What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language

just a comment Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:52 pm GMT

" The core of the Frankish kingdom was Paris, not the Netherlands. "

Not true. Let's see the areas once dominated by the Frankish.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-fr.svg


________________

The core of the Merovingian Frankish kingdom was Paris (Neustria), the core of the Carolingian kingdom was the Rhine-Maas-Mosel area (Aachen, Metz, Austria).

<<The core of the Merovingian Frankish kingdom was Paris (Neustria), the core of the Carolingian kingdom was the Rhine-Maas-Mosel area (Aachen, Metz, Austria). >>

PLEASE people, let's use names appropriate to whom we are referencing: "Merewiowingish"/"Merewigisch" and "Carlingish"/"Karlingisch" please. PLEASE...

they would turn in their Graben hearden they what we them callende weren

Well that's just plain stupid. When you reference other nationalities in your native language do you say 'français', 'español', 'deutsche', 'svenska', etc.?

" T"he core of the Merovingian Frankish kingdom was Paris (Neustria), the core of the Carolingian kingdom was the Rhine-Maas-Mosel area (Aachen, Metz, Austria). "

The merovingians had not really a "ruling core", because they were politcally very much divided. The "capitals" (which didn't meant few at that times) varied between Soissons, Orleans or Paris for Neustria, and Reims, Metz for Austrasia (not Austria...!)

The core of Frankish population was still the area around Belgium and southern Netherlands.

" Indeed I would say that Greece is the least "western" country in Europe, while also Greece has had intensive contact

with Goths. But Greece is much less "western" than northern Italy, thats sure. "


well, that precisely what is not sure at all.
If I understand well your point of view, greece been the least western nation of Europe, well, the more a culture is Greek-based, the less it is western. It seems quite in contradiction with the common point of view which consider Greece (and Rome) as the origin of western civilisation... So, from your point of view Italy is supposed to be "more western" because it has Germanic origins. So having Germanic origin is what defines "west" for you, it seems as the absolute necessity to be "western"... I think the most "western" country would be Sweden... Well, this is your point of view, but don't be surprised that a lot of people won't follow you on this point.
____________________________________
Sweden is not the most Western because Western is a Germano-Latin synthesis. Most western are English, Netherlands, Northern-Eastern-France, Northern-Italy, German Rhineland, Alsace etc.
________________________

"Russia, as a former colony of Sweden (the name Russia itself is Swedish), has a lot of common with Sweden. But all dependes what is called "Russia". Kiew is a former Slavo-Swedish city, Sibiria is Asian.... " Well, so following your point of view Russia is a very "western" nation... strong germanic-influenced

____________________________________

St.-Petersbourg Architechture, scientific achievements, Zaristic feudalism, cities like Mosow and Kiew - this all resulted from Slavo-Latin-Germanic synthesis and is part of Western culture like Hispanic culture. Greek culture of today (music, manners, organization, nationalisme, food etc. ) is more similar to the Turks or Libanese than to Northern Italian culture (Fiat, Ferrero, Galileo Galilei, Enrico Fermi, music, food, etc.).

We can found many people with surnames of Germanic(Flemish-Frankish) origin in Northern France (not France Flanders) -
Dhorne,Dhondt,Reynaert(Amiens), Cnockaert (Beauvais),Macquart (Reims) and so on.

^I have to ask, how is Greece or Greek culture not "Western?" I know that modern Greece is not exactly ancient Greece but it was the ancient Greeks who, along with the Romans, laid the foundations for Western civilization as we know it today. Superimposed on the Greco-Roman origin of Western civilization was a medieval Germanic contribution, but the origins are fundamentally Greco-Roman. The Founding Fathers of America drew heavily from Greco-Roman ideas when crafting American government, society, and laws. A democratic republic is simply a combination of Greek (democracy) and Roman (representative republic) forms of government.

That said, modern Greeks still have a valid claim of being descended from the ancient Greeks. Sure there has been some amalgamation and assimilation of other groups into Greek society over the ages (i.e. Slavs, Albanians, Turks, Armenians and others), but despite this, Greeks are still Greek and have preserved their identity and language. Furthermore, they're Christians. I'm not a Medocentrist or any kind of a nationalist by any means, but this is simply fact. Greece might share some cultural similarities with its neighbor Turkey, but this is because they're both Mediterranean countries.

When one gets down to it, even the societies of most Latin American nations are fundamentally Western since they draw the primary source of their identities from Spain and Portugal. Their Spanish/Portuguese language, Catholic religion, and societal structure is culturally Western save for the regions of certain nations with heavy Native American and/or African influence (i.e. Native American languages, NA/African religious practices, etc.). I'd be willing to bet that if Latin Americans were primarily of European descent as opposed to of mixed ancestry, far more people would perceive them as Westerners.

The question of who is Western is more a cultral rather than racial one. Turks for example are by far predominantly Caucasians racially but are culturally closer to the Middle East, thereby making them fundamentally non-Western to most people. I think the Mediterranean region has always served as a questionable spot for many people as to determining which groups are generally accepted as "Western" by mainstream thought, considering that there is considerable cultural diversity across that region, along with the fact that many people from Mediterranean countries don't look exactly like what a stereotypical Westerner (i.e. Northern European Caucasian) looks like.

you realize every culture is a mixed culture today, so most of these arguments are really pointless. Anyway I saw a mention of Braudel a page or 2 ago- central to his book is the idea that the mediteranean culture ceased to be a prevelant link around the 15th century, and that it merged into the Atlantic Culture... which is basically made up of Europe: Latin, Slavic, Romantic, Germanic, and otherwise. So really doesn't contradict the idea of cultural blending, other the acknowledged fact that many of Europes most common features- monotheism, agriculture, urban settlement- first arrived through mediterranean (by way of the Levante).

I also saw something on German assimilation in the US... aside from the fact your mixing German and Germanic, that isn't really true. There were 3rd generation German-Americans that couldn't speak English at the beggining of the 20th century, especially in the rural midwest. Not to say there weren't many Germans that did assimilate, but if you look back you'll few German origin politicians and buisness leaders prior to WWI in American, because for many years they though more like transplanted Germans than Americans. The outbreak of WWI made Germans "enemies of the State" and fear caused by Anti-German attacks accelerated assimilation. If anything the Germans probably assimilated the worst of any immigrant group to the USA.

That's a good point in stating that ancient European civilizations such as the Greeks and Romans were influenced by Levantine and Middle Eastern civilization, but by the same token it was the Greeks and Romans who synthesized those influences with ideas drawn from their own cultures in order to plant the seeds that later became what is currently considered Western civilization. Monotheism may have its roots in the ancient Middle East with the Hebrews, but Christianity is the offshoot religion that came to characterize most of Europe whereas Islam came to characterize most of the Middle East. Hence, this is why Christianity is considered to be a fundamental characteristic of a Western society whereas a culture that is Islamic is considered non-Western.

I do agree however that the line at which one distinguishes what is Western from non-Western is a fuzzy one with various interpretations and opinions. In my personal opinion, I think that cultural factors such as language, religion, government, and gender roles constitute some of the major factors that have historically determined whether or not a given society is considered to be "Western" or not, however naturally others will have different opinions.

When you get down to it, I believe that the only people who are always generally accepted as Westerners are Western European Christians and their descendants.

"Greeks" and "Romans" synthesized those influences with ideas drawn from their own cultures

_________________

The Greeks and Romans you mention were migrating Indo-European peoples coming from central Asia. They first were strangers to the mediterranean and middle Eastern cultures, just like the goths, the Lombards, Franks, Burgundians etc. some centuries later. All these new comers synthesized mediterranean and middle Eastern influences with ideas drawn from their own Indo-European cultures and formed something new, the Western civilization.

The Indoeuropeans came from a region between the Caspian Sea and the Black sea, that is Europe dude, not Central Asia. Also there is another theory that says they came from Turkey, and that is the Mediterranean zone. Anyways the Romans settled in Italy a long time before they created they empire. They were a Mediterranean culture and not Indoeropean. Where they nomadic like the Indoeuropeans? No. Also they borrowed many things from the Etruscans, basically everything, and the Etruscans were another mediterranean cutlrue.

"Romans settled in Italy a long time before they created they empire. They were a Mediterranean culture and not Indoeropean. "

_____________

The language of the Romans was Indoeropean but the Romans weren´t of Indoeropean culture?

Ancient Indo-European speakers who spoke the earliest Italic and Greek languages were likely just a small group of people who imposed their language upon a much larger mass of people in Italy and the southern Balkans, respectively. This has happened countless times throughout history. The residual Greek and Roman civilizations in both places was likely composed primarily of the descendants of indigenous populations who had adopted the early forms of Greek language and Italic languages (i.e. Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc.) from the Indo-European invaders. The same could probably be said of speakers of the early forms of Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, and other subdivisions within the Indo-European language family. Modern Europeans are descended primarily from the early Paleolithic inhabitants and the later Neolithic arrivals, with some overlay from the Indo-Europeans and other more recent groups and invaders.

The Middle Eastern cultural influence on Western civilization was largely through agricultural practices and monotheism, and the uniquely European (Greco-Roman) ideas largely concerned styles of government and a greater sense of individualism (from which would come concepts such as capitalism and the theory of a free market). Subsequently, religious divisions within the monotheistic tradition would further mark what would become associated with Western civilization. When Rome declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, Christianity would come to be another characteristic that was to be a hallmark of a Western society. This was also further cemented by the rise of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa. The medieval conflict of Christianity vs. Islam was arguably one of the most solidifying determinations of what was to be viewed as Western.

The language of the Romans was Indoeropean but the Romans weren´t of Indoeropean culture?

Haitians speak French but aren't of French culture?

Al Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:50 am GMT
Ancient Indo-European speakers who spoke the earliest Italic and Greek languages were likely just a small group of people who imposed their language upon a much larger mass of people in Italy and the southern Balkans, respectively. This has happened countless times throughout history.
__________________________

It is always the same reflex: you and others state that only Migrating peoples (her Indoeuropean Greeks and Romans) were "just a small group of people who imposed their language upon a much larger mass of peoplei n Italy and the southern Balkans, ". Same is said from Germanic peoples migrating into Europe: They are characterized as a tiny little minority, quickly assimilated by the masses.

But this is not proven by any fact. Indoeuropeans and Germanics migrated in great numbers into Europe, otherwise they would not have left such a huge imprint ( all languages except Basque are Indoeuropean, all Romance languages have massive Germanic elements, or at least elements dued to Germanic migration)