What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language

<<- Do you think that, when it comes to scientific findings, the more ancient the better?
>>

Even though not directed at me, when it comes to historical accounts, I believe the more ancient the account the more accurate. Here's why--accounts taken closer to the time of the event are 1). fresher in peoples' minds, and 2). because they tend to assume or leave out a lot of information which was "commonly known" by average persons at the time, tending rather to hint or make reference to it instead of citing it explicitly. Therefore, it must be inferred, or *added back in*, when viewed from a modern perspective because it is missing.

Looking at an old event from a modern perspective, without inferring these "commonly known" facts will lead us off into left field and astray.

Leasnam: <<Even though not directed at me, when it comes to historical accounts, I believe the more ancient the account the more accurate.>>

Before discussing this interesting point, let's clarify this: I'm talking about scientific findings while you're talking about historical accounts. If you agree with this, please read on.

I think I do not betray your point if I summarize it as thus: Accounts contemporary to the events they relate to are better than newer accounts on said events, but might lack explicit references to information that was commonly known at the time.

If I correctly rephrased your point (please disregard any possible English mistakes), I agree with it completely. And I guess you would agree that, paradoxically, *ancient* historical accounts can nevertheless be *new* findings or *old* findings, can't they?

If I discover today a three century-old report, then this document is ancient, right? If it refers to events that are contemporary to itself, then chance is it is an accurate ancient document on some ancient events, right? However my discovering of the document is undoubtedly new. It's a new finding.

Plus, my determining whether this document isn't a fake (or isn't biased or deliberately misleading) produces something new and makes new information available. Inferring "commonly known" information of the time, as you wisely suggest, can also create new information which completes that that was collected so far. If the information generated is different from, or complementary to, the already available one, we get another new finding. That would be two new findings in total, all from an ancient historical account.

All that being said, and back on topic, Greg was refering to the obsolescence of a theory, not an historical account. That theory was obviously based on the knowledge of the time and the methodology of the time, both of which were more limited than that of today.

Ouest : <<Walter von Wartburg wasn´t an idiot...>>

Invité d'honneur <<Greg explained that there were major flaws in the methodology that was used to come up with the figure that you quoted (25%). To which you respond that Walter von Wartburg wasn't an idiot...
- Do you realize that Greg and you are not talking about the same thing?
- Would you agree that explaining the limits of a method isn't the same thing as calling someone an idiot? >>


Greg wrote: <<Propager ces âneries sans aucun questionnement constitue une faillite totale de la pensée.>> - this is what I call characterizing Walter von Wartburg as a propagator of follies, in short, as a perfect idiot!

But perhaps our good greg is in short of arguments.....;-)

Invité d'honneur Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:18 pm GMT:
<<All that being said, and back on topic, Greg was refering to the obsolescence of a theory, not an historical account. That theory was obviously based on the knowledge of the time and the methodology of the time, both of which were more limited than that of today. >>

...both of which were LESS limited than that of today! Limits of modern theories are e.g. political correctness, modern myths, common sense, nationalism, low quality of modern scientists compared to those of the 19th century etc.

" << Mozarabic (Arabic-Latin mix) is now extinct, because Muslims were beaten by Germanics in Poitier and other places and finally expelled by Visigothic reconquista

Romance languages (Germanic-Latin mixtures) live until today because Germanics were able to win the decesive battles against the Sarazens and the Huns and the Turks and never were expelled from Europe. >> "


Ouest, your propaganda is a ridiculous delirium... my god...

haha , Mozarabic speakers were not Muslims but Christians. This guy reads "mozarabic" and thinks that they were Arabic or something. The term may be misleading, but he should care of reading a bit instead of saying nonsenses.

<<Ouest, your propaganda is a ridiculous delirium... my god... >>

What? Why is it "ridiculous", a "delirium"?

You better thank your g*damn gothic lucky stars that you're even able to berate them in that stank awful Mexican latin of yours

Ouest : « Greg wrote: <<Propager ces âneries sans aucun questionnement constitue une faillite totale de la pensée.>> - this is what I call characterizing Walter von Wartburg as a propagator of follies, in short, as a perfect idiot! ».

Non, l'imbécile n'est pas celui qui observe, étudie, découvre, travaille, invente et diffuse un savoir. L'imbécile c'est celui qui fétichise l'œuvre du précédent sans tenter d'en comprendre les soubassements et les limites. De grâce, ne prends pas les reproches que je t'adresse pour de l'irrespect envers un linguiste admirable.





Ouest : « Limits of modern theories are e.g. political correctness, modern myths, common sense, nationalism, low quality of modern scientists compared to those of the 19th century etc. ».

Un vrai concentré de sottises. Relis par exemple l'œuvre de Saussure, un autre linguiste suisse exceptionnel, et tu t'apercevras que le maître genevois a fondé la linguistique moderne alors qu'il était le parangon du comparatisme du XIXe siècle. Saussure s'est montré capable de dépasser les acquis de son siècle. Et surtout de concilier modernisme et tradition.





Ouest : « But perhaps our good greg is in short of arguments.....;-) ».

Je pense que c'est plutôt toi qui es à court de mémoire : on t'a déjà expliqué à de multiples reprises quel était les fondements de l'étymologie traditionnelle. Je te les rappelle :
1] les langues romanes sont des avatars du latin ;
2] par conséquent les ressemblances latin/roman sont dues à des altérations d'étymons latins qui, au fil du temps, sont devenus romans ; l'hypothèse d'un chaînon antérieur commun au latin et au roman est non seulement écartée, mais surtout inenvisageable ;
3] tout vocable roman ne pouvant être rattaché à un équivalent latin est (après passage au tamis du grec, du celtique et de l'arabe) systématiquement réputé avoir été emprunté au germanique, même en l'absence d'étymon germanique attesté (auquel cas il suffit d'en supputer un, de préférence en lui attribuant l'étiquette "ancien bas-francique").

Si l'on part du principe qu'on peut et qu'on doit exiger des preuves tangibles à la place des "étymons" germaniques reconstruits par spéculation due à l'absence d'attestation ; si l'on admet qu'une ressemblance roman/germanique n'est pas nécessairement un emprunt germanique→ roman ni un emprunt roman→germanique à partir du moment où ledit étymon se retrouve dans les familles slave, celtique, grecque etc ; si l'on admet qu'un étymon partagé par toute la famille romane (de la mer du Nord à la Sicile et de l'Atlantique à la mer Noire) a plus de chances d'être linguistiquement indigène que d'avoir été emprunté par les Gaulois romanophones de Gaule septentrionale à une tribu franque, puis redistribué on ne sait comment, par ces mêmes sympathiques Gaulois, de la Calabre vers le Portugal ; si l'on envisage de considérer que les langues romanes ont infiniment plus en commun entre elles que ce qu'elles partagent avec le latin ; si l'on accepte un instant d'imaginer la relation latin/roman comme un cousinage et non comme une filiation ; alors l'édifice de l'étymologie traditionnelle ne tient plus debout — du tout.

Mais de tout ça nous avons déjà longuement discuté, même si ta mémoire te joue des tours.

Ouest : <<both of which were LESS limited than that of today! Limits of modern **theories** are e.g. political correctness, modern myths, common sense, nationalism, low quality of modern scientists compared to those of the 19th century etc. >>

Let's agree on a couple of things first: I said "Knowledge and methodology", not "theory". Unless I misunderstood you, you're not claiming that scientific *knowledge* and *methodology* are more limited today than they were in the 19th century, you're talking about this century's *theories* only, aren't you?

Now, let's get back to the limits you perceive on modern theories, let me get this straight:
- According to you, are all of those limits imposed all the time, on all studies, researches, papers, scientific journals, findings, experiments and theories, in all scientific fields, and always more so than on those of the 19th century?
- If so, based on what data, experiments, sources and interpretation do you base such a claim?
- Exactly who imposes those limits in your opinion?
- How exactly are they imposed?
- And finally, for two pratical examples. Assuming that those limits apply to all scientific fields, such as medecine and psychology, would you explain me how the knowledge we have about the treatment of cancer and schizophrenia today is more limited than that that we had in the 19th century? If applicable, how are modern myths (to retain only one of the limits you mentioned) limiting the knowledge of the scientists in these fields more than they did in the 19th century?

Thanks in advance.

<<Mais de tout ça nous avons déjà longuement discuté, même si ta mémoire te joue des tours. >>

Greg -> C'est magnifiquement expliqué, résumé et démontré en tout cas. Merci pour ce message, qui n'est fort heureusement pas perdu pour tout le monde.


... seulement par ceux complètement à l'ouest ! :-)

greg:<<on t'a déjà expliqué à de multiples reprises quel était les fondements de l'étymologie traditionnelle. Je te les rappelle :
1] les langues romanes sont des avatars du latin ;
2] par conséquent les ressemblances latin/roman sont dues à des altérations d'étymons latins qui, au fil du temps, sont devenus romans ; l'hypothèse d'un chaînon antérieur commun au latin et au roman est non seulement écartée, mais surtout inenvisageable ;
3] tout vocable roman ne pouvant être rattaché à un équivalent latin est (après passage au tamis du grec, du celtique et de l'arabe) systématiquement réputé avoir été emprunté au germanique, même en l'absence d'étymon germanique attesté (auquel cas il suffit d'en supputer un, de préférence en lui attribuant l'étiquette "ancien bas-francique"). >>

I agree: French etymology is certainly not the sole (and even not the best) clue to understand the history of French language. Grammar, syntax and morphology are more important, as well as history, archeology and onomastics (science of toponyms and names), geography, historio-economic science etc.

greg:<<familles slave, celtique, grecque >>

I understand the meaning of slavic language families. But I know only one single Greek lannguage, no Greek language families.
As for Celtic language families: Celtic is a complete obscure language with only very few speakers and documents. Nobody is able to trace back Celtic for more than some centuries. Gaulois or Iberic are only known from a handful of grafitti - no comparison with Slavic or Greek!

à Ouest, invité d'honneur et tout autre bouffon qui se retrouvera dans ce message,




De toute façon, j'ai raison et vous en êtes parfaitement conscient. Pourquoi n'allez vous pas jouer parmi les petits? Ici on parle de langues sérieusement et ne fait pas "mumuse". Qui plus est vous faites tellment de fautes, que je doute sincèrement de la qualité de vos propos. Vosu me seblez bien ignorants et je suis fatiqué de ces gens doués d'une intelligence plus que limitée qui donnet leur avissur tout et finalement rien. Vos posts n'apportent rien de productif et vous vous exprimez comem des attardés mentaux.

Vous êtes une insulte à mon intelligence et je ne souhaite plus échanger de posts avec vous, les deux "tarés" de service.

Sur ce je vous souhoate une excellente journée messieurs les caves.

It is a shame for French to have Germanic ancestry?

I'm sorry, I want to tell "for some French".

>>It is a shame for French to have Germanic ancestry?

Yes, it is. It means that French ancestors were incapable to protect their women against barbarian Germans.