|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
De toute façon, le germanique ou francique n'a jamais été parlé au sud de la Seine sauf pour quelques îlots linguistiques et encore, le tout dans le cadre d'un bilinguisme sur une courte période et dans lequel le latin vulgaire a toujours été dominant. Il n'est resté que peu de trace du germanique dont on ne peut prouver réellement les empreintes sur le français d'aujourd'hui.
Je pense que tout linguiste sérieux doit l'admettre, le français a bien le ''caractère'' d'un langue romane, vous n'avez qu'à placer à peu près n'importe quelle phrase en français avec son équivalent portuguais, italien, espagnol, roumain ou catalan, et ensuite ajoutez aussi la même chose en hollandais, allemand, anglais, danois etc. du groupe germanique, et on en tirera les conclusions par la suite...
S'il est vrai que le latin vulgaire initial a subi certaines transformations à travers son histoire, il y a quand même une marge que de qualifier de très germanique le français que l'on connait aujourd'hui. Le français n'est ni plus ni moins la langue romane transalpine et transpyrénéenne dont on retrouve les cousines piémontaise et catalane par exemple qui ont gardé une forme un peu plus près du latin vulgaire, tout simplement.
<<De toute façon, le germanique ou francique n'a jamais été parlé au sud de la Seine sauf pour quelques îlots linguistiques et encore, le tout dans le cadre d'un bilinguisme sur une courte période et dans lequel le latin vulgaire a toujours été dominant. Il n'est resté que peu de trace du germanique dont on ne peut prouver réellement les empreintes sur le français d'aujourd'hui.
>>
Correct. Only in the North where it caused the differentiation of Oïl (under heavier germanic influence) and Oc (under little to no germanic influence). Twi-lingualism lasted for a couple to a few hunderd years, especially among the upper class and nobility--the first French King to require a translator for German being Hugh Capet (c 987), but true the Old French was dominant among the masses.
<<Je pense que tout linguiste sérieux doit l'admettre, le français a bien le ''caractère'' d'un langue romane, vous n'avez qu'à placer à peu près n'importe quelle phrase en français avec son équivalent portuguais, italien, espagnol, roumain ou catalan, et ensuite ajoutez aussi la même chose en hollandais, allemand, anglais, danois etc. du groupe germanique, et on en tirera les conclusions par la suite...
>>
For wis. No one is saying that French has no Romance character. It most certainly does. The argument is that All Romance languages, and in this thread specfically French, have a germanic *ingredient* in them, which several have already attested to on the French-support side : ) No one is trying to say French is a Germanic language (not in earnest, anyway ; )
<<" Tous les êtres humains naissent libres et égaux en dignité et en droits. Ils sont doués de raison et de conscience et doivent agir les uns envers les autres dans un esprit de fraternité. "
" Omnes homines dignitate et iure liberi et pares nascuntur, rationis et conscientiae participes sunt, quibus inter se concordiae studio est agendum. "
" Alle Menschen sind frei und gleich an Würde und Rechten geboren. Sie sind mit Vernunft und Gewissen begabt und sollen einander im Geist der Brüderlichkeit begegnen. "
Well, no comment... German is like a language from another planet. Latin, even if the construction and syntax is different, all the words can be easily related to known ones.
>>
This is true and false. Here's why: it's true that a Romance speaker could muddle through the Latin text and get some of the gist--even an English and German also, because everyone today knows *some* Latin. Believe it or not, we are all educated and familarized our entire lives with Latin--it's in our textbooks, it's in our scientific names, it's everywhere. But can a Romance person up and *speak* Latin, fluently? No. No better than a German or an Englishman.
Now, if one is raised solely speaking French, like maybe in Tahiti, and has never had any exposure to Latin at all, then it is an altogether different tale. There is no advantage. Nothing would tell that person that "Omnes" means "all" and that there is any sure relation between "homme" and "homines"--it would be only a guess.
pietro lucca: ''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.''
Etes-vous capable de répondre à ceci mes chers ''germanophilisant''.
à ceci ça devrait etre à cela...
Italian Humanist Pietro Bembo, living in the early 16th century, knew very well that the Romance languages (here Italian) came from barbarian conquerors, i. e. Goths, Lombards and Franks:
Humanist Pietro Bembo, - he belonged at that time with his treatise "Prose volgar della lingua" (1525) to the defenders against the critics of the two vernacular Italian poets of the Trecento, Dante (+1321) and Francesco Petrarca (+1374); Bembos dialogue argument is also worth considering because of its historical perspective :
Citation:
"""While the origin of the Tuscan language was barbaric, "don´t you believe that in the period of four or five hundred years barbaric Tuscan has become Italian citizen? Sure! Otherwise, even the Romans were barbarians, which, expelled by the Phrygiern, settled in Italy. The Roman people, its customs and its language, would be barbaric. " It would obviously be better to speak Latin, "but even better would it be if the barbarians never had conquered and destroyed Italy , and if the Roman Empire would have existed eternally. However, as things are different, we want ... (hence) to remain silent and not talk any more about Cicero and Virgil to be reborn...""""
"
Garibaldi (whose grand-grand-grand...father was a Lombard named "Garibald")
Leasnam: ''But can a Romance person up and *speak* Latin, fluently? No. No better than a German or an Englishman.''
Mais d'où vient le français alors, si ce n'est pas du latin? Le français ressemble beaucoup plus au latin qu'à l'allemand et aux autres langues germaniques. Ex; homines (lat) vs humains (fr) vs menschen (al), liberi (lat) vs libres (fr) vs frei (al), conscientiae (lat) vs conscience (lat) vs gewissen (al), ainsi de suite.
lobo, je suis sur que tu es Mallorqui, j'aimerais que tu écrives sur d'autres sujets aussi :-)
" 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. "
How do you explain that in the words in question, such as "guerre" or "blanc", you find cognates in almost all the romance languages but in almost none of the germanic languages? Since these words are espacially supposed by some to be germanic in origin... That Frankish had some impact on the romance dialects of northern Gaul during frankish empire, why not. And then that french in medieval times had impact on some romance languages zones, those that were in frankish empire at once time; such as Oc, Catalan or northern Italian dialects, why not. But how explain that they would have spread in the Iberian areas, in southern Italian areas the same ways, with the same deformations (w-gu)...
But more than everything, why these words have not spread themselves among the germanic languages, since the frankish empire was mainly based on germanic-speaking ruling class, and that half of the empire was populated by germanic people (most of Germany, Flanders, Netherlands, Alsace-Lorraine)..
Not only we could ask ourselves why most of the other germanic languages than Frankish doesn't have cognates with "blanc" or "guerre" (but words like "weiss".. or "kreig" instead), but also why they never borroded those words in their languages, from Frankish, a similar language spoken in the same areas, ruler of the empire in which they belong themselves... While they are present in almost all romance language, supposedly borrowded by old french, which itself would have borroded from a compleltly different language from another language familay... hmm it begins to be strange...
But what about the whole gramatical structures. ALL romance languages have the same kind of strutures, which is not the case in all germanic languages themselves. And especially frankish syntax is unknown, but if it is supposed to be somehow close to German or Dutch, we can ask some questions:
- How a germanic language which as case system close to latin, such as German does, could have make Latin evoluted to French (and then to ALL the other romance languages, included those who when hundreds of kilometers outside the frankish empire) in the direction of a different non-casual syntax language, while in the same time this language was unable to "unify" the different syntaxic systems in the different other germanic languages that were under its rule... very strange, no?
- And if Frankish had not a "case-based" syntax like German does, how German could have getting its own case system? In a point of view (Ouestian)in which we think that every syntaxic change is necesseraly due to a "mix" of language; the German is a germanic-latin mixed language and not a germanic language! while french is supposedly a latin-germanic mixed language... AS if when Franks did arrive in Roman Gaul they told the locals: "let's exchange our gramtical systems! Apply our system in your language and we would apply yours in ours..." Wouldn't it being very strange?
" 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. "
So the syntax of Old English and Norse were different to each other, both being Germanic language. The origin of Germanic languages being Scandinavian region, and if we follow the idea that a change of syntax is necesseraly caused by the influence (or even a complete "mix" with another language), then we should conclude that old English already change its grammatical by conctact with other language. Which one, and why did it happened?
" Very similar to the Franks in France "
No, it is very different: firstly latin and Frankish were languages of different language families, which is not the case of old English and Old Norse.
And secondly, It is not sure that Frankish was not a case-based language (modern German is and old English were). In this situation how a case-based language (frankish) could have changed another (latin) into a non-case-based one (french)?
And Thirdly. Why those transformations, supposed in your theory to have took place in northern France because of the Frankish "imigration" did occur in all the other romance regions where there never have been any Franks... ?
" This is true and false. Here's why: it's true that a Romance speaker could muddle through the Latin text and get some of the gist--even an English and German also, because everyone today knows *some* Latin. Believe it or not, we are all educated and familarized our entire lives with Latin--it's in our textbooks, it's in our scientific names, it's everywhere. But can a Romance person up and *speak* Latin, fluently? No. No better than a German or an Englishman. "
The fact of having been familiarized to latin in science and culture would have an influence for a cultured Germanic people because this "culture" is the only way for him to have an idea of what the latin word could mean since his native language can't. It is obviously completly different to a romance speaker/
The question was not to speak latin fluently. Of course we can't. We can't speak other romance languages fluently if we have'nt learn them. That is why they are considered to be different languages. The question was "would a romance speaker would understand better the latin or the german version of the sentence". I remind you that your point of view was that the romance speaker would naturally understand a bit better German...
If you are blind to understand let's see:
Every native french knows "omnipotent", he knows that it means "tout-puissant" and would automatically link "Omne" to it
Every native french knows "homme, humain, humanité", and would automatically link "Homine" to it.
Every native french knows "dignité, digne, dignement", and would automatically recognise "dignitate"
Every native french knows "et", and would automatitally recognise "et" (exact same word)
Every native french knows "libre, liberté, libération" and would automatically recognise "liberi"
Every native french knows "raison, rationalité, ration", and would automatically recognise "rationis"
Every native french knows "conscience, conscient" and would automatically recognise "Conscientae"
Every native french knows "participe", and would automatitally recognise "participes"
Every native french knows "sont", and would automatitally recognise "sunt"
Etc..?
While reading the German sentence, absolutly no word is recognisable. I myself don't speak German and I have a hard time to recognise what word is the equivelent of the french translation because I have no idea of either the word order and get no clue of what word is what just by seeing it... I have no idea of what word of the french translation is the equivalant of "wurde", "geboren", "vernunft", "gewissen", "begabt", "Einander", "geist", etc... Thanks to English (the only germanic language I know) I can recognise some of it: Alle (all), Menshen (something related to "men"), und (and), an (a or in), bruderlichkeit (bortherhood), etc. Knowing french only makes me catch the whole idea of the latin texte but absolutly NOTHING of the german text. If the "german" text was a randomly writed text makes to look like german (maybe it is the case I don"t know) I could never realized it.
Non seulement la Gaule a acquise la langue des Romains mais aussi la culture qui était beaucoup plus élaborée chez les Romains que du côté germanique, pensons à la gastronomie, l'architecture, la mode vestimentaire, la viticulture, etc.
Leasnam : « 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. »
C'est de la méthode Coué, éventuellement une hypothèse amusante, ou encore du roman policier vaguement linguistoïde, et à la rigueur un vœu pieu — mais ce n'est malheureusement pas une démonstration.
Leasnam : « 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. »
Comparaison n'est pas raison.
Leasnam : « 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) » .
Pure spéculation gratuite. Ce que tu affiches, c'est une position de principe et non une démonstration. Le coup de la plateforme distributive, on connaît. C'est vrai que ce stratagème fait sourire : un centre gaulois aurait essaimé — avec quel succès providentiel ! — quantité de lexies paléogermaniques de la Lusitanie aux Carpathes et de la Seine à la Sicile. Ceci, allié à une ou deux pirouettes telles que les formes "reconstituées" de l'ancien bas-francique, ou la diffusion fulgurante d'un latin suivie d'une transformation (non moins foudroyante) en "latin vulgaire", c'est toujours la vieille rengaine dont on nous rebat les oreilles depuis des lustres.
guest guest Thu May 07, 2009 8:52 pm GMT :
The question was "would a romance speaker would understand better the latin or the german version of the sentence". I remind you that your point of view was that the romance speaker would naturally understand a bit better German...
_______________________________________
Please, as a romance speaker, try to understand the following Latin text from Caesar´s "de bello gallico". French pupils need years in order to understand it halfway. Learning German is easier.....Your mistake is that you think that knowing French or Romance vocabulary helps in understanding Latin: it does not!
Caesar hac oratione Lisci Dumnorigem, Diviciaci fratrem, designari sentiebat, sed, quod pluribus praesentibus eas res iactari nolebat, celeriter concilium dimittit, Liscum retinet. Quaerit ex solo ea quae in conventu dixerat. Dicit liberius atque audacius. Eadem secreto ab aliis quaerit; reperit esse vera: ipsum esse Dumnorigem, summa audacia, magna apud plebem propter liberalitatem gratia, cupidum rerum novarum. Complures annos portoria reliquaque omnia Haeduorum vectigalia parvo pretio redempta habere, propterea quod illo licente contra liceri audeat nemo. His rebus et suam rem familiarem auxisse et facultates ad largiendum magnas comparasse; magnum numerum equitatus suo sumptu semper alere et circum se habere, neque solum domi, sed etiam apud finitimas civitates largiter posse, atque huius potentiae causa matrem in Biturigibus homini illic nobilissimo ac potentissimo conlocasse; ipsum ex Helvetiis uxorem habere, sororum ex matre et propinquas suas nuptum in alias civitates conlocasse. Favere et cupere Helvetiis propter eam adfinitatem, odisse etiam suo nomine Caesarem et Romanos, quod eorum adventu potentia eius deminuta et Diviciacus frater in antiquum locum gratiae atque honoris sit restitutus. Si quid accidat Romanis, summam in spem per Helvetios regni obtinendi venire; imperio populi Romani non modo de regno, sed etiam de ea quam habeat gratia desperare. Reperiebat etiam in quaerendo Caesar, quod proelium equestre adversum paucis ante diebus esset factum, initium eius fugae factum a Dumnorige atque eius equitibus (nam equitatui, quem auxilio Caesari Haedui miserant, Dumnorix praeerat): eorum fuga reliquum esse equitatum perterritum.
Germans are first and foremost of Germanic stock, and people at the border of the neighboring (slavic or Latin) countries do also have mostly Germanic genes.
The main ancestors of the Germans are those tribes of the Saxones, Frisii, Franci, Thuringii, Alamanni, Suebi and Bavarii.
<<Pour le français, le germanique n'est qu'un ingrédient parmi d'autres>>
This sums up nicely what I think this thread is all about. French is like a cake that takes several ingredients to make. Latin is the flour, and Germanic is the vanilla. It only takes a little bit of vanilla to flavor the batter, but once it is added, mixed in and baked, it flavors the entire cake through and through. So much so that it looks like a vanilla cake, it smells like a vanilla cake, and it smacks like a vanilla cake.
Never can you again separate the flour from the vanilla and vice versa. So it is with French. You can add whatever icing and sprinkles, but the gateau is vanilla.
Unlike English. The flour and flavor are germanic indeed. But we add a lot of icing (Latin & French so as to hide it ;)
|