Wrong, not a single Germanic speaker migrated to Spain and Portugal. Visigoths already spoke Vulgar Latin when they migrated to Southern Europe. Probably the Suebi didn't but they were far less.
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
Guest Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:53 pm GMT
Wrong, not a single Germanic speaker migrated to Spain and Portugal. Visigoths already spoke Vulgar Latin when they migrated to Southern Europe. Probably the Suebi didn't but they were far less.
________________________________
Where do you get this from? Vulgar Latin is until today just an unproved hypothesis. Some Goths were maybe bilingual Latin-Gothic, but they were still distictively a Germanic people when they conquered Spain.
Wrong, not a single Germanic speaker migrated to Spain and Portugal. Visigoths already spoke Vulgar Latin when they migrated to Southern Europe. Probably the Suebi didn't but they were far less.
________________________________
Where do you get this from? Vulgar Latin is until today just an unproved hypothesis. Some Goths were maybe bilingual Latin-Gothic, but they were still distictively a Germanic people when they conquered Spain.
<<Wrong, not a single Germanic speaker migrated to Spain and Portugal. Visigoths already spoke Vulgar Latin when they migrated to Southern Europe. Probably the Suebi didn't but they were far less. >>
Are you saying that they completely forsook their native Gothic Sprache completely, and spoke ONLY the Germano-latin?
Were they not bilingual at all?
Are you saying that they completely forsook their native Gothic Sprache completely, and spoke ONLY the Germano-latin?
Were they not bilingual at all?
Germanic-speakers were present in both Spain and Italy upon migrating southward during and after the fall of the western Roman Empire. In Italy at least, the invading Goths and the more numerous Lombards were both Germanic-speaking and Arian Christians (not Catholics) upon entering Italian soil. It wasn't until they settled down and established kingdoms that they became Romanized by adopting Vulgar Latin speech, converting to Catholicism, and intermarrying with Italians (thus becoming Italians themselves). The native Italians who these Germanic migrants intermarried with were themselves essentially of Gallo-Roman stock (a mix of Romans and the Romanized Gallic Celts of the Po Valley). Thus modern northern Italians are somewhat of a blend of all of those groups.
Central Italy (i.e. Tuscany, Latium, Umbria, etc.) is probably the area where the most amount of original Italic and ancient Roman ancestry is present (not to mention some Etruscan ancestry too), whereas southern Italians are largely a blend of Roman and Greek bloodlines, with some Arabic/Phoenician (mostly just in Sicily), Lombard, and Norman ancestry thrown in. As a matter of fact, much of southern Italy was Greek-speaking, especially in parts of Calabria, Apulia, and eastern Sicily, until the late Middle Ages, when Latin speech finally prevailed.
So Sicilians are really not all that different from other Italians, it's just that they're the only Italians who sometimes have some Arab and/or Phoenician ancestors. This explains the smattering of darker Sicilians with somewhat Arabic features among a population that looks primarily Greco-Roman and standard southern European. Ditto for the occasional blond or redheaded light-eyed Sicilian of heavier Norman/Lombard descent. Although it's true that medieval Sicily had a large Muslim Arab population prior to the arrival of the Norman conquerors (who transformed it into an Italian-speaking Catholic island), many of the Arabs left the island or were expelled. At their place came a large influx of settlers from mainland Italy and France who the Normans imported to Latinize the island. The Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian population, which was quite substantial throughout the period of Arab domination, simply became Italianized and assimilated. Those Muslim Arabs who remained in Sicily simply converted to Catholicism and were absorbed into the general population.
I'm Sicilian-American myself so I have a great interest in its history, so hopefully this helps.
Central Italy (i.e. Tuscany, Latium, Umbria, etc.) is probably the area where the most amount of original Italic and ancient Roman ancestry is present (not to mention some Etruscan ancestry too), whereas southern Italians are largely a blend of Roman and Greek bloodlines, with some Arabic/Phoenician (mostly just in Sicily), Lombard, and Norman ancestry thrown in. As a matter of fact, much of southern Italy was Greek-speaking, especially in parts of Calabria, Apulia, and eastern Sicily, until the late Middle Ages, when Latin speech finally prevailed.
So Sicilians are really not all that different from other Italians, it's just that they're the only Italians who sometimes have some Arab and/or Phoenician ancestors. This explains the smattering of darker Sicilians with somewhat Arabic features among a population that looks primarily Greco-Roman and standard southern European. Ditto for the occasional blond or redheaded light-eyed Sicilian of heavier Norman/Lombard descent. Although it's true that medieval Sicily had a large Muslim Arab population prior to the arrival of the Norman conquerors (who transformed it into an Italian-speaking Catholic island), many of the Arabs left the island or were expelled. At their place came a large influx of settlers from mainland Italy and France who the Normans imported to Latinize the island. The Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian population, which was quite substantial throughout the period of Arab domination, simply became Italianized and assimilated. Those Muslim Arabs who remained in Sicily simply converted to Catholicism and were absorbed into the general population.
I'm Sicilian-American myself so I have a great interest in its history, so hopefully this helps.
Menudo rollo patatero. Tú supongo que serás un comunista vago que pierde el tiempo escribiendo tonterías.
Al Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:36 am GMT
Germanic-speakers were present in both Spain and Italy upon migrating southward during and after the fall of the western Roman Empire. In Italy at least, the invading Goths and the more numerous Lombards were both Germanic-speaking and Arian Christians (not Catholics) upon entering Italian soil. It wasn't until they settled down and established kingdoms that they became Romanized by adopting Vulgar Latin speech, converting to Catholicism, and intermarrying with Italians (thus becoming Italians themselves). The native Italians who these Germanic migrants intermarried with were themselves essentially of Gallo-Roman stock (a mix of Romans and the Romanized Gallic Celts of the Po Valley). Thus modern northern Italians are somewhat of a blend of all of those groups.
Central Italy (i.e. Tuscany, Latium, Umbria, etc.) is probably the area where the most amount of original Italic and ancient Roman ancestry is present (not to mention some Etruscan ancestry too), whereas southern Italians are largely a blend of Roman and Greek bloodlines, with some Arabic/Phoenician (mostly just in Sicily), Lombard, and Norman ancestry thrown in. As a matter of fact, much of southern Italy was Greek-speaking, especially in parts of Calabria, Apulia, and eastern Sicily, until the late Middle Ages, when Latin speech finally prevailed.
So Sicilians are really not all that different from other Italians, it's just that they're the only Italians who sometimes have some Arab and/or Phoenician ancestors. This explains the smattering of darker Sicilians with somewhat Arabic features among a population that looks primarily Greco-Roman and standard southern European. Ditto for the occasional blond or redheaded light-eyed Sicilian of heavier Norman/Lombard descent. Although it's true that medieval Sicily had a large Muslim Arab population prior to the arrival of the Norman conquerors (who transformed it into an Italian-speaking Catholic island), many of the Arabs left the island or were expelled. At their place came a large influx of settlers from mainland Italy and France who the Normans imported to Latinize the island. The Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian population, which was quite substantial throughout the period of Arab domination, simply became Italianized and assimilated. Those Muslim Arabs who remained in Sicily simply converted to Catholicism and were absorbed into the general population.
I'm Sicilian-American myself so I have a great interest in its history, so hopefully this helps.
___________________________________________________
Thank you Al - an excellent contribution based on knowledge and free of 19th century propaganda!
I would like to add that the Gothic and later Lombardic and finally Frankish invasion of (Northern) Italy was not the first massive contact of Romans with Germanic "barbars" leading to linguistic and cultural intermixing. Since JULIUSCAESAR German soldiers in great numbers were integrated into the Roman army, Germans were settled within the Roman empire as foederati and were exempt of paying taxes, Germanic slaves lived in Italy and many of them or their descendants became free and assimilated after some time.
Germanic-speakers were present in both Spain and Italy upon migrating southward during and after the fall of the western Roman Empire. In Italy at least, the invading Goths and the more numerous Lombards were both Germanic-speaking and Arian Christians (not Catholics) upon entering Italian soil. It wasn't until they settled down and established kingdoms that they became Romanized by adopting Vulgar Latin speech, converting to Catholicism, and intermarrying with Italians (thus becoming Italians themselves). The native Italians who these Germanic migrants intermarried with were themselves essentially of Gallo-Roman stock (a mix of Romans and the Romanized Gallic Celts of the Po Valley). Thus modern northern Italians are somewhat of a blend of all of those groups.
Central Italy (i.e. Tuscany, Latium, Umbria, etc.) is probably the area where the most amount of original Italic and ancient Roman ancestry is present (not to mention some Etruscan ancestry too), whereas southern Italians are largely a blend of Roman and Greek bloodlines, with some Arabic/Phoenician (mostly just in Sicily), Lombard, and Norman ancestry thrown in. As a matter of fact, much of southern Italy was Greek-speaking, especially in parts of Calabria, Apulia, and eastern Sicily, until the late Middle Ages, when Latin speech finally prevailed.
So Sicilians are really not all that different from other Italians, it's just that they're the only Italians who sometimes have some Arab and/or Phoenician ancestors. This explains the smattering of darker Sicilians with somewhat Arabic features among a population that looks primarily Greco-Roman and standard southern European. Ditto for the occasional blond or redheaded light-eyed Sicilian of heavier Norman/Lombard descent. Although it's true that medieval Sicily had a large Muslim Arab population prior to the arrival of the Norman conquerors (who transformed it into an Italian-speaking Catholic island), many of the Arabs left the island or were expelled. At their place came a large influx of settlers from mainland Italy and France who the Normans imported to Latinize the island. The Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian population, which was quite substantial throughout the period of Arab domination, simply became Italianized and assimilated. Those Muslim Arabs who remained in Sicily simply converted to Catholicism and were absorbed into the general population.
I'm Sicilian-American myself so I have a great interest in its history, so hopefully this helps.
___________________________________________________
Thank you Al - an excellent contribution based on knowledge and free of 19th century propaganda!
I would like to add that the Gothic and later Lombardic and finally Frankish invasion of (Northern) Italy was not the first massive contact of Romans with Germanic "barbars" leading to linguistic and cultural intermixing. Since JULIUSCAESAR German soldiers in great numbers were integrated into the Roman army, Germans were settled within the Roman empire as foederati and were exempt of paying taxes, Germanic slaves lived in Italy and many of them or their descendants became free and assimilated after some time.
Ouest : « Do we have to consider Prof. Henriette Walter, Prof. Cirquingily or Yves Cortez as the representants of the linguistic authorities of the "siècle suivant"? ».
Arf ! Non. Certainement pas la mère Walter en tout cas... Cortez ne fait pas "autorité" dans la mesure où 1) il n'est pas linguiste — 2) pratiquement personne ne connaît ses spéculations panromanes ou délatinisantes — 3) 99 % de ceux qui les connaissent les repoussent aussitôt avec dédain et/ou véhémence. Quant à « Cirquingily » [sic], c'est plutôt "Cerquiglini", un linguiste, effectivement.
PARISIEN : « Le français québecois se distingue par sa tendance à diphtonguer et à transformer les dentales en 'ts', 'dz', ce qui est analogue à la 2e mutation consonantique allemande. »
Très juste. L'affrication par palatalisation peut être indépendante de toute interaction interlangues (a fortiori de toute interaction romanogermanique, et à plus forte raison de toute interaction romanogermanique médiévale...) : "qui tchi'es toi ?" pour <qui t'es toi ?>, "le djabl" pour <le diable>, "tchu l'as vu ?" pour <tu l'as vu ?> → autant de variantes phonétiques **CONTEMPORAINES** et **MÉRIDIONALES** et **SOCIOLOGIQUES** facilement repérables pour qui a deux oreilles pour entendre.
En revanche — pour répondre à Ouest et à son obsession germanique → roman —, on peut constater la préservation, en anglais moderne (langue germanique), de vocables munis de consonnes initialement affriquées empruntés à l'ancien français (langue romane) → An <judge> /d͡ʒʌd͡ʒ/ (maintien de l'affrication paléofrançaise) vs Fr <juge> /ʒyʒ/ (perte de l'affrication paléofrançaise). Ici c'est le lien roman → germanique qui semble bien établi.
Arf ! Non. Certainement pas la mère Walter en tout cas... Cortez ne fait pas "autorité" dans la mesure où 1) il n'est pas linguiste — 2) pratiquement personne ne connaît ses spéculations panromanes ou délatinisantes — 3) 99 % de ceux qui les connaissent les repoussent aussitôt avec dédain et/ou véhémence. Quant à « Cirquingily » [sic], c'est plutôt "Cerquiglini", un linguiste, effectivement.
PARISIEN : « Le français québecois se distingue par sa tendance à diphtonguer et à transformer les dentales en 'ts', 'dz', ce qui est analogue à la 2e mutation consonantique allemande. »
Très juste. L'affrication par palatalisation peut être indépendante de toute interaction interlangues (a fortiori de toute interaction romanogermanique, et à plus forte raison de toute interaction romanogermanique médiévale...) : "qui tchi'es toi ?" pour <qui t'es toi ?>, "le djabl" pour <le diable>, "tchu l'as vu ?" pour <tu l'as vu ?> → autant de variantes phonétiques **CONTEMPORAINES** et **MÉRIDIONALES** et **SOCIOLOGIQUES** facilement repérables pour qui a deux oreilles pour entendre.
En revanche — pour répondre à Ouest et à son obsession germanique → roman —, on peut constater la préservation, en anglais moderne (langue germanique), de vocables munis de consonnes initialement affriquées empruntés à l'ancien français (langue romane) → An <judge> /d͡ʒʌd͡ʒ/ (maintien de l'affrication paléofrançaise) vs Fr <juge> /ʒyʒ/ (perte de l'affrication paléofrançaise). Ici c'est le lien roman → germanique qui semble bien établi.
As an excellent example of Germanic-Romance mixed language (and culture!) please visit the movie
"Bienvenue chez les ch'tis"
http://www.chtinn.com/
"Bienvenue chez les ch'tis"
http://www.chtinn.com/
Well, Ouest I agree that Nord-pas-de-calais has a mixed germanic-romance culture, simply because it was formerly in a big part of it part of the former flemish cultural region.
One should not think that it applies to the whole country or even the northern half of the country and think France as a mixe germanic-romance culture.
It is hard to apply these "mix" to the rest of France; even from Paris these region is seen as something quite different from french culture due to its germanic past.
These is the idea of the movie that from a "mainstream" french culture (romance), nord-pas-de-calais is stereotyped as very northern European, and so a subject of comedy due to the huge differences.
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypl0qgdAt2c
One should not think that it applies to the whole country or even the northern half of the country and think France as a mixe germanic-romance culture.
It is hard to apply these "mix" to the rest of France; even from Paris these region is seen as something quite different from french culture due to its germanic past.
These is the idea of the movie that from a "mainstream" french culture (romance), nord-pas-de-calais is stereotyped as very northern European, and so a subject of comedy due to the huge differences.
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypl0qgdAt2c
^^Hey thanks. Yes and that's true that Roman commanders often favored Germanic mercenaries to serve in the Roman legions. Thus, many were present and had assimilated into Italian society and and in the societies of other Roman provinces where they became Latinized before their cousins.
What's interesting is that the Normans were themselves essentially a Germanic people of mixed Viking and Frankish origin who had become Romanized by adopting French language, culture, and the Catholic faith. Ironically they would go on to conquer an England that was populated by Germanic-speaking Anglo-Saxons and Viking descendants (thus their own cousins). Therefore, it was a case of Germans Romanizing Germans. Of course, it may be debatable as to just how truly Germanic in ancestry the English were/are as it's likely that many of the native Celtic Britons adopted Anglo-Saxon speech and intermarried with the invaders, but personally I believe that claims of the English being heavily of Germanic origin are valid since various genetic tests link them with the Danes, which is precisely where Anglo-Saxons and Vikings who settled northern England migrated from. Besides, the English tend to often be taller and blonder than their more culturally Celtic neighbors, who tend to have browner hair and more rugged builds on average. So to me they're a mix of both Celtic and Germanic.
But to answer the main question, the French language is essentially Latin and Romance no doubt, but with Celtic and Germanic influences. The Celtic influence mostly came through with how the Latin was pronounced by the Romanized Gauls. Perhaps the phonology of French therefore has a heavier Celtic influence since the pronunciation and nasal intonations differ markedly from Italian or Spanish. The subsequent Frankish and other Germanic invasions probably primarily influenced the vocabulary by introducing new words into the Vulgar Latin speech that was evolving into French.
Italian is unquestionably the Romance language that most closely resembles the Vulgar Latin speech that was spoken by the plebeian masses in ancient Rome itself. Often times, just chop off the 's' from a Latin word and add a vowel and presto, there's the modern Italian word heh.
Although Romanian has preserved many of the archaic classical Latin characteristics that other Romance languages lost, Romanian subsequently became heavily Slavicized in its vocabulary. Some linguists estimate that roughly half of its vocabulary is of Slavic origin, which only makes sense considering Romania's location in the heart of Eastern Europe. Hence it was only natural that they would become influenced by their neighbors, especially as they were cut off from the other Latin countries. Still, Romanians are not ethnically Slavic and descend primarily from a mixture of the Romanized Dacians and the Roman soldiers and colonists who settled the province of Dacia. That probably explains why they tend to look more "Latin" than their Slavic and Hungarian neighbors.
What's interesting is that the Normans were themselves essentially a Germanic people of mixed Viking and Frankish origin who had become Romanized by adopting French language, culture, and the Catholic faith. Ironically they would go on to conquer an England that was populated by Germanic-speaking Anglo-Saxons and Viking descendants (thus their own cousins). Therefore, it was a case of Germans Romanizing Germans. Of course, it may be debatable as to just how truly Germanic in ancestry the English were/are as it's likely that many of the native Celtic Britons adopted Anglo-Saxon speech and intermarried with the invaders, but personally I believe that claims of the English being heavily of Germanic origin are valid since various genetic tests link them with the Danes, which is precisely where Anglo-Saxons and Vikings who settled northern England migrated from. Besides, the English tend to often be taller and blonder than their more culturally Celtic neighbors, who tend to have browner hair and more rugged builds on average. So to me they're a mix of both Celtic and Germanic.
But to answer the main question, the French language is essentially Latin and Romance no doubt, but with Celtic and Germanic influences. The Celtic influence mostly came through with how the Latin was pronounced by the Romanized Gauls. Perhaps the phonology of French therefore has a heavier Celtic influence since the pronunciation and nasal intonations differ markedly from Italian or Spanish. The subsequent Frankish and other Germanic invasions probably primarily influenced the vocabulary by introducing new words into the Vulgar Latin speech that was evolving into French.
Italian is unquestionably the Romance language that most closely resembles the Vulgar Latin speech that was spoken by the plebeian masses in ancient Rome itself. Often times, just chop off the 's' from a Latin word and add a vowel and presto, there's the modern Italian word heh.
Although Romanian has preserved many of the archaic classical Latin characteristics that other Romance languages lost, Romanian subsequently became heavily Slavicized in its vocabulary. Some linguists estimate that roughly half of its vocabulary is of Slavic origin, which only makes sense considering Romania's location in the heart of Eastern Europe. Hence it was only natural that they would become influenced by their neighbors, especially as they were cut off from the other Latin countries. Still, Romanians are not ethnically Slavic and descend primarily from a mixture of the Romanized Dacians and the Roman soldiers and colonists who settled the province of Dacia. That probably explains why they tend to look more "Latin" than their Slavic and Hungarian neighbors.
Al:
Italian is unquestionably the Romance language that most closely resembles the Vulgar Latin speech that was spoken by the plebeian masses in ancient Rome itself. Often times, just chop off the 's' from a Latin word and add a vowel and presto, there's the modern Italian word heh.
________________
So learning Latin is easy to an native speaker of Italian language, or at least easier than for a French or German speaker?
Italian is unquestionably the Romance language that most closely resembles the Vulgar Latin speech that was spoken by the plebeian masses in ancient Rome itself. Often times, just chop off the 's' from a Latin word and add a vowel and presto, there's the modern Italian word heh.
________________
So learning Latin is easy to an native speaker of Italian language, or at least easier than for a French or German speaker?
Yeah I'd say so. Ditto for Spanish-speakers and learning Latin. In terms of grammatical structure and syntax, speakers of Romanian may actually have the easiest time learning Latin, but as stated, their vocabulary has heavy Slavic influence whereas Italian is practically devoid of foreign influence for the most part. Well, maybe some Greek influence is detectable in southern Italian dialects in particular, but personally such influence may have entered the Vulgar Latin speech of Roman Italy since the Romans were heavily influenced by Greek culture.
Spanish has some Arabic loan words due to the long Moorish occupation of that country, as would Portuguese for the same reason, but it's still very heavily Latin as not only was Spain perhaps the most Romanized land outside of Italy, but also the fact that the subsequent medieval Moorish occupation resulted in large numbers of Spaniards seeking refuge in the more isolated mountainous regions of northern Spain, which served to preserve the essentially Latin character of the language. Throughout the Reconquest, Spain was repopulated from the north as the Moors gradually yielded more ground to the Spaniards, until finally Granada fell in 1492.
Personally I find it truly fascinating that Spain was reconquered by the Christians after dealing with 700+ years of Muslim domination in much of the country. It's almost a miracle that Islam and the Arabic language didn't ultimately supplant Latin speech and Catholicism. Maybe that explains some of the hostility that Spaniards direct toward Moroccan immigrants, like they fear another Muslim invasion or something. Likewise for Sicilian attitudes toward Tunisian immigrants.
Spanish has some Arabic loan words due to the long Moorish occupation of that country, as would Portuguese for the same reason, but it's still very heavily Latin as not only was Spain perhaps the most Romanized land outside of Italy, but also the fact that the subsequent medieval Moorish occupation resulted in large numbers of Spaniards seeking refuge in the more isolated mountainous regions of northern Spain, which served to preserve the essentially Latin character of the language. Throughout the Reconquest, Spain was repopulated from the north as the Moors gradually yielded more ground to the Spaniards, until finally Granada fell in 1492.
Personally I find it truly fascinating that Spain was reconquered by the Christians after dealing with 700+ years of Muslim domination in much of the country. It's almost a miracle that Islam and the Arabic language didn't ultimately supplant Latin speech and Catholicism. Maybe that explains some of the hostility that Spaniards direct toward Moroccan immigrants, like they fear another Muslim invasion or something. Likewise for Sicilian attitudes toward Tunisian immigrants.
According to a TV program in the UK in which several people passed a genetic test, the Britons have substantially Middle East genes and around 50% of Northern European blodd. Thus they are far from being pure Anglosaxons.
So learning Latin is easy to an native speaker of Italian language, or at least easier than for a French or German speaker?
Al Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:04 am GMT
Yeah I'd say so.
_________________________________________-
I agree that this would be logical, since Italian is said to come from Latin by evolution. But the fact is, that speaking French or Italian doesn´t help at all to learn Latin. Germans can even learn Latin with more ease than Italians - there are plenty of Latin courses in German schools....
Al Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:04 am GMT
Yeah I'd say so.
_________________________________________-
I agree that this would be logical, since Italian is said to come from Latin by evolution. But the fact is, that speaking French or Italian doesn´t help at all to learn Latin. Germans can even learn Latin with more ease than Italians - there are plenty of Latin courses in German schools....