It looks strange,when 100000 of Franks conquer 12000000 of Gauls.
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
<<<<subject pronoun: always present before the verb, whereas it is not necessary in >>
French does not drop pronouns because some verbal endings are the same. The same happens in Brazilian Portuguese, which is not pro-drop as well. As far as I know the Franks didn't reach to the Brazilian shores.>>>>
The case with Portuguese is probably not related to that in French, though the outcomes appear similar. What the majority of linguists agree on is that in French the tendency to pro-drop is rather due to Frankish/Germanic languages (appearing largely in the North of France after the migration period 12-13 century and largely in the writings of bilingual Germanic scribes in conjunction with V2 [verb second] placement {cf. 'ainsi soit-il'} before becoming common in the ordinary spoken language), being aided further by merging of forms in spoken French due to stress accent also of Germanic origin (in French).
<<adjective before the noun>>
This is an exception rather than norm in French. Anyways when the adjective is before the nouns has different meaning than when is placed after the noun. This does not exist in Germanic languages but Spanish and Italian have this feature too. >>
And this change of meaning feature was inherited from Latin via common romance? or was an effect of Romance-Germanic bilingualism?
French does not drop pronouns because some verbal endings are the same. The same happens in Brazilian Portuguese, which is not pro-drop as well. As far as I know the Franks didn't reach to the Brazilian shores.>>>>
The case with Portuguese is probably not related to that in French, though the outcomes appear similar. What the majority of linguists agree on is that in French the tendency to pro-drop is rather due to Frankish/Germanic languages (appearing largely in the North of France after the migration period 12-13 century and largely in the writings of bilingual Germanic scribes in conjunction with V2 [verb second] placement {cf. 'ainsi soit-il'} before becoming common in the ordinary spoken language), being aided further by merging of forms in spoken French due to stress accent also of Germanic origin (in French).
<<adjective before the noun>>
This is an exception rather than norm in French. Anyways when the adjective is before the nouns has different meaning than when is placed after the noun. This does not exist in Germanic languages but Spanish and Italian have this feature too. >>
And this change of meaning feature was inherited from Latin via common romance? or was an effect of Romance-Germanic bilingualism?
<<It looks strange,when 100000 of Franks conquer 12000000 of Gauls.>>
The Roman Army didn't exist anymore...so when it's citizen vs barbarian army you understand why they conquered Gauls easily.
The Roman Army didn't exist anymore...so when it's citizen vs barbarian army you understand why they conquered Gauls easily.
"It looks strange,when 100000 of Franks conquer 12000000 of Gauls."
The Franks were certainly much more. But first of all they took control of the Northern part of the country, and a process of merger took place. When later on they invaded Southern France, and when Charlemagne crossed the Pyrenees and the Alps, they propagated the (old) French language.
They are the cause Occitan looks so much like French (albeit with a definite 'Latin' accent and rythm), why Occitan extended into Spanish territory to become Catalan, and why French features are present in the dialects of North Western Italy.
"It looks strange,when 100000 of Franks conquer 12000000 of Gauls."
It's no less strange that 7,000 Frenchmen conquered all England within a couple of weeks in 1066...
The Franks were certainly much more. But first of all they took control of the Northern part of the country, and a process of merger took place. When later on they invaded Southern France, and when Charlemagne crossed the Pyrenees and the Alps, they propagated the (old) French language.
They are the cause Occitan looks so much like French (albeit with a definite 'Latin' accent and rythm), why Occitan extended into Spanish territory to become Catalan, and why French features are present in the dialects of North Western Italy.
"It looks strange,when 100000 of Franks conquer 12000000 of Gauls."
It's no less strange that 7,000 Frenchmen conquered all England within a couple of weeks in 1066...
" It looks strange,when 100000 of Franks conquer 12000000 of Gauls. "
A few hundreds spanish conquistadores conquered the millions-inhabitants Aztec empire, which was one of the iggest in the world at that time... History is full of such events.
A few hundreds spanish conquistadores conquered the millions-inhabitants Aztec empire, which was one of the iggest in the world at that time... History is full of such events.
<,It's no less strange that 7,000 Frenchmen conquered all England within a couple of weeks in 1066... >>
Ahem, the Normans were not Frenchmen! They were Normans, not even close.
Ahem, the Normans were not Frenchmen! They were Normans, not even close.
<<It's no less strange that 7,000 Frenchmen conquered all England within a couple of weeks in 1066... >>
Yeah, with the help of hired Flemish contingencies.
Btw, the English armies were already wearied from immediately beforehand defending their country against the King of Norway. With 15000 men and 300warships Harald was not able to seize the English throne.
Duke William has him to thank : | (and William BARELY succeeded at that)
Yeah, with the help of hired Flemish contingencies.
Btw, the English armies were already wearied from immediately beforehand defending their country against the King of Norway. With 15000 men and 300warships Harald was not able to seize the English throne.
Duke William has him to thank : | (and William BARELY succeeded at that)
<<"It looks strange,when 100000 of Franks conquer 12000000 of Gauls."
It's no less strange that 7,000 Frenchmen conquered all England within a couple of weeks in 1066... >>
One other thing separates the two events:
Franks into Gaul represented a mass migration of people (families, communities) due to loss of original Heimat and pressure from the east. The Norman Invasion was more political than sociological. Time period also makes a difference, Europe was less stable when the Franks conquered Gaul. Apples to oranges.
It's no less strange that 7,000 Frenchmen conquered all England within a couple of weeks in 1066... >>
One other thing separates the two events:
Franks into Gaul represented a mass migration of people (families, communities) due to loss of original Heimat and pressure from the east. The Norman Invasion was more political than sociological. Time period also makes a difference, Europe was less stable when the Franks conquered Gaul. Apples to oranges.
Ahem, the Normans were not Frenchmen! They were Normans, not even close.
Yeah, they were martians...
Yeah, they were martians...
<<Yeah, they were martians... >>
That's just stupid.
No one said anything about "martians" (,weirdo Frenchman)
Deal with the matter at hand. Don't hyperbolate to ridiculous degrees. What are you a woman!
That's just stupid.
No one said anything about "martians" (,weirdo Frenchman)
Deal with the matter at hand. Don't hyperbolate to ridiculous degrees. What are you a woman!
Leasnam : « What the majority of linguists agree on is that in French the tendency to pro-drop is rather due to Frankish/Germanic languages [...] ».
La majorité des linguistes → preuve ? → pourcentage ? → % ?
La majorité des linguistes → preuve ? → pourcentage ? → % ?
<<La majorité des linguistes → preuve ? → pourcentage ? → % ? >>
I don't have to prove anything, least of all to you sir : )
Since you are so keen on it, I'd be pleased if you would do us all the honour of DISPROVING such. Go ahead, be my guest. Ball's in your court, Monsieur
I don't have to prove anything, least of all to you sir : )
Since you are so keen on it, I'd be pleased if you would do us all the honour of DISPROVING such. Go ahead, be my guest. Ball's in your court, Monsieur
@greg,
greg, regardless of how unhappy you may be with history, you cannot undo the past by trying to rewrite it after your own liking. God in heaven knows the truth and will see to it that it is preserved and revealed.
greg, regardless of how unhappy you may be with history, you cannot undo the past by trying to rewrite it after your own liking. God in heaven knows the truth and will see to it that it is preserved and revealed.
Leasnam : « I don't have to prove anything [...] ».
Ah oui ?! C'est surtout que tu en es bien incapable...
Leasnam : « Since you are so keen on it, I'd be pleased if you would do us all the honour of DISPROVING such. »
Et tu veux pas cent balles et un Mars, aussi ? Allez, va te cacher si tu n'as plus rien à ajouter pour la défense de tes positions inutilement agressives et totalement fantasmagoriques...
Leasnam : « Go ahead, be my guest. Ball's in your court, Monsieur »
Non mon cher : quand on affirme, juché sur ses petits ergots, que le français est une langue germanique ou un mélange romanogermanique, on a au moins la décence de justifier ses dires. C'est le 584e message : peut-être qu'au 10.000 e tu auras ébauché l'ombre d'une explication rationnelle ?
Guest : « [...] you cannot undo the past by trying to rewrite it after your own liking. »
Il ne s'agit pas de réécrire le passé mais bien de discuter les questions présentes dont Ouest, Leasnam etc se font les porte-parole.
Ah oui ?! C'est surtout que tu en es bien incapable...
Leasnam : « Since you are so keen on it, I'd be pleased if you would do us all the honour of DISPROVING such. »
Et tu veux pas cent balles et un Mars, aussi ? Allez, va te cacher si tu n'as plus rien à ajouter pour la défense de tes positions inutilement agressives et totalement fantasmagoriques...
Leasnam : « Go ahead, be my guest. Ball's in your court, Monsieur »
Non mon cher : quand on affirme, juché sur ses petits ergots, que le français est une langue germanique ou un mélange romanogermanique, on a au moins la décence de justifier ses dires. C'est le 584e message : peut-être qu'au 10.000 e tu auras ébauché l'ombre d'une explication rationnelle ?
Guest : « [...] you cannot undo the past by trying to rewrite it after your own liking. »
Il ne s'agit pas de réécrire le passé mais bien de discuter les questions présentes dont Ouest, Leasnam etc se font les porte-parole.