What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
geusyst Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:55 am GMT
" 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)
___________________________________________
Perhaps I was not clear enough: Dutch is a pure Germanic language, Romance a new language that has been formed by intensive language contact between Latin and Germanic native speakers.
______________________________________________
geusyst Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:55 am GMT
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...
_______________________________________
One cannot compare the situation. The following differences are obvious:
1) Germans came into a country that had a Germanic language that they could learn easily, while Germanic settlers came into a depolulated country with an enslaved population that spoke Latin, a highly complicated and (for Germanics) difficult language.
2) US-English was since centuries fixed by a normalized writing system and grammar and, above all, a mass press read by a nearly 100% alphapetized people. Romans in Gallia had no mass press and the masses couldn´t read or write. So their Latin was soon corrupted by the Germanic rulers and free settlers who were as well analphabets and didn´t learn Latin properly.
" <<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 "
Recognise that those exemples you give are peripherical, and do not make American English a different language to British English, nor makes it a "English-german" mix...
This is the heart of the question: since in the USA the impact of millions of german imigrants (in a population which was low before), a population that consisted the major group in the country only managed to bring slightly specific german elements, and in no case changed drastically the language, its pronouciation, or its grammar. English is basically the same language in both Britain and USA (and the different in the accents are probably not coming from a german influence (in my opinion British english sounds much closer to german)
How could you really believe that it could had happenend in Roman Gaul, which was already populated with a long lasting presence of a romance culture?
<<grammar, vocabulary and even pronunciation.>>
No, Yes, and even No
<<How could you really believe that it could had happenend in Roman Gaul, which was already populated with a long lasting presence of a romance culture? >>
What Ouest bring to the fore is crucial in why--English at the time of German immigration was fixed. Also, the immigrants were not rulers of the nation, continuing for centuries to speak their own language, as did the Franks.
My byspels above are given for general American, not region dialects of AmEng like those found in the Upper Midwest, where German-Scandinavian influence and pronunciation are much higher than normal
<<This is the heart of the question: since in the USA the impact of millions of german imigrants>>
One other point to note: not all german immigrants spoke the same German language, and therefore did not consitute a single german community of speakers. Some spoke plattdeutsch, others Franconian, others came from Bayern, Austria, Switzerland, etc
Leasnam : « What Ouest bring to the fore is crucial in why--English at the time of German immigration was fixed. »
Billevesées. Aucune langue n'est "fixe". Ou alors toutes le sont. Autrement dit, cet "argument" n'en est pas un. Ce que tu dis de l'anglais peut se dire du paléoroman, de l'ancien français et du français moderne. On peut aussi affirmer l'inverse au sujet de l'une quelconque de ces quatre langues. En bref, tu restes évasif quand on t'oppose une objection.
Leasnam : « Also, the immigrants were not rulers of the nation, continuing for centuries to speak their own language, as did the Franks. »
Et alors ? En plus ton analyse est bancale puisqu'au niveau multimicro l'allemand s'est trouvé en position majoritaire sur le sol étasunien.
Leasnam : « One other point to note: not all german immigrants spoke the same German language, and therefore did not consitute a single german community of speakers. Some spoke plattdeutsch, others Franconian, others came from Bayern, Austria, Switzerland, etc ».
Itou en Gaule antiquomédiévale.
<<Billevesées. Aucune langue n'est "fixe". Ou alors toutes le sont. Autrement dit, cet "argument" n'en est pas un. Ce que tu dis de l'anglais peut se dire du paléoroman, de l'ancien français et du français moderne. On peut aussi affirmer l'inverse au sujet de l'une quelconque de ces quatre langues. En bref, tu restes évasif quand on t'oppose une objection.
>>
No living Language is ever fixed in the absolute sense, but relative to the fluctuation of medieval Europe English today is extremely static. We have a standard form well set in dictionaries and grammar books which can be referenced at any time.
One cannot simply speak their own version of English at will and be regarded as anything short of a barbarian.
This was not so in Medieval France.
Stan : « We have a standard form well set in dictionaries and grammar books which can be referenced at any time. »
En général les locuteurs d'une langue ne se promènent pas avec un dico dans leur poche : ils s'expriment spontanément et produisent des énoncés oraux que les livres peinent à expliquer, voire recenser, dans toute leur diversité et complexité. Ce ne sont pas les livres qui maintiennent "intacte" la cohésion linguistique d'un grand nombre de locuteurs disséminés sur de vastes étendues. Mais plutôt le volume des échanges humains (oraux, écrits, spontanés, normés, libres, contraints etc).
Le français d'Amérique et le français d'Europe sont une même langue mais les points de différence sont légions entre ces deux normes qui admettent elles-mêmes quantité de variantes en leur sein.
Stan : « This was not so in Medieval France. »
C'est exact. Mais le concept de circulation n'avait pas du tout le même sens au Moyen-Âge qu'aujourd'hui. Et en outre il était impossible de dématérialiser, voire abolir, la distance physique : transmission audiovisuelle de l'information, transport à grande vitesse des biens et des personnes etc. La quasi-disparition de l'illettrisme dans beaucoup de pays a démultiplié les effets de raccourcissement des distances.
Comme tu l'indiquais, le "fixisme" ne peut être que relatif — envisagé sur une brève période. Mais c'est un trompe-l'œil : le fixisme apparent peut s'accommoder d'une grande diversité (c'est le cas du français et de l'anglais, entre autres), laquelle porte en germe les évolutions futures.
greg: "le "fixisme" ne peut être que relatif "
That´s true (and somewhat trivial): everything is relative! - and medieval Latin became relatively unfixed and fluctuating, splitted into thouthands of dialects, during the migration period which brought the death of Latin as a spoken language and the birth of Romance languages.
Ouest : « [...] medieval Latin became relatively unfixed and fluctuating, splitted into thouthands of dialects, during the migration period which brought the death of Latin as a spoken language and the birth of Romance languages. »
Tu connais fort bien ton petit catéchisme. Mais qu'est-ce qui nous prouve que l'ensemble roman dérive du médiolatin ?
greg Fri May 01, 2009 8:51 am GMT
Ouest : « [...] medieval Latin became relatively unfixed and fluctuating, splitted into thouthands of dialects, during the migration period which brought the death of Latin as a spoken language and the birth of Romance languages. »
Tu connais fort bien ton petit catéchisme. Mais qu'est-ce qui nous prouve que l'ensemble roman dérive du médiolatin ?
____________________________
Proofs are impossible, but the following brings strong indication:
Several authors at the end of the Roman empire from the 3rd to the 6th century mentioned that Latin was still well understood by the masses. For example, Pope Gregor the Great assumed as late as 600 that his sermons written in classical Latin were understood by the simple people; everything speaks for the fact that only in the 8. Century Classical Latin and the Romance languages were noticed as different languages. As epochal date the council of Tours in the year 813 is often considered, on which it was decided to permit from now on lectures in „the people languages “since the believers would understand no more Latin. "
<<Pope Gregor the Great assumed as late as 600 that his sermons written in classical Latin were understood by the simple people>>
It doesn't mean they were the same language. You could for example read a prayer from Old English and substitute some the disused words for current ones, and it would understandable today. For example.
"Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Father our thou that art in heavens
Si þin nama gehalgod
be thy name hallowed
to becume þin rice
come thy kingdom
gewurþe ðin willa
be-done thy will
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
on earth as in heavens
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
our daily bread give us today
and forgyf us ure gyltas
and forgive us our sins
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-us
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
and not lead thou us into temptation
ac alys us of yfele soþlice
but deliver us from evil truly."
I wonder why a supposed smart guy like Greg still posts about this thread? he isn't probably that smart in my view. This topic hasn't had any interest for a long time
Ouest:<<Pope Gregor the Great assumed as late as 600 that his sermons written in classical Latin were understood by the simple people>>
Guest: ''It doesn't mean they were the same language. You could for example read a prayer from Old English and substitute some the disused words for current ones, and it would understandable today.''
Où veut-tu en venir Guest, de façon volontaire on changerait tout d'un coup la langue pour que la masse ne comprenne plus, pour ensuite organiser le concile de Tours qui avait pour but de reconcilier la langue parlée et la langue écrite, non mais les choses ne se passent pas ainsi. C'est un processus naturel d'influence des locuteurs sur une langue, soit le latin vulgaire par des nouveaux arrivants créant ainsi des dialectes sur une période de temps donnée qui conduit à des différences qui n'est pas notable d'une génération à l'autre, mais qui le devient après quelques siècles seulement.
<<Pope Gregor the Great assumed as late as 600 that his sermons written in classical Latin were understood by the simple people>>
It doesn't mean they were the same language. You could for example read a prayer from Old English and substitute some the disused words for current ones, and it would understandable today. For example.
"Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Father our thou that art in heavens
......................
Indeed modern Germanic languages are not fundamentally different from the archaic Germanic versions of it. Romance are the contrary, they have only very little in common with classical Latin, and modern Romance speakers need years of education to be able to understand simple Latin texts. This is a further indication that Romance languages and especially French did not simply evolve from Latin.