WOW!!!! 900 postes
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
<< I can tell you're probably not a linguist, but I'm pretty sure this is what they meant when they said that the Romance Group of languages, including French, resemble Germanic languages more than Latin. A linguist focuses on a language's **structure** to classify it, unlike lexicon which is easily transferable between languages and is usually the first indicator of language contact.
What they seem to be trying to convey, and not very well I might add, is that although Romance languages indicate Latin from a lexical point of view, there was also an undeniable transmission of syntax via the Germanic speakers who acquired the language changing the syntax from a Latin SOV to a SVO pattern based after their own pattern of speech. They also imparted compound verbal tenses, unknown in Latin prior to the run-over of Germanic tribes into the crumbling Roman Empire, but springing up immediately thereafter.
Intrduction of demonstratives as definite articles can also be said to be attributed solely to the Germanic invaders, even those who were fully Romanized. >> ( CID )
-- CID's comment is interesting... but wrong.
Different peoples with different backgrounds in Italy, Spain, France etc. meet at different times different Germanic tribes (Goths, Franks, Lombards) at different degrees of intensity (from very high to nearly zero), and by a sort of miracle all languages and dialects in the area let their vulgar Latin evolve towards similar (allegedly Germanic) grammatical structures? At a time when there weren't any communication anymore within the area other than in pure (Church) Latin?
This is technically impossible. It is to be ruled out.
This notwithstanding I admit some areal diffusion must have taken place. Like the fact that French, unlike all other Romance languages, is as rigidly a non-null-subject language as all continental Germanic languages.
Which has some effects on word order BTW.
"Son amie il alla trouver" is OSV, and cannot translate literally in Italian.
("La sua amica andò a trovare"...).
What they seem to be trying to convey, and not very well I might add, is that although Romance languages indicate Latin from a lexical point of view, there was also an undeniable transmission of syntax via the Germanic speakers who acquired the language changing the syntax from a Latin SOV to a SVO pattern based after their own pattern of speech. They also imparted compound verbal tenses, unknown in Latin prior to the run-over of Germanic tribes into the crumbling Roman Empire, but springing up immediately thereafter.
Intrduction of demonstratives as definite articles can also be said to be attributed solely to the Germanic invaders, even those who were fully Romanized. >> ( CID )
-- CID's comment is interesting... but wrong.
Different peoples with different backgrounds in Italy, Spain, France etc. meet at different times different Germanic tribes (Goths, Franks, Lombards) at different degrees of intensity (from very high to nearly zero), and by a sort of miracle all languages and dialects in the area let their vulgar Latin evolve towards similar (allegedly Germanic) grammatical structures? At a time when there weren't any communication anymore within the area other than in pure (Church) Latin?
This is technically impossible. It is to be ruled out.
This notwithstanding I admit some areal diffusion must have taken place. Like the fact that French, unlike all other Romance languages, is as rigidly a non-null-subject language as all continental Germanic languages.
Which has some effects on word order BTW.
"Son amie il alla trouver" is OSV, and cannot translate literally in Italian.
("La sua amica andò a trovare"...).
Leasnam : « I believe that germanic peoples brought about a great upset in Medieval Europe which indelibly affected and altered the forerunner of the language which you now speak and write. No one can deny that. »
Bien sûr que si ! Il est très facile de réfuter cette hypothèse dans la mesure où elle n'est fondée sur rien.
Leasnam : « The changes made which brought Latin into Romance were wrought by Germanic Leod. You cannot argue that. »
Mais si, évidemment ! On peut contester :
1] que des "évolutions" aient transformé le latin en paléoroman ;
2] que ces "évolutions" latines soient le fait de germanophones.
C'est précisément tout l'objet de la discussion.
Leasnam : « But that does not mean that your language is a hybrid Germanic, No. But there are marks left, and I along with a few others have pointed those out. And there are many others that went overlooked and that is okay. »
Je ne fais pas l'amalgame entre la thèse que tu défends (latinocentrisme + germanopériphérisme = unicentrisme → un grand classique du genre) et celle de Ouest (fusion germanolatine = bicentrisme → une variante de la première portée à un degré plus grand de confusion).
Je soutiens un unicentrisme roman et je constate qu'aucun de tes arguments n'a jusqu'à présent permis de mettre cette hypothèse en défaut. C'est d'autant plus remarquable que les tenants de l'unicentisme latin, dont tu es, disposent d'une littérature pléthorique en leur faveur. Malgré cette disproportion de moyens, j'ai le regret de te dire que ni toi ni Ouest n'avez pour l'heure aligné un argument linguistique sérieux. C'est embêtant quand on se propose de discuter du statut d'une langue...
Bien sûr que si ! Il est très facile de réfuter cette hypothèse dans la mesure où elle n'est fondée sur rien.
Leasnam : « The changes made which brought Latin into Romance were wrought by Germanic Leod. You cannot argue that. »
Mais si, évidemment ! On peut contester :
1] que des "évolutions" aient transformé le latin en paléoroman ;
2] que ces "évolutions" latines soient le fait de germanophones.
C'est précisément tout l'objet de la discussion.
Leasnam : « But that does not mean that your language is a hybrid Germanic, No. But there are marks left, and I along with a few others have pointed those out. And there are many others that went overlooked and that is okay. »
Je ne fais pas l'amalgame entre la thèse que tu défends (latinocentrisme + germanopériphérisme = unicentrisme → un grand classique du genre) et celle de Ouest (fusion germanolatine = bicentrisme → une variante de la première portée à un degré plus grand de confusion).
Je soutiens un unicentrisme roman et je constate qu'aucun de tes arguments n'a jusqu'à présent permis de mettre cette hypothèse en défaut. C'est d'autant plus remarquable que les tenants de l'unicentisme latin, dont tu es, disposent d'une littérature pléthorique en leur faveur. Malgré cette disproportion de moyens, j'ai le regret de te dire que ni toi ni Ouest n'avez pour l'heure aligné un argument linguistique sérieux. C'est embêtant quand on se propose de discuter du statut d'une langue...
<<Different peoples with different backgrounds in Italy, Spain, France etc. meet at different times different Germanic tribes (Goths, Franks, Lombards) at different degrees of intensity (from very high to nearly zero), and by a sort of miracle all languages and dialects in the area let their vulgar Latin evolve towards similar (allegedly Germanic) grammatical structures? At a time when there weren't any communication anymore within the area other than in pure (Church) Latin?
This is technically impossible. It is to be ruled out. >>
PARISIEN, No. --You seem to think that all Romance languages and dialects developed completely independent of one another, with no contact between them. This is incorrect. An emprunt or adaptation of an borrowing in one spread to another, just like the latest fashion accessory. French was the leader in this due to its position the Frankish kingdom and Medieval Europe. When a germanic borrowing, like 'guerre/guerra' or 'blanc/bianco' appears in several dialects and languages, it is due primarily to BORROWING BETWEEN ROMANCE LANGUAGES. It does not mean that it was present in the proto-language, but that is a possibility. It could have been borrowed before the time before they diffused. I believe there is a mix of this occurring everywhere. And it certainly doesn't mean that it is a native Romance word when it is so clearly demonstrated that it appears 1). in several germanic languages and 2). that it appears FIRST in germanic before showing up in Romance. That is a borrowing.
All languages borrow from others in their own group--Germanic languages too. Languages are more open and accepting and can assimilate words from related languages better than unrelated ones. It si no different for Romance. They still do it today.
<<This notwithstanding I admit some areal diffusion must have taken place. Like the fact that French, unlike all other Romance languages, is as rigidly a non-null-subject language as all continental Germanic languages. >>
Yes, precisely my point. But I think it happened more than you are willing to entertain.
This is technically impossible. It is to be ruled out. >>
PARISIEN, No. --You seem to think that all Romance languages and dialects developed completely independent of one another, with no contact between them. This is incorrect. An emprunt or adaptation of an borrowing in one spread to another, just like the latest fashion accessory. French was the leader in this due to its position the Frankish kingdom and Medieval Europe. When a germanic borrowing, like 'guerre/guerra' or 'blanc/bianco' appears in several dialects and languages, it is due primarily to BORROWING BETWEEN ROMANCE LANGUAGES. It does not mean that it was present in the proto-language, but that is a possibility. It could have been borrowed before the time before they diffused. I believe there is a mix of this occurring everywhere. And it certainly doesn't mean that it is a native Romance word when it is so clearly demonstrated that it appears 1). in several germanic languages and 2). that it appears FIRST in germanic before showing up in Romance. That is a borrowing.
All languages borrow from others in their own group--Germanic languages too. Languages are more open and accepting and can assimilate words from related languages better than unrelated ones. It si no different for Romance. They still do it today.
<<This notwithstanding I admit some areal diffusion must have taken place. Like the fact that French, unlike all other Romance languages, is as rigidly a non-null-subject language as all continental Germanic languages. >>
Yes, precisely my point. But I think it happened more than you are willing to entertain.
<<I believe Old English had a syntax somewhat closer to modern German and Dutch, but English has undergone some syntactic evolutions since then. >>
The situation with English and Romance is comparable and almost analog. The reason why Modern English syntax is different from Old English is due to the arrival of Norse speakers who were the controlling force in the Danelaw (they were not the most numerous, but their effect on the English language outweighs this). Very similar to the Franks in France.
When the Vikings learned English, they learned it haphazardly, and did not speak it correctly. This led them to easily make their own Norse-inspired innovations to it, which is why Modern English syntax follows closely the syntax of Scandinavian languages (aux then verb; verb second in dependent clauses) rather than Dutch or German (aux, then verb at the end; verb final in dependent clauses)
We have discussed this in depth already.
The situation with English and Romance is comparable and almost analog. The reason why Modern English syntax is different from Old English is due to the arrival of Norse speakers who were the controlling force in the Danelaw (they were not the most numerous, but their effect on the English language outweighs this). Very similar to the Franks in France.
When the Vikings learned English, they learned it haphazardly, and did not speak it correctly. This led them to easily make their own Norse-inspired innovations to it, which is why Modern English syntax follows closely the syntax of Scandinavian languages (aux then verb; verb second in dependent clauses) rather than Dutch or German (aux, then verb at the end; verb final in dependent clauses)
We have discussed this in depth already.
<<French was the leader in this due to its position the Frankish kingdom and Medieval Europe. When a germanic borrowing, like 'guerre/guerra' or 'blanc/bianco' appears in several dialects and languages, it is due primarily to BORROWING BETWEEN ROMANCE LANGUAGES.>>
To expound:
When we find the same word or feature existing in several romance dialects, it doesn't mean that it *had* to be borrowed from each respective local germanic language (Burgundian, Frankish, Swabian, etc)--Yes, that would make it impossible (and ridiculous. that would require a miracle for the odds to come out as they are. No wonder you cannot see it if you keep to this thinking).
For instance, with 'guerre'/'guerra', its presence in almost all Romance languages doesn't mean that French had to borrow it from Frankish, and Spanish from Visigothic, and Italian from Lombard--NO. It only took ONE romance language to borrow it. It was Old French. Old French was primarily the gateway of Germanic words into ALL other romance languages (by and large--esp those that are found in several. There are a few exceptions to this, yes). As the Linguistic Leader, the other Romance languages borrowed from French, followed the byspel of French, and immitated French century after century. This is how the same word or feature came to be present in the Romance languages (for the most part. I realize not ALL words and features can be held to this, but most can)
To expound:
When we find the same word or feature existing in several romance dialects, it doesn't mean that it *had* to be borrowed from each respective local germanic language (Burgundian, Frankish, Swabian, etc)--Yes, that would make it impossible (and ridiculous. that would require a miracle for the odds to come out as they are. No wonder you cannot see it if you keep to this thinking).
For instance, with 'guerre'/'guerra', its presence in almost all Romance languages doesn't mean that French had to borrow it from Frankish, and Spanish from Visigothic, and Italian from Lombard--NO. It only took ONE romance language to borrow it. It was Old French. Old French was primarily the gateway of Germanic words into ALL other romance languages (by and large--esp those that are found in several. There are a few exceptions to this, yes). As the Linguistic Leader, the other Romance languages borrowed from French, followed the byspel of French, and immitated French century after century. This is how the same word or feature came to be present in the Romance languages (for the most part. I realize not ALL words and features can be held to this, but most can)
Êtes-vous sérieux ??!!...... Le français langue germanique ou tout –au-plus ….oyez! oyez!! langue créole issue du latin et du germain. Je crois que vous voulez présenter et interpréter l’ histoire (quitte a la fausser) à votre façon. Mais hélas, l histoire est ce qu’ elle est et on n y peut rien, même s il s agit d accepter,’’ obtorto collo’’, qu’ une puissance méditerranéenne et méridionale ait civilisé, façonné et dominé pendant des siècles l’ Europe connue de l époque ( y compris l’ Angleterre dont, entre autre, le tracé routier moderne calque celui tracé par ROME ; même la MAGNA CHARTA –fierté britannique- porte le nom latin , a été rédigée en latin et c’ est inspirée du droit romain).
Vous faites de dangereuses pirouettes pour prouver le coté germanique de la langue de Molière, en citant quelque mot dont la racine est germanique. Sachez qu’au cours des siècles il y a eu beaucoup d’échange de vocabulaire entre les peuples de l’ Europe et que les mêmes observations pourraient être faites ailleurs qu’en France. Par exemple,, même en Italie, patrie des italiques, des latins et des romains (César Auguste unifia, organisa, et divisa l’Italie en régions administratives qui correspondent plus ou moins a celles d’aujourd’hui et en faisant de tous les italiens des romains), on constate la présence de mots germaniques, ex. : biondo,banco, banca,guelfo,ghibellino, bianco dolomiti, Marche , etc. ( blond, banc,banque,,welf,gibelin,blanc,dolomites,Marches) ; sans parler des noms propres. Même phénomène en phonétique, ex : le son w germanique de welf devient g comme dans guelfo italien; de même le son g de gibelin de vient g comme dans ghibellino.. Plus ou moins même phénomène qu’en France. D’âpres votre pensée l’italien aussi devrait être une langue créole ou germanique..
Ce n’est pas ici le lieu d’ en dire plus, pour cela je vous invite fortement à vous renseigner sur la syntaxe de la phrase de base allemande qui elle est plus latine encore que la phrase de base italienne ou française actuelle. Imaginez !! Vous êtes-vous jamais posé la question d’où vient le système de déclinaison allemand : datif, akusativ,genitiv et nominativ, ….ca vous dit rien??Je vous invite a ouvrir un dictionnaire allemand ou anglais et jeter un coup d’ œil sur l’ étymologie de centaines de mots; et je ne parle pas de mots scientifiques, médicaux ou botaniques . Vous allez être surpris de l’apport du latin et grec aux langues germaniques.
Ceci dit cela ne veut pas dire que l’allemand ou l’anglais soient des langues créoles ou latines; on ferait la même erreur que vous dans votre affirmation que le français est une langue germanique..L’allemand, l’anglais, L’italien, le français et les autres langues européennes ont exprimé de chefs-d’œuvre littéraire universels qui appartiennent a l’humanité entière. En dernier, avec un esprit serein et une vue élargie et objective, si vraiment la sémantique étymologique et diachronique vous intéresse je vous invite a consulter Georges Dumezil et vous allez découvrir les niveaux réels de relation entre les langues indoeuropéens et leur racine commune : le Sanskrit…….Salutations et sans rancune……..
Vous faites de dangereuses pirouettes pour prouver le coté germanique de la langue de Molière, en citant quelque mot dont la racine est germanique. Sachez qu’au cours des siècles il y a eu beaucoup d’échange de vocabulaire entre les peuples de l’ Europe et que les mêmes observations pourraient être faites ailleurs qu’en France. Par exemple,, même en Italie, patrie des italiques, des latins et des romains (César Auguste unifia, organisa, et divisa l’Italie en régions administratives qui correspondent plus ou moins a celles d’aujourd’hui et en faisant de tous les italiens des romains), on constate la présence de mots germaniques, ex. : biondo,banco, banca,guelfo,ghibellino, bianco dolomiti, Marche , etc. ( blond, banc,banque,,welf,gibelin,blanc,dolomites,Marches) ; sans parler des noms propres. Même phénomène en phonétique, ex : le son w germanique de welf devient g comme dans guelfo italien; de même le son g de gibelin de vient g comme dans ghibellino.. Plus ou moins même phénomène qu’en France. D’âpres votre pensée l’italien aussi devrait être une langue créole ou germanique..
Ce n’est pas ici le lieu d’ en dire plus, pour cela je vous invite fortement à vous renseigner sur la syntaxe de la phrase de base allemande qui elle est plus latine encore que la phrase de base italienne ou française actuelle. Imaginez !! Vous êtes-vous jamais posé la question d’où vient le système de déclinaison allemand : datif, akusativ,genitiv et nominativ, ….ca vous dit rien??Je vous invite a ouvrir un dictionnaire allemand ou anglais et jeter un coup d’ œil sur l’ étymologie de centaines de mots; et je ne parle pas de mots scientifiques, médicaux ou botaniques . Vous allez être surpris de l’apport du latin et grec aux langues germaniques.
Ceci dit cela ne veut pas dire que l’allemand ou l’anglais soient des langues créoles ou latines; on ferait la même erreur que vous dans votre affirmation que le français est une langue germanique..L’allemand, l’anglais, L’italien, le français et les autres langues européennes ont exprimé de chefs-d’œuvre littéraire universels qui appartiennent a l’humanité entière. En dernier, avec un esprit serein et une vue élargie et objective, si vraiment la sémantique étymologique et diachronique vous intéresse je vous invite a consulter Georges Dumezil et vous allez découvrir les niveaux réels de relation entre les langues indoeuropéens et leur racine commune : le Sanskrit…….Salutations et sans rancune……..
datif, akusativ,genitiv et nominativ, …. milles excuses pour ces germanismes, ce sont des mots d'origine latine...... J'ajoute pour les mordus d'histoire britannique d' aller fouiller sur l'origine du mythe du roi Arthur.... je peux les aider au départ: commencez par l'histoire de la ''Gens Arthos''
Most of Scots spoke Old English yet in IX age,but they still call themself NOT ENGLISH,but Scots.French people treat themself as "LATIN",but they are romanized descendants of Gaulish and Germanic (Frankish,Burgundish,Allamanic) people.
French people are Latin in the sense that they speak a Latin language. The only ethnic Latins were the habitants of Lazio. Anyways the same way France was invaded by Germanic people, there were Latins who settled in parts of France and other provinces of the Empire too.
<<Most of Scots spoke Old English yet in IX age,but they still call themself NOT ENGLISH,but Scots.French people treat themself as "LATIN",but they are romanized descendants of Gaulish and Germanic (Frankish,Burgundish,Allamanic) people. >>
Yes it is true that French people are originally non latin and are Frankish, Burgundian, Gaulois, etc. So much so that the very name of the Country is called FRANCE, not Romancia or Latinia, but FRANCE after the Franks who are their forebears, their ancestors. Were it not so how could their country come to this name??
After the Revolution, they want to sweep all trace of their German ancestry under the carpet so it were and claim they are aligned with Latin countries. This is only part of the truth. French are all three. Only 1/3 Latin which is less than half.
Yes it is true that French people are originally non latin and are Frankish, Burgundian, Gaulois, etc. So much so that the very name of the Country is called FRANCE, not Romancia or Latinia, but FRANCE after the Franks who are their forebears, their ancestors. Were it not so how could their country come to this name??
After the Revolution, they want to sweep all trace of their German ancestry under the carpet so it were and claim they are aligned with Latin countries. This is only part of the truth. French are all three. Only 1/3 Latin which is less than half.
<<French people are Latin in the sense that they speak a Latin language. >>
In India English is an official language used as a lingua franca. In the future, if English becomes the only language used in India, does this make India a "Germanic" nation based on the language they speak?
In India English is an official language used as a lingua franca. In the future, if English becomes the only language used in India, does this make India a "Germanic" nation based on the language they speak?
does this make India a "Germanic" nation based on the language they speak?
No, because English is not Germanic
No, because English is not Germanic
As far as I know English is not rooted enough in the culture of India to the same degree than French is in France. They use English the same way Latin and French were used in Great Britain some centuries ago.
<<As far as I know English is not rooted enough in the culture of India to the same degree than French is in France. They use English the same way Latin and French were used in Great Britain some centuries ago. >>
Yeah, but it was a hypothetical future scenario. But it shows that people association is not rooted in language alone. Languages are easily transferable and people groups throughout history have always adopted one language for another. Look at the Negrtio Peoples of the Indian Ocean and South east Asia (--Andaman Is). They speak a language belonging to Mon-Khmer group including Viewtnamese, yet they are wis unrelated to them in physical appearance and culture (Andamans are Negroid and have a unique, isolated culture; and Vietnamese are Mongoloid and share cultural identity with China and SE Asia). Are they to by lumped together soely on the basis of language family?
Yeah, but it was a hypothetical future scenario. But it shows that people association is not rooted in language alone. Languages are easily transferable and people groups throughout history have always adopted one language for another. Look at the Negrtio Peoples of the Indian Ocean and South east Asia (--Andaman Is). They speak a language belonging to Mon-Khmer group including Viewtnamese, yet they are wis unrelated to them in physical appearance and culture (Andamans are Negroid and have a unique, isolated culture; and Vietnamese are Mongoloid and share cultural identity with China and SE Asia). Are they to by lumped together soely on the basis of language family?