What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
<<,je suis allé
ich bin gegangen
>>
--Germanic Languages--
{with modal 'have'}
English: I have gone.
Spanish: [Yo] he ido.
Swedish: Jag har väck.
{with modal 'be' for change of condition/motion}
German: Ich bin gegangen.
Dutch: Ik bin gegaan.
French: Je suis allé.
Italian: [Io] Sono andato.
--Italic Languages--
{no modals}
Latin: Ivi.
Port.: [Eu] fui.
Spanish, Italian and French are analog with Germanic tongues, not Latin.
<<I don't know if passé simple is undoubtely germanic in origin>>
it is.
this is not a new theory. it's commonly held, even among french linguists
<<Again, I completely agree with your reasoning. And therefore you will have no problem with my claiming that the same grammatical feature in Japanese and Chinese is also Germanic.
>>
I shouldn't even dignify your ridiculousness with a response, but for the sake of those who may benefit from it I must.
Adjective before noun is not a Germanic monopoly, no, so Japanese and Chinese did not inherit this placement from Germanic.
HOWEVER, with French it is not so (and you know it). French *DID* inherit its adjective placement before the noun from Germanic, where the placement is optional, or where there is an alteration of sense.
If you want to waste your time in pointless reasonings with yourself be my guest, that's your problem. For everyone else, it's a settled issue : )
<<Passé simple clearly doesn't make french anymore "germanic" than the other romance languages.
>>
French alters between berbs "être" and "avoir" the same way that German and Dutch do
j'ai mangé
ich habe gegessen
ik heb gegeten
je suis devenu
ich bin geworden
ik ben geworden
this is not a coincidence, this is a german specific feature (mainly because it doesn't really make sense to begin with)
" French alters between berbs "être" and "avoir" the same way that German and Dutch do
j'ai mangé
ich habe gegessen
ik heb gegeten
je suis devenu
ich bin geworden
ik ben geworden "
Well, what does it means? that french is not a romance language? So Italian or Spanish are not either:
(J') ai mangé
(Io) ho mangiato
(Yo) hé comido
(Je) suis devenu
(Io) sono diventato
What I claim is not that some gramatical constructions might not being of germanic origin, but that it is not a french speciality, but common in the other romance languages also.
That menas Germanic languages have inherited Romance features appart from vocabulary.
;;That menas Germanic languages have inherited Romance features appart from vocabulary. ;;
No
Other way around
Use of habban/sin,wesan + present perfect tense was in common Germanic languages, not in Latin
Use of habban/sin,wesan + present perfect tense was in common Germanic languages, not in CLASSICAL Latin.
Romance languages derive from VULGAR Latin, a different language per se.
<<Romance languages derive from VULGAR Latin, a different language per se. >>
And where did this assumed Vulgar Latin obtain it? Magically on its own?
Vulgar Latin is Classical Latin on the tongues of German mercenaries.
PaLEASE
<<And where did this assumed Vulgar Latin obtain it? Magically on its own? >>
Very easy to explain: Vulgar Latin was that way, it didn't inherit anything from Germanic tongues. Vulgar Latin was spoken all the time in Central Italy and is different from Classical Latin. If you want, call it Proto-Italian to avoid confussion as it is an Italic tongue like Latin but different, just like Oscan for example. That a few filthy Germanic mercenaries came to Central Italy to tell their inhabitants how they should speak is rather laughable. On the contrary it's Germanic languages that have inherited massive amounts of Proto Italian vocabulary and syntactical features.
<<Very easy to explain: Vulgar Latin was that way, it didn't inherit anything from Germanic tongues. Vulgar Latin was spoken all the time in Central Italy and is different from Classical Latin. If you want, call it Proto-Italian to avoid confussion as it is an Italic tongue like Latin but different, just like Oscan for example. That a few filthy Germanic mercenaries came to Central Italy to tell their inhabitants how they should speak is rather laughable. On the contrary it's Germanic languages that have inherited massive amounts of Proto Italian vocabulary and syntactical features. >>
^This is what's laughable.
Ha ha
<<That a few filthy Germanic mercenaries...>>
You sound like you have a prejudice against Germans? If so, you're reasoning is poluted and affected by your deceit-ridden passions, and your viewpoint cannot be relied on nor trusted.
But thanks anyway
It would be rather strange that Germanic languages influenced the Romance tongues syntactically but on the contrary vocabulary of Germanic origin is so sparse in the Romance tongues. On the contrary Germanic tongues have loads of Romance and Classical Latin vocabulary. This demonstrates who influenced whom becuase when a tongue is influenced by another one, it's its vocabulary that changes, more or less drastically depending on the degree of such influence. Maybe if this influence is very strong some syntax features can pass from the influential language to the influenced one, but these are generally rare. Look at Tagalog for example, Spanish influenced a lot on Tagalog, 25% or so of its vocabulary derives from Spanish, but syntactically it remains an Asiatic language and lacks the slightest Spanish syntactical feature. So how come Germanic languages changed Latin syntactically but much less it's vocabulary? It lacks any logic and many examples like I gave refute that tesis.
Also, what's that great about those Germanic mercenaries? Why would they change Classical Latin? There were also Iberian mercenaries, Celtic mercenaries, Berber mercenaries, Slavic mercenaries, Arab mercenaries, etc spread across the Empire and using their acquired Latin (Classical or not). The Germanic mercenaries were not as many compared to the rest of mercenaries and much less by 45 bC when Vulgar Latin was basically shaped and Classical Latin was practically a writen language only.
Leasnam : « In any forum, one must have a common means of communication, or at least interpreters to faciliate such, otherwise the idea of it being called a forum becomes ridiculous. »
Autre option : s'intéresser aux langues et se donner les moyens d'en comprendre plus d'une. Ça ne paraît pas une attitude irréaliste dans un forum de langues.
"Guest" : « Año 2009, todo el mundo habla inglés. Todo? No, en una aldea gala habita Gregix, el francófono irredento. »
Ha ha ! Mais je te rassure : il y a beaucoup d'autres "-ix", et pas qu'en France. Avec le déclin économique et politique des États-Unis, c'est la langue anglaise qui s'achemine vers la porte de sortie. Et je pense que tu seras surpris de la vitesse avec laquelle cet événement se précipite.
"Guest" : « But appart from vocabulary French has syntactical and morphological features that derive from Germanic: for example French is not pro-drop (Latin and Spanish are), prepositions can be at the end of a sentence (like in English), very simplified verbal conjugations compared to Latin and Spanish (following the Germanic fashion), article des (plural of la) comes from German "das", etc. »
Tu pourrais au moins prendre la peine de"justifier" l'une quelconque de ces idioties par une "illustration".
Leasnam : « [...] French does have a lot more germanic qualities than merely a few germanic words here and there. »
Propos gratuits → exemples ? démonstrations ?
Leasnam : « Passé Composé is undoubtedly germanic; as is adjectival placement option before the noun (eg. "excellent question"; "grand homme"), and forced placement (eg. "jolie fille", "Je vis dans la même petite maison", etc). Truly, there are germanic fingerprints all over French, it's hard to cite them all. »
Tes affirmations te ridiculisent car tu ne fournis pas l'effort intellectuel d'une "démonstration".
Leasnam : « And a germanic model (passé composé did not exist in Latin prior to the germanic influx) is the root of all of it. »
Si le passé composé n'existe pas en latin alors qu'on le trouve dans toutes les langues romanes, ça indique assez bien que le latin n'est pas une langue romane (ce qui semble assez évident), et non pas que les langues romanes sont germaniques ou germanisées (ce qui est le fond de ta "pensée").
Leasnam : « HOWEVER, with French it is not so (and you know it). French *DID* inherit its adjective placement before the noun from Germanic, where the placement is optional, or where there is an alteration of sense. »
Si c'est si vrai, et puisque tu as l'air d'être très sûr de toi, nous attendons ta démonstration avec impatience. Mais notre attente risque d'être déçue : la rigueur d'analyse ne semble pas être ton fort.