What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
<<Since Gaulish language (and peoples?) were completely erased from the cultural landscape in France by the Romans and since pure Latin was spoken in France before the Germanic invasions, there canot be any substratum of Gaulish language in modern French.....>>
Oui les gaulois ont abandonné la langue gauloise au profit du latin ! Mais cette langue a bien du laisser des traces sur le latin local, on oublie pas une langue du jour au lendemain pour se mettre à parler un latin "standard" comme par magie !
Je suis persuadé que le latin parlé en Gaule avait déjà ses particularités ! Il ne faut pas oubliés que les gaulois étaient un peuple évolué, la société était organisée et le commerce aussi. Tout ça pour dire que l'empreinte culturelle était forte et que la romanisation n'a pas du opérer de la même façon en Gaule qu'en Hispanie et que cela a forcément eu des répercussions sur la langue.
Estelle Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:28 am GMT
<<Since Gaulish language (and peoples?) were completely erased from the cultural landscape in France by the Romans and since pure Latin was spoken in France before the Germanic invasions, there canot be any substratum of Gaulish language in modern French.....>>
Oui les gaulois ont abandonné la langue gauloise au profit du latin ! Mais cette langue a bien du laisser des traces sur le latin local, on oublie pas une langue du jour au lendemain pour se mettre à parler un latin "standard" comme par magie !
Je suis persuadé que le latin parlé en Gaule avait déjà ses particularités ! Il ne faut pas oubliés que les gaulois étaient un peuple évolué, la société était organisée et le commerce aussi. Tout ça pour dire que l'empreinte culturelle était forte et que la romanisation n'a pas du opérer de la même façon en Gaule qu'en Hispanie et que cela a forcément eu des répercussions sur la langue.
______________________________________
The following expressions are characteristical:
- cette langue a bien du laisser
- Je suis persuadé
- cela a forcément eu des répercussions
They show that you follow a probable and logical scenario. But not everything in history is "logical". Why Gaulish wasn´t spoken in "France" before the Germans came is difficult to explay by logics, but it is a fact that no trace whatsoever of any Gaulish influence on the Latin of that time has been found until today. There are many written Latin texts that have come to us, so somewhere one should have found something.....
Gaulish is all in all very little known since no Gaulish text has ever been found, only some graffiti. This contrasts to the many "facts" Gallo-centred nationalists know for sure of the language of their hypothetical "ancestors". But remember: Asterix and Obelix never married and never got children, so perhaps the Gaulish people has not been deleted by Caesar´s Romans but have ceased to reproduce itself some day....
<<But remember: Asterix and Obelix never married and never got children, so perhaps the Gaulish people has not been deleted by Caesar´s Romans but have ceased to reproduce itself some day.... >>
: )
<<Since Gaulish language (and peoples?) were completely erased from the cultural landscape in France by the Romans and since pure Latin was spoken in France before the Germanic invasions >>
-- Ridiculous. Gaulish survived the Roman Empire. Gregory of Tours mentions that it was still spoken in the 7th century. Gaul was back then a Frankish kingdom, the Romans were history.
Furthermore there never was any real Roman colonisation in Gaul, except in North-East (now German) and the extreme South (Occitan), for obvious strategical reasons.
<< since pure Latin was spoken in France >>
-- There is absolutely no evidence "pure Latin" was ever spoken in France.
<<-- Ridiculous. Gaulish survived the Roman Empire. Gregory of Tours mentions that it was still spoken in the 7th century. Gaul was back then a Frankish kingdom, the Romans were history.
>>
Why are there so few Gaulish words in French forthy? This does not relate with other similar-type situations we see in linguistics
<<Since Gaulish language (and peoples?) were completely erased from the cultural landscape in France by the Romans and since pure Latin was spoken in France before the Germanic invasions>>
How do you explain the remnants of the Gaulish vigesimal counting system in French numbers such quatre-vingt (four-twenty)? That didn't come from Latin or Frankish.
That came from the Danish Vikings who colonised Northern France in the Middle ages.
Furthermore there never was any real Roman colonisation in Gaul, except in North-East (now German) and the extreme South (Occitan), for obvious strategical reasons.
____________________________________
What about Lutecia and Lyon and all the Roman villae?
Les Gaulois ont arrêté de faire des enfants ou ont été éradiqués ... qu'est-ce qu'il ne faut pas lire !
Ils ont été romanisés et ça n'a rien avoir avec un génocide ou une vague de stérélité !
<<How do you explain the remnants of the Gaulish vigesimal counting system in French numbers such quatre-vingt (four-twenty)? That didn't come from Latin or Frankish. >>
<<That came from the Danish Vikings who colonised Northern France in the Middle ages. >>
Correct. The Gaulish vigesimal counting system terminated with the Gaulish language. It has no link to the vigesimal system used today in France.
The vigesimal system used today in France originated in the coastal regions of the north (Normandy) and was adopted after the French Revolution--it is a reintroduction of a vigesimal system from an altogether different source. French speaking areas to the south and east continue to use the Latin system (huitante, septante, nonante).
This vigesimal system came from the Normans in Normandy cf. -score system in English.
Estelle Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:52 pm GMT
Ils ont été romanisés et ça n'a rien avoir avec un génocide ou une vague de stérélité !
__________________________________
You state that Gaulois were romanized: "romanisé" means here that they were in great parts "replaced by Roman colonists". "Gaulois" probably ended as slaves in their own country or in Rome, that is how Roman empire worked. Surviving as slaves was very difficult in the long run, especially for proud people like the Gauls. That can explain how a complete country could loose its language and culture for another language and culture.
To be romanized doesn't mean to be "replaced by Roman colonists", it means they lost their Gaulish culture to adopt the Roman one. It happened in the South of France (Tolosa, Narbo, Massalia, Arelate...etc) where all the population spoke Latin and at the borders with Germania for some military reasons.
The romanization has been less important in the North and the West of Gallia where only the cities were trully romanized (Burdigala, Lutecia...etc). There were not really big Roman cities in these regions and the rural population was less concerned and it gave a mix of culture between the Gaulish culture and the Roman one (that's why they were called "Gallo-Roman" people).
Moreover the goal of the Roman army wasn't to eradicate all the local population but to integrate it in the Roman area. It would have been really stupid to conquer some territories, kill all the people and dominate an "empty earth". It didn't happen in Hipania, nor in Britania, nor in Aegyptia, nor in Graecia, so it couldn't happen in Gallia.
PS : Sorry for my poor English...I tried.
<< What about Lutecia and Lyon and all the Roman villae? >>
-- 'Lutetia' and 'Lugdunum' are Celtic names (like 'Londinium').
The fact that 'Lincoln' is a Latin name doesn't mean that the whole Brythonic population was exterminated or ended up in slavery, and was substituted with Roman colonists.
<< You state that Gaulois were romanized: "romanisé" means here that they were in great parts "replaced by Roman colonists". >>
-- Remarkably moronic comment. There were simply no Roman colonist in oïl-speaking France.
<< Why are there so few Gaulish words in French forthy? >>
-- Tell me how you can count Gaulish words in French!
It's impossible. So many Celtic words are similar to either Romance or Germanic that it's virtually impossible to make sure how their modern-day cognates found their way into French (or English).
<<How do you explain the remnants of the Gaulish vigesimal counting system in French numbers such quatre-vingt (four-twenty)? That didn't come from Latin or Frankish. >>
<<That came from the Danish Vikings who colonised Northern France in the Middle ages. >>
-- It's hard to tell. The earliest testimonies of the vigesimal system in Old French are from Normandy, but it is indeed used in all Celtic languages. Maybe the Danish legacy in Normandy and the Celtic heritage of Bretagne competed to impose it in modern French. At any rate it originates from Western France.
Estelle: """"""""""gave a mix of culture between the Gaulish culture and the Roman one (that's why they were called "Gallo-Roman" people).
""""""""""""""""
Do you know any "Gallo-Roman" relict found by archeology that is significantly different from a purely Latin-Roman relict? What is the difference between a "Gallo-Roman" and an Italo-Roman villa rustica? Are there any texts that mention that the Latin spoken in Spain was another than the Latin spoken in Gallia?
"""It didn't happen in Hipania, nor in Britania, nor in Aegyptia, nor in Graecia, so it couldn't happen in Gallia.
""""""
It happened in Hispania and Brittany was also heavily colonized by ancient Roman soldiers and other mediterranian people. Egypt and greece were another situation, perhaps because their population was more developed and sophisticated than the Roman one.
<<PS : Sorry for my poor English...I tried. >>
Estelle, you did just fine! : )
<<-- Tell me how you can count Gaulish words in French!
It's impossible. So many Celtic words are similar to either Romance or Germanic that it's virtually impossible to make sure how their modern-day cognates found their way into French (or English).
>>
That is not an answer. I can tell you for English--it's about 10 Celtic words (not counting recent Irish borrowings), that's it.