|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
what is funny is that the people who pretend that french is so different to the other romance languages that it should be considered to be a germanic-romance mixed language always give as "proofs" the same exemples of supposed germanic-rooted words such as "guerre", "bleu", "jardin", "marcher", etc...
...words that are almost identical to their Italians equivalents "guerra",
"blu", "giardino", "marciare"... (but really much more distant to their supposed "germanic origin" ) Italian being largely considered to be, among the major romance languages, the reference of "romanceness"...
Curious, no, Ouest and Leasnam?
That's because borrowed vocabulary doesn't mean anything. English is not considered a romance-germanic language because of its loanwords.
Attention: il y a plusieurs catégories de mots (supposés) germaniques dans les langues romanes.
1. Les exemples souvent cités comme "guerre", "brun", "blanc", "garder", "bord", "jardin", "étendard", "troupe" etc. ne sont pas valides. Ils sont présents dans tous les dialectes romans, ils doivent donc être considérés comme des mots 100% romans (il peuvent provenir d'anciens emprunts germaniques, ce qui n'est même pas sûr).
2. Une autre catégorie est celle des "familles incomplètes". Yves Cortez donne un exemple malheureux avec "brèche": c'est un dérivé du verbe "briser", clairement d'origine germanique, mais qui n'existe que dans les langues d'oïl. L'espagnol "brecha" et l'italien "breccia" sont en fait des emprunts au français.
Autre exemple sujet à caution: "marche". L'étymon est présent en italien et espagnol pour certaines significations (marcher au pas, marche frontière, marque commerciale), mais la famille n'est pas déclinée dans tous les sens qu'elle a en français comme notamment marquer, remarquer, démarcation etc. (sens dérivés du scand. "mark", qui veut dire "sol"). Là aussi, on peut présumer des emprunts au français.
Notons que le sens de "fouler le sol" dans les langues germaniques (to march, marschieren) est repris du français. Ici, l'étymon a clairement fonctionné comme racine romane.
3. Enfin, les mots incontestablement germaniques, qui n'existent dans pas d'autres langues romanes que le français et les dialectes d'oïl: l'adv. "guère", "beffroi", "fauteuil", "dalle", "meurtre", "mannequin", "frêt", "traquer" ainsi que des termes familiers comme "bouquin", "trinquer" etc.
That's because borrowed vocabulary doesn't mean anything. English is not considered a romance-germanic language because of its loanwords.
Exactly, plus vocabulary changes a lot. Maybe in the following decades English will give up those Romance words.
"Exactly, plus vocabulary changes a lot. Maybe in the following decades English will give up those Romance words. "
they do seem to be losing ground in areas
guest Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:07 pm GMT
what is funny is that the people who pretend that french is so different to the other romance languages that it should be considered to be a germanic-romance mixed language always give as "proofs" the same exemples of supposed germanic-rooted words such as "guerre", "bleu", "jardin", "marcher", etc...
...words that are almost identical to their Italians equivalents "guerra",
"blu", "giardino", "marciare"... (but really much more distant to their supposed "germanic origin" ) Italian being largely considered to be, among the major romance languages, the reference of "romanceness"...
Curious, no, Ouest and Leasnam?
___________________________________________---
1) I do not pretend that French is sooooo different from the other Romance languages. French is only the Romance language with the most clear Germanic features and the biggest distance from Latin.
2) vocabulary is not the only Germanic feature and by far not the most important. If you compare Latin with French, you will see that the syntax, grammar and morphology of these two languages are completely different. Examples are the use of articles, declension system etc.
3) The main point finally is not that Germanic language elements have entered into Romance and French languages, but that the massive settlement of Germanic speakers in formerly Latin speaking territory induced such a massive loss of structure and language tradition that the firm structure of Latin language almost dissappeared. A multitude of new dialects were born that led to new (Romance) languages. The Germanic immigration influenced the speed of "evolution" from Latin to Romance. The change from Latin to Romance cannot be described as "evolution", since Romance was the language of populations that never spoke Latin as native language.
Wikipedia, the ultimate source of objective information.
<<The main point finally is not that Germanic language elements have entered into Romance and French languages, but that the massive settlement of Germanic speakers in formerly Latin speaking territory induced such a massive loss of structure and language tradition that the firm structure of Latin language almost dissappeared. A multitude of new dialects were born that led to new (Romance) languages. The Germanic immigration influenced the speed of "evolution" from Latin to Romance. The change from Latin to Romance cannot be described as "evolution", since Romance was the language of populations that never spoke Latin as native language. >>
Ouest, I completely agree with this statement.
A very similar thing happened in English as well, in areas heavily settled by Scandinavians (East and North of England). The communities, which were originally Norse speaking, were forced to convert to English after reconquest by the Kingdom of Wessex. Needless to say, the Scandinavians ended up speaking very bad (corrupt) English.
Since the Scandinavians in these areas were stour land-owners, and highly influential, their "brand" of English soon spread to the whole region, then spread south affecting the Midland varieties--the main constituents of Modern English. This is the reason why Modern English is so different from Old English in syntax and grammar.
Funny to note, other dialects of Middle English not affected by Old Norse remained close to Old English, namely Southern and Kentish. Even into the late ME period and early modern English period, English dialects in Kent remained close to Old English grammatical structures before eventually being displaced by Midland English. For a time the two structures coincided side by side. It was truly a survival of the fittest.
From http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/French/French.html :
"Northern France, where the synthesis of Roman and Germanic traditions brought about the development of new spiritual and institutional patterns that replaced the ancient Greco-Roman culture and civilization in the western part of Europe, was the core around which was formed the Western world. French was the language in which were fixed the notions of the Western culture and for centuries it was used by the educated people all over Europe, gradually replacing Latin in the live international communications. As a result thousands of French words were absorbed into European languages, both in the western and in the eastern part of the continent. For the growth of the Western culture the French linguistic inheritance is maybe as important as that of the ancient Greek and Latin. "
Western culture = synthesis of Roman and Germanic traditions
Romance language = synthesis of Roman and Germanic language
<<A very similar thing happened in English as well, in areas heavily settled by Scandinavians (East and North of England). The communities, which were originally Norse speaking, were forced to convert to English after reconquest by the Kingdom of Wessex. Needless to say, the Scandinavians ended up speaking very bad (corrupt) English. >>
Wrong example- Old English and Old Norse (or Old Scandinavian) were closely related,mutually intelligible languages (or Germanic dialects). Latin and Old Frankish were not closely related.
<<Wrong example- Old English and Old Norse (or Old Scandinavian) were closely related,mutually intelligible languages (or Germanic dialects). Latin and Old Frankish were not closely related. >>
No, right example because the outcomes were the same.
The slight difference in scenario was handled when I stated "A very ***similar*** thing happened in English as well"
And the two languages were not mutually intelligible, despite the closer relative relationship. Anyone looking at an Anglo-Saxon manuscript vs an Old Norse manuscript can attest to this. They are night and day.
To Leasnam:
<<Graeme Davis.Comparative Syntax of Old English and Old Icelandic:
Study of the syntax of Old English and Old Icelandic has for long been dominated by the impressions of early philologists. Their assertions that these languages were "free" in their word- order were for many years unchallenged. Only within the Last two decades has it been demonstrated that the word-order of each shows regular patterns which approach the status of rules, and which may be precisely described. This book takes the subject one step further by offering a comparison of the syntax of Old English and Old Icelandic, the two best-preserved Old Germanic Languages. Overwhelmingly the two languages show the same word-order patterns - as do the other Old Germanic languages, at least as far as can be determined from the fragments which have survived. It has long been recognised that Old English and Old Icelandic have a high proportion of common lexis and very similar morphology, yet the convention has been to emphasise the differences between the two as representatives respectively of the West and North sub-families of Germanic. The argument of this book is that the similar word-order of the two should instead lead us to stress the similarities between the two languages. Old English and Old Iceland were sufficiently close to be mutually comprehensible. This thesis receives copious support from historical and literary texts. Our understanding of the Old Germanic world should be modified by the concept of a common "Northern Speech" which provided a common Germanic ethnic identity and a platform for the free flow of cultural ideas.>>
http://www.shvoong.com/books/118988-comparative-syntax-old-english-old/
to Leasnam:
<<Linguists have recently lent some support to the hypothesis that different early medieval Germanic peoples still spoke mutually intelligible languages, making the idea of a “foreign language” to learn anachronistic in this situation. Similar evidence has been advanced for the mutual intelligibilityof Old Norse and Old English at the time of the Viking conquest of much of England. Still, evidence from place names within the Danelaw suggests that the Vikings did not assimilate, and interpreted Old English language, like culture, with a Norse accent. This idea of societal bilingualism between Old Norse and Old English, with individual speakers only knowing one or the other, seems plausible given archaeological evidence for continued separation of the two populations.>>
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C91D0FC1-5A4C-4825-B357-38D3726A4575/0/medreview.pdf
Exactly, plus vocabulary changes a lot. Maybe in the following decades English will give up those Romance words
----
Prepare to give up 70% of English vocabulary... good work! LOL
-----
Western culture = synthesis of Roman and Germanic traditions
Romance language = synthesis of Roman and Germanic language
-----
correction:
Western culture = synthesis of Roman and Greek traditions
Romance language = synthesis of latin with very few german words
|