|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
<<As long as you believe in the myth that only a hand full of Germanic land lords settled in the Gauls populated with millions of brave Gaulois, you will be unable to understand the impact of Germanic language on the evolution of Latin to French.
>> If such a fairy-tale is true, what were Charlemagne and his followers? Migrant workers? absurd
" As long as you believe in the myth that only a hand full of Germanic land lords settled in the Gauls populated with millions of brave Gaulois, you will be unable to understand the impact of Germanic language on the evolution of Latin to French. "
As long as you believe the foolish idea that what is now France (Parts of Gaul) had a population of 50% germanic... This would mean that, before the fall of Roman empire the Germanic tribes, who were mainly semi-nomadic people who were originary from a relatively small area should have been very numerous: Gaul was expected to have about 5 million people, so 50% would mean at least around 5 million franks that would have settle in Gaul... knowing that Franks were one tribe among others, if you had the burgonds, goths, etc... the whole number of germanic migrant into the roman empire (germanic-areas behind the Rhine) should have counted about at least 15 million people, at best 40 million people... that is to say a very irrealistic number at those times. But saying that 30 million germanic people would have migrated to Roman empire would let suppose that the population of "Germania" (the germanic-populated behind the Rhine) should have been populated by much more people (supposing that not all of them moved to the Roman empire: but only on third- which is already an enormous number; this would mean that about between 45 and 120 million people lived in "Germania" before !!!... These are completly unrealistic numbers, especially at those times (it is about the population of the area today), and especially for a semi-nomadic populated area (such number would mean that the area was, far ahead, the most populated area of the world at those times, which would be absurd knowing that the densiest populated areas always have been the most urbanized and sedentarized areas.) When we say that about 2-5% of the population of what is now France was Frankish it is much more realistic considering the total population of the whole "Germania". If we consider that what is now France was about 5 million people, the Frankish population in France constituted about between 50 000 and 250 000 people. If we add the areas that were populated by Franks before the fall of the empire (=Outside of modern France) in "Germania inferior" and Rhine region (about modern Belgium, parts of Netherlands and wester Germany), the number should probably at least double and rise between 100 000 and 1 000 000. Considering that the whole Frankish population around 500 000/1 000 000 people is more realistic. It would let us assume that the whole "Germania" would be about 5 million people, that is to say about the population of Gaul, for areas of similar size. This is far much more realistic than the 45 million Germanics/5 million Gallo-Romans that suppose the foolish theory above.
guest Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:26 pm GMT
" As long as you believe in the myth that only a hand full of Germanic land lords settled in the Gauls populated with millions of brave Gaulois, you will be unable to understand the impact of Germanic language on the evolution of Latin to French. " As long as you believe the foolish idea that what is now France (Parts of Gaul) had a population of 50% germanic... Considering that the whole Frankish population around 500 000/1 000 000 people is more realistic. It would let us assume that the whole "Germania" would be about 5 million people, that is to say about the population of Gaul, for areas of similar size. This is far much more realistic than the 45 million Germanics/5 million Gallo-Romans that suppose the foolish theory above. _________________________________ You underestimate in your scenarios the dynamic of population changes. It not so important how big the numbers of different peoples are at a certain time. The main factor are growth and negative growth rates! The presence of Germanic Franks in what is today France is a story of growing population and of successive expansion. First, a relatively small tribe was settled by the Romans in Toxandria as auxiliary forces. They were fertile, expert in agriculture and not subject to taxation, while the shrinking autochtone population in Gaul was havily exploited by the Romans. Step by step they became more and more numerous and important up to become the successors of the Roman empire. Don´t forget that the Franks had a common frontier to inner Germania, where additional people could continously, and during centuries, immigrate into what is today France and settle as free men in Neustria. For Germanics, Neustria was in the early middle ages something like the United States was for Europeans in the 19th century. Only the fact that they came successively and not en bloc made that Germano-Latin (=Romance) and not some kind of Nederlands is spoken in Northern France today.
Lobo : « Qu'est-ce que des touristes peuvent influencer sur une langue? Absolument rien. »
Nous sommes bien d'accord. Que le touriste soit une succession ininterrompue de locuteurs germaniques portant sandales sur chaussettes blanches, ou une succession très lente de chefs de guerre paléogermanophones, au bout du compte l'impact numérique milite en faveur de celui qui prend des photos en tenant sa glace de l'autre main — même si, physiquement, les individus changent tout le temps. Quand le germanophone médiéval cesse d'être un touriste pour devenir un dynaste, à terme il se romanise. Mais toutes ces considérations n'ont aucune valeur : seule compte l'approche linguistique. Ouest : « As long as you believe in the myth that only a hand full of Germanic land lords settled in the Gauls populated with millions of brave Gaulois, you will be unable to understand the impact of Germanic language on the evolution of Latin to French. » Qu'il y ait eu mille ou cent millions de paléogermanophones en Gaule septentrionale n'a strictement aucune importance : ce qui compte, ce sont les arguments qui ressortissent à la langue puisque, je te le rappelle, c'est toi-même qui a lancé ce sujet dont le propos est de qualifier une langue (le français). Je crois donc que c'est toi qui souffre d'un mal persistant : parler d'une langue sans produire d'argument linguistique. Ouest : « As you can see, greg and others here still believe in "nos ancêtres les gaulois". » Vaut mieux entendre ça que d'être sourd... Au moins ça prouve que tu n'as encore rien compris malgré les 52 pages d'explication. À la limite, on se fout de savoir si les paléoromanophones étaient gaulois, celtes, chinois ou ouzbeks : on s'intéresse à un système de communication généralement désigné par le nom de « LANGUE » et non au fait de savoir si "nos" ancêtres étaient gaulois, inuits, russes ou algonquins... Même si par aventure tu parvenais à démontrer qu'il y avait 10 Gaulois pour 300.000.000 de Germains en Gaule, tu n'aurais encore ***RIEN*** démontré au niveau linguistique. C'est comme le principe de l'entonnoir : pour qu'un liquide s'écoule par un entonnoir, il ne suffit pas que ce liquide passe par le cône évasé → il faut aussi qu'il ressorte par le rétrécissement tubulaire. La sortie du tube, c'est la langue : si tu négliges cet aspect, c'est comme si tu parlais dans le vide. C'est exactement ce que tu fais depuis 52 pages...
Ouest: ''Only the fact that they came successively and not en bloc made that Germano-Latin (=Romance) and not some kind of Nederlands is spoken in Northern France today.''
Quant à l'apport des Germains sur la langue française, on pourrait dire qu'il ne sont parvenus qu'à produire un dialecte parmi d'autres, qui s'est répandu par la suite à partir de l'île de France, mais que la langue, elle, est demeurée belle et bien ''romane''.
<<Gaul was expected to have about 5 million people, so 50% would mean at least around 5 million franks that would have settle in Gaul>>
What about the number of Gauls who were slain by the germanics in the process of overthrow? Cut that number in half
" French is not pure Latin Romance language,it has strong Germanic ancestry. "
Once again, which ones? If these "roots" are so obvious why not giving these exemples/proof of a strong and obvious germanic root that would make french very different from say, Italian? it should not be difficult. But, even if it is the title of this topic, since so many months nobody (Ouest, Leasnam, Lobo, and others (maybe the same person I think)) has been able to give proofs of "what make french a germanic-romance mixed language. Yes I ask to all of you (those who think it is true): what makes french a germanic-romance mixed language? and hope to have finally valid answers. " Qu'est-ce que des touristes peuvent influencer sur une langue? Absolument rien " Tout à fait daccord... l'influence des touristes Allemands sur la langue Mallorquie est nulle. C'est ce que je voulais entendre. Alors imagine l'importance de l'influence de populations germaniques diluées sur un territoire immense et pronfondément peuplé et urbanisé (l'empire Romain occidental entier)... comment pourrait-elle être plus importante? " As long as you believe in the myth that only a hand full of Germanic land lords settled in the Gauls populated with millions of brave Gaulois, you will be unable to understand the impact of Germanic language on the evolution of Latin to French. "
Marseillais:''Alors imagine l'importance de l'influence de populations germaniques diluées sur un territoire immense et pronfondément peuplé et urbanisé (l'empire Romain occidental entier)... comment pourrait-elle être plus importante?''
Citation sur la cote saxonne: ''Le chroniqueur Eutrope indique qu'au cours des années 280, la mer au large des côtes de Belgique et d'Armorique était « infestée de Francs et de Saxons », et c'est pour cette raison que Carausius fut placé à la tête de la Classis Britannica. Par ailleurs, le Notitia (Dignitatum) documente la présence de nombreuses tribus germaniques (notamment des Francs et des Suèves) servant comme laeti dans l'armée romaine à la fin du IVe siècle.'' Ce n'est pas moi qui l'ai inventé. Il faut reconnaître la présence importante de Germains de toutes les tribus particulièrement dans le nord, mais l'influence qu'ils ont eu sur la langue des autochtones est par contre assez limitée comme je l'ai déjà expliqué.
<<Franks were one tribe among others>>
Franks weren't one tribe among others. Union of Franks was comprised of Salii, Sicambri, Chamavi, Bructeri, Chatti, Chattuarii, Ampsivarii and the Batavians.
Nous parlons donc maintenant le français de l'Île des Francs pardon l'Île de France, puisque c'est avec eux que Paris (Lutèce) est sortie de l'ombre.
" Ouest: ''Only the fact that they came successively and not en bloc made that Germano-Latin (=Romance) and not some kind of Nederlands is spoken in Northern France today.'' "
Here we are ! Finally you recognise that french (and the others romance languages) are not germano-latin mixes, 'some kind of nederlands (I think you meant "dutch" by nederlands) That the franks came successively is why they could never be majoritary, because as soon as they settlted in Roman Gaul, they became romanized. Even in your fantasist theory in which the total of frankish invaders were furthers millions, if it is in a long period (centuriesà the impact is close to zero concerning the porportion of germanophones in Gaul, and then in the impact it had in the formation of french. The same way the pregressive arrival of German people in the USA had no impact on the evolution of American English. Even if in nowadays USA the number of people with german majoritary descent must be at least 25%, (and probably the majority has some german ancestry) the number of german-speaking people in USA is insignifiant - and the impact of German over English due to this imigration is close to zero. American english did not change its gramar to copy it to German, American English did not became ununderstandable from British english, nor it get a german pronouciation and phonoligical deformation...
Lobo : « Tandis que l'on sait que depuis la fin du Bas-Empire le nord a accueilli plus que son lot de Germains de toutes les tribus, alors que les Gaulois par exemple étaient présent un peu partout sur le territoire et que les Romains eux étaient principalement établis au sud et à l'est, alors conclusion, puisque rien ne sera évidemment possible de prouver hors de tout doute, étant donné l'impossibilité d'entrendre parler un de ces antiques habitants de la Gaule, la probabilité est que le Roman s'est justement distinguer durant la période du haut Moyen-Âge sur un territoire donné qui est le nord de la Loire constituant un des fondements de l'ethnolinguistique. »
Tu modère ta position initiale, ce qui est un signe de pragmatisme — dont Ouest semble désespérément privé, enfermé qu'il est dans une aporie entretenue par des considérations oiseuses, parfois aussi antilinguistiques qu'extralinguistiques. Oui, tu as raison : il est vain de conjecturer à vide sur le paléoroman (ou ororoman) car nous n'en possédons pour ainsi dire aucune trace écrite qui "permettrait" une extrapolation phonétique, voire phonématique. Ceci dit, au sujet du fait extralinguistique que constituent les invasions dites barbares, il ne faut pas s'imaginer la Gaule méridionale comme un espace préservé — comme par magie — d'où serait absente toute implantation significative de paléogermanophones. Tu sais aussi bien que moi qu'il n'existait aucune ligne Maginot déployée le long de la Loire. C'est peu de dire que les mêmes causes (extralinguistiques) n'ont à l'évidence pas produit les mêmes effets (linguistiques) dans les domaines d'Oïl & d'Oc, respectivement.
Ceci dit, c'est cela dit
Il faut utiliser ceci seulement pour ce que l'on va dire ou expliquer
<<The same way the pregressive arrival of German people in the USA had no impact on the evolution of American English.>>
This is not wholly true--American English *is* substantially impacted by German in comparison to British English (these features are slowly making their way into British English as a result of American English influence) Phrases like "Can I come with", and "How goes it" are German, as are light-humoured modifications to personal names like "NiehausER", "WilcoxER", etc. American use of -er and -est (higher than that in British English) can also be attributed to German influence Plus additional lexis from German, Dutch and Yiddish: cookie ("biscuit"), cruller, stoop, blitz, gelt, bagel, dreck, klutz, kaput, lox, mensch, putz, schnoz, tush, etc Americans also tend to shy away more from latinate words, preferring phrasal terms instead <<''Only the fact that they came successively and not en bloc made that Germano-Latin (=Romance) and not some kind of Nederlands is spoken in Northern France today.'' " >> Whoa don't get overexcited there-- This is only support that in France they do not speak a germanic Netherlandic-type language like Dutch, not that French is not Germano-Latin/romance language. It still is.
Who speaks French well should know that French is a latin language. Everything derives from Latin: grammar, vocabulary and even pronunciation. If one knew romance philology these stupid messages wouldn't have been written.
|