What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
I'm not saying that Latin could always be learned more easily by speakers of Italian than by any other language but let's face it, it shares more in common with Latin in terms of both grammatical structure and vocabulary than even the other Romance languages, save perhaps Spanish and Portuguese. The pronunciation of French was heavily influenced by that of the originally Celtic-speaking Gauls, who likely pronounced it in a manner consistent with their own native language. Additionally, the Frankish conquest of Gaul had additional influences on pronunciation and also added new vocabulary to the evolving French language.
Italian simply evolved from the Vulgar Latin speech of native Romans (i.e. Italians for all intents and purposes), without too much later foreign influence from Germanic invaders and other newcomers to Italy. For example, the Lombards in northern Italy became completely Romanized due to their constant interaction with the local Roman population. Although they added some words and place-names to the local Vulgar Latin speech, their influence was minimal. Interestingly though, various northern Italian surnames do in fact reflect an ancient Germanic origin (i.e. Armani, Gandolfini, Maldini, etc. are a few famous examples).
"Interestingly though, various northern Italian surnames do in fact reflect an ancient Germanic origin (i.e. Armani, Gandolfini, Maldini, etc. are a few famous examples)."
LOL. Stupidest argument ever.
And anyone called Michael, David, James or John (or Italian derivates like Michelucci, Davide, Giacomini, Giovanelli) must be of Arab or Jewish origin...
And Achille, Ettore, Ercole and Penelope are all Greek!
You dagos are so funny.
Arnolfini Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:22 am GMT
"Interestingly though, various northern Italian surnames do in fact reflect an ancient Germanic origin (i.e. Armani, Gandolfini, Maldini, etc. are a few famous examples)."
LOL. Stupidest argument ever.
And anyone called Michael, David, James or John (or Italian derivates like Michelucci, Davide, Giacomini, Giovanelli) must be of Arab or Jewish origin...
And Achille, Ettore, Ercole and Penelope are all Greek!
You dagos are so funny.
___________________________________________________
Giuseppe Garibaldi had German ancestors - do you have a problem with it?
LOL, stupidest attempt at a retort is more like it. Stop putting words into my mouth. I was talking about certain distinct surnames which, like it or not, happen to have a Germanic etymological origin. For example, Gandulf was the name of a Lombard leader. My argument is a valid one. First names like John or David obviously don't mean anything, nor did I ever argue that. I also never argued that Italians were Germans or anything either, just that some northern Italians have Lombard and other Germanic ancestors. Likewise, some modern Germans might have some Roman ancestors. Europeans have mixed with each other a bit over the past few millenia. This is a fact Jack, so deal with it.
Go out and educate yourself, if that's possible. Judging from your use of the word "dago," it's probably not.
What makes French a German - Latin mixture?
Words like "plupart" and "toujours" for instance, where the model is based upon German languages rather than Latin ones, even if the actual particles themselves are Latin.
'Plupart' is a calque from Germanic (cf. OE "mara dael" = majority [lit. "greater part"]), as is 'toujours'. Germanic languages [except German] use the word all + some form of time reference to derive "always" (cf. English "always", Dutch "altijd", Swedish "altid", etc); French does the same (tout + jours = all + days).
Latin languages like Spanish use "siempre" from Latin "semper" and "mayoria" for "plupart".
A few words can't make a language an hybrid. In Spanish also exists "la mayor parte".
Maybe "toujours" is from a germanic influence (I'm not sure about it) but "tout" and "jours" derivate from latin.
Plupart = "plus" ans "part" (from latin) but the word "majorité" exists also and is used like "mayoria" in Spanish.
... And so Spanish is also a germanic language since they say "todavia", which is the exact same construction than "always"... (even if it mean more accuratly "anyway" cada vez (each time).
this which to make pass french for an hybrid germanic language (and by extensio to make french a hybrid/more germanic culture) must neceseraly be coming from some ashamed Anglophones who are basically jalous of what latineness means in their mind.
Marseille en force Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:44 pm GMT
... And so Spanish is also a germanic language since they say "todavia", which is the exact same construction than "always"... (even if it mean more accuratly "anyway" cada vez (each time).
______________________________
Spanish (like Italian and especially French) uses a lot of Germanic words and constructions due to the Goths and the Franks.
It's the Germanic speakers that use a lot of Latin constructions due to the Latin Empire and Latin culture. Goths and Franks had no culture.
Guest Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:20 pm GMT
It's the Germanic speakers that use a lot of Latin constructions due to the Latin Empire and Latin culture. Goths and Franks had no culture.
_________________
...si tacuisses...
Al : « I'm not saying that Latin could always be learned more easily by speakers of Italian than by any other language [...] ».
Non, tu en le dis pas en effet — car ce serait risible. Mais ce que tu dis par la suite laisse perplexe...
Al : « [...] but let's face it, it shares more in common with Latin in terms of both grammatical structure and vocabulary than even the other Romance languages, save perhaps Spanish and Portuguese. »
Ton affirmation est si faiblement établie que tu dois aussitôt l'infirmer par deux exceptions mastodontiques qui la ruinent totalement.
Questions : en quoi « la structure grammaticale » de l'italien fait de cette langue un idiome plus "latin" que, disons, le languedocien ou le sarde ? Quelle analyse lexicologique te permet de prétendre que le lexique "commun" à l'italien et au latin est plus important (ou significatif) que pour toute autre langue romane (médiévale ou contemporaine) ?
Al : « The pronunciation of French was heavily influenced by that of the originally Celtic-speaking Gauls, who likely pronounced it in a manner consistent with their own native language. »
En l'absence d'inventaire phonologique précis des langues gauloises de l'Antiquité finissante (et pour cause !...), conjecturer une influence de cet inventaire celtique prémédiéval sur l'inventaire du français contemporain est, au mieux, un exercice acrobatique de haute voltige et, au pire, de la fumisterie gratuite. Je penche pour la seconde hypothèse.
Al : « Additionally, the Frankish conquest of Gaul had additional influences on pronunciation and also added new vocabulary to the evolving French language. »
La prétendue influence sur la prononciation n'est pas démontrée : ça fait déjà des mois qu'on tord le cou à cette idée sur ce site. Idem pour la question du vocabulaire : les pseudo-preuves sont facilement contestables, une à une.
Al : « Italian simply evolved from the Vulgar Latin speech of native Romans (i.e. Italians for all intents and purposes), without too much later foreign influence from Germanic invaders and other newcomers to Italy. »
C'est une très belle histoire à conter aux enfants à l'heure du dodo. Pour ce qui est de la démonstration linguistique, tu repasseras...
Al : « For example, the Lombards in northern Italy became completely Romanized due to their constant interaction with the local Roman population. Although they added some words and place-names to the local Vulgar Latin speech, their influence was minimal. »
C'est précisément ce qui s'est passé dans tout le bassin romanophone.
Words in Italian language such as borgo,nord,est,ovest,sud are of Germanic origin.The same words are in Spanish,French languages.
Yes, undoubtedly certain words of Germanic origin entered the evolving Italian and Spanish languages, but the Lombards in Italy and Visigoths in Spain essentially became totally Romanized in language and culture. The Franks, Burgundians, and other Germanic tribes were more numerous in France, hence a greater linguistic impact there. But even in France, we know that Romance speech and Latin culture won out. The only area where that didn't really occur was Britain, where the Anglo-Saxon invaders imposed their language and identity upon the largely Romanized Britons. However, I believe this was largely because the Britons still spoke their native Celtic language and had not completely adopted Latin speech under Roman rule.
Although this remains a subject of debate, it is also likely that this was because of the fact that the number of Anglo-Saxons in Britain either equalled or surpassed the number of Britons living there at the time (at least in the part of Britain that became England). Contrarily, the Franks, Burgundians, and other Germans, although numerous, were still outnumbered by the considerably larger Gallo-Roman population.