusion. I am not stating absolutes or theories here, just conjectures. Do you know of another byspel of this occurring where the resulting language was like English-Romance? How is Armenian, which also uses auxillary verbs?
However, I believe Ouest does realise that most of the likefulness between Castillian and French comes from the fact that they have a common orspring.
Leasnam : « The only way to ascertain this is to *identify* each feature individually and examine them. I would be interested to know myself. »
Miracle ! Enfin un propos raisonnable... Tu as raison Leasnam : seule une analyse multifactorielle, diachronique, exhaustive, serrée et détaillée nous permettrait d'avancer pour trancher entre toutes les hypothèses ici discutées sur maintenant 93 pages.
Tu vois bien que seule une analyse ***LINGUISTIQUE*** est pertinente. Le problème, c'est que nous n'avons que très peu d'infos sur le paléoroman et les langues paléogermaniques. L'autre difficulté, c'est que les recherches antérieures ont été biaisées par l'abondance de connaissances sur le grécolatin classique : vases communicants → le grécolatin a attiré a lui toute réflexion sur les langues romanes. C'est naturel, c'est humain — tout comme le géocentrisme par opposition à l'héliocentrisme. Mais il faudra bien qu'un jour le grécolatin cesse d'être le Soleil artificiel du système roman pour laisser sa chance au romanocentrisme — ce ne serait que justice.
Leasnam : « In addition to this, it is possible that language contact=>creolisation brings about a "common sense" syntax from "complicated/illogical-type" syntax. That is another mightlihood. For instance, both latin and Old English share a rigid and illogical word order, however on the side of English, contact with another language (Old Norse) has brought about a very relaxed common-sense type of word order, which coincidentally is very similar to that of Romance. »
Là je ne te suis plus du tout : la disparition graduelle de toute morphologie flexionnelle conduit au contraire à une syntaxe fortement contrainte. C'est le cas avec l'ancien français (déclinaisons → syntaxe hautement variable) et le français moderne (absence de déclinaison → syntaxe précontrainte). Et d'ailleurs le passage de l'un à l'autre état de langue est largement postérieur (500 ans au moins) aux Invasion barbares (absence de stimulus extralinguistique propice à une créolisation).
|