|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
«You should be aware that, like texts in Old French, there are very few texts in Frankish because at this time in Medieval Europe all texts were being written in Latin.»
Je suis très au courant de cela, mais je pense que Ouest ne l'est pas car il apporte toutes sortes de théories qui ne peuvent être prouvées et qui semble loin de la réalité. Le francique est une autre langue très différentes des langues romanes, qui a beaucoup plus été influencé par le bas-latin que l'inverse. Nous devons partir du fait que le latin écrit existait avant le francique et que ce dernier y a puisé aussi son alphabet, donc les conclusions sont faciles à tirer.
CID: «You should be aware that, like texts in Old French, there are very few texts in Frankish because at this time in Medieval Europe all texts were being written in Latin.»
Il en reste quelques uns quand même.
Ainsi cet extrait du Notre Père en ancient haut francique rhénan méridional:
(1) Fater unsēr thu in himilom bist giuuīhit sī namo thīn.
Père notre toi dans cieux es sanctifié soit nom ton.
Un extrait des Psaumes de Wachtendonck en ancien bas francique oriental:
(2) Forchta in biuonga quamon ouer mi in bethecoda mi thuisternussi
Angoisses et tremblements venaient sur moi et couvrit moi obscurité
"Je fus pris par des angoisses et par des tremblements et de l’obscurité me couvrit"
Enfin un texte en ancien bas francique occidental datant du XIe siècle:
(3) Hebban olla vogala nestas hagunnan hinase hic enda thu uuat unbidan uue nu
Ont tous oiseaux nids commencé sauf moi et toi que attendons nous maintenant
"Tous les oiseaux ont commencé des nids, sauf moi et toi. Qu’attendons-nous alors ?"
(Roland Noske, 2008)
La ressemblance entre <unsēr> et <notre>, <himilom> et <cieux> ou <giuuīhit> et <sanctifié> dans l'extrait (1) n'aura bien sûr échappée à personne. Ni même entre <bethecoda> et <couvrit> ou <thuisternussi> et <obscurité> dans l'extrait (2). Dans l'extrait (3) enfin, c'est bien sûr la troublante similarité entre <hagunnan> et <commencé> ainsi qu'entre <nu> et <maintenant> qui saute immédiatement aux yeux.
Bref, si on se borne a analyser ces trois extraits on ne trouve absolument aucune similarité entre ces diverses variétés d'anciens francique et le français moderne.
En fait, les seules similarités qu'on trouve sont avec l'anglais moderne.
Ainsi dans l'extrait (1)
AHFRM<fater>, An<father>
AHFRM<thu>, An<thou>
AHFRM<namo>, An<name>
AHFRM<thīn>, An<thine>
Dans l'extrait (3)
ABFO<hebban>, An<have>
ABFO<olla>, An<all>
ABFO<nestas>, An<nests>
ABFO<enda>, An<and>
ABFO<uuat>, An<what>
ABFO<nu>, An<now>
Il y a eu un gros import/export de mots entre domaines romans et germaniques, mais ça ne compte guère.
Possible que 'blanc" ou 'guerre' aient été propagés à travers le français aux autres langues romanes, par contigüité. Ou qu'il aient été inclus très tôt au vernaculaire roman commun. Ce n'est pas important.
Ce qui est important, ce sont les structures grammaticales très spécifiques des parlers romans. Elles ont des points communs avec le germanique, c'est clair.
Mais il est à exclure que ces structures viennent d'emprunts. On les retrouve dans tous les dialectes romans, qu'il aient eu un fort contact avec le domaine germanique ou pas de contact du tout.
Par conséquent, ces grammaires font partie du fonds natif des langues romanes (si jamais, par hypothèse, elle provenaient effectivement d'influences germaniques, ç'aurait été à un stade très antérieur aux grandes invasions).
La conclusion à laquelle je me tiens est : le roman *n'est pas* du latin. Ni du bas-latin, ni du latin vulgaire. C'était une langue génétiquement différente, qui a absorbé un énorme vocabulaire latin exactement comme l'anglais a collé des briques françaises avec du mortier saxon (ou aussi comme le maltais utilise un lexique essentiellement italien sur une grammaire totalement différente, même pas indoeuropéenne).
<<La ressemblance entre <unsēr> et <notre>, <himilom> et <cieux> ou <giuuīhit> et <sanctifié> dans l'extrait (1) n'aura bien sûr échappée à personne. Ni même entre <bethecoda> et <couvrit> ou <thuisternussi> et <obscurité> dans l'extrait (2). Dans l'extrait (3) enfin, c'est bien sûr la troublante similarité entre <hagunnan> et <commencé> ainsi qu'entre <nu> et <maintenant> qui saute immédiatement aux yeux. >>
you keep missing the point. the point is not that French has words of Frankish origin (though it has some), but that the syntax is Frankish influenced.
Franks learned Latin half-way, and translated word-for-word into their Francien variety.
It's the same as if I learned French today and said (word for word):
J'aime aller à les partis et m'amusant avec mes amis. Nous sommes sortent dehors ce soir et il est allant à être un souffle, dude!
(French words with English syntax. this was an illustration only. Hoe you enjoyed it :)
Now, below is a comparison of the Lord's Prayer both in Latin and in French. ***Note: The Lord's Prayer is not casual speech nor language. It is a static religious prayer that, once modeled after the original Latin Vulgate, has changed little over time. So it is to be expected that it will adhere more closely and artificially to the original format.***
Pater Noster, qui es in caelis,
sanctificetur nomen tuum.
Adveniat regnum tuum.
Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
Notre Père, qui es aux cieux,
Que ton nom soit sanctifié,
Que ton règne vienne,
Que ta volonté soit faite sur la terre comme au ciel.
Donne-nous aujourd'hui notre pain de ce jour.
Pardonne-nous nos offences
Comme nous pardonnons aussi à ceux qui nous ont offensés.
Et ne nous soumets pas à la tentation, mais délivre-nous du mal. Amen.
Just some notes I see: Latin tends to place the modifier after the noun, even when it's a genitive pronoun ("Pater noster", "nomen tuum", "regnum tuum", "voluntas tua", "Panem nostrum") where French does the opposite ("Notre Père", "ton nom", "ton règne", "ta volonté", "notre pain")
French is naturally more analytical being that it doesn't have cases like Latin. This is ok. it is natural pregression of IE languages over time.
French uses Romance "Pardonne", a calqued word modeled after germanic "fargebanan" ("to give up, forgive") and not the Latin "dimitte"
"Comme" replaces Latin "sicut et" as calque of germanic "hu, hwuo" (German "wie") meaning "as"/"like"
French has replaced the Latin passive for a germanic styled "be + past participle" formation ("soit sanctifié" [be hallowed] instead of "sanctificetur"; "soit faite" [be done] for "Fiat")
But this comparison is not the best, because it is using modern French. It's too distant.
Here is the same prayer in Old French:
Sire Pere, qui es es ceaus,
sanctifiez soit li tuens uons;
avigne li tuens regnes.
Soit faite ta volonte, si comme ele est faite el ciel, si foit ele faite en terre. Nostre pain de chascun jor nos donne hui. Et pardone-nos nos meffais, si comme nos pardonons a cos qui maeffait nos ont. Sire, ne soffre que nos soions tempte par mauvesse temptation; mes, Sire, delivre-nos de mal. Amen.
Here I notice that the language has a markedly rougher quality, and looks markedly Less like the Latin than does the Modern French, when, supposedly, it should more closely resemble it, being nearer to it in time.
It also shows the same divergences from Latin as Modern French. Additionally, I spy two more germanic type loans ("meffais" & "maeffait") which neet the germanic prefix "mes-". The flow of the Old French is near to English, almost word for word. Anyone can see that the flow is not like Latin, but like the two germanic byspels below.
East Franconian:
Fater unser, thu thar bist in himile
si geheilagot thin namo
queme thin rihhi
si thin uuilo
so her in himile ist, so si her in erdu
unsar brot tagalihhaz gib uns hiutu
inti furlaz uns unsara sculdi
so uuir furlazemes unsaren sculdigon
inti ni gileitest unsih in costunga
uzouh arlosi unsih fon ubile
Old English:
Fæder ūser þū sē eart on heofonum,
sī þīn nama gehālgod.
Tōbecume þīn rīce.
Gewurþe þīn willa
on eorþan swā swā on heofonum.
ūserne gedæghwǣmlīcan hlāf sele ūs tō dæg.
And forgief ūs ūsre gyltas,
swā swā wē forgiefaþ ūsrum gyltedum.
And ne gelǣd þū ūs on contnunga
ac ālȳs ūs of yfele.
Sōthlīce.
So my conclusion would be that Old French had a stronger germanicity than Modern French. Modern French, due to normalisation and re-artificialisation during and after the Renaissance, has brought French nearer again to Latin, so today it IS more like Latin than its predecessor. But the artificialisation hasn't removed all of the germanic influences, only that they are not as conspicuous as before.
<<Hoe you enjoyed it :) >>
that was "Hope you enjoy it :)"
Lobo Fri May 08, 2009 11:16 pm GMT
Ouest:«Lobo: From the many French loan words, especially those belonging to the domain of courtly life and chivalry, only a few examples are given here: cameriere/cameniere 'servant', bottelgier/bottelier 'cupbearer' (='butler'!), garsoen 'squire', tapijt 'carpet', faisaen 'pheasant', taerte 'tart'.
__________
Do you mean French loan words or Frankish loan words?»
Pourrait-tu nous proposer un texte en francique par exemple, afin qu'on puisse le comparer une fois pour toute avec du français moderne et du latin, au lieu de nous lancer constamment les mêmes sornettes.
________________________________________________-
The oldest Germanic text is the Gothic Bible
The Gothic Bible or Wulfila Bible is the Christian Bible as translated by Wulfila into the Gothic language spoken by the Eastern Germanic, or Gothic Tribes. Though Gothic was Eastern Germanic and Frankish as well as Old English was Western Germanic, they probably were mutually intelligible and not very far away from each other, as you can see below:
Codices
The Wulfila bible consists of a number of manuscripts from the 6th to 8th century containing a large part of the New Testament and some parts of the Old Testament, largely written in Italy. The remaining codices are Codex Argenteus, which is kept in Uppsala, the Codex Ambrosianus A through Codex Ambrosianus E containing the epistles Skeireins, Nehemia), the Codex Carolinus (Romans), the Codex Vaticanus Latinus 5750 (Skeireins), den Codex Gissensis (fragments of the Gospel of Luke) and the Fragmenta Pannonica, Fragments of a 1 mm thick metal plate with verses of the Gospel of John.
Historic context
During the Third century, the Goths lived on the northeast border of the Roman Empire, in what is now Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania. During the Fourth century, the Goths were converted to Christianity, largely through the efforts of Bishop Ulfilas, who invented the Gothic alphabet and translated the Bible into the Gothic language in Nicopolis ad Istrum in today's northern Bulgaria. Portions of this translation survive, affording the main surviving text written in the Gothic language.
Gothic Christianity differed from Catholic doctrine as to the divinity of Jesus, with the Gothic Christians maintaining that Jesus was of a lesser creation than God. The Goths rejected the Holy Trinity. (see Arianism).
During the Fifth century, the Goths overran the Western Roman Empire, including Spain, southern France, and North Africa. Gothic Christianity reigned in these areas for several centuries, before the re-establishment of the Catholic Church, and the advent of Islam.
Modern importance
The Wulfila bible, although fragmented, is the only extensive document in an ancient, Eastern Germanic language. Since the other texts are of very limited extent, except maybe Skeireins, its significance for the study of these languages can hardly be overstated.
4th century Gothic, text of The Lord's Prayer in the Wulfilabible:
atta unsar þu in himinam,
weihnai namo þein.
qimai þiudinassus þeins.
wairþai wilja þeins,
swe in himina jah ana airþai.
hlaif unsarana þana sinteinan gif uns himma daga.
jah aflet uns þatei skulans sijaima,
swaswe jah weis afletam þaim skulam unsaraim.
jah ni briggais uns in fraistubnjai,
ak lausei uns af þamma ubilin;
unte þeina ist þiudangardi jah mahts jah wulþus in aiwins.
amen.
East Franconian:
Fater unser, thu thar bist in himile
si geheilagot thin namo
queme thin rihhi
si thin uuilo
so her in himile ist, so si her in erdu
unsar brot tagalihhaz gib uns hiutu
inti furlaz uns unsara sculdi
so uuir furlazemes unsaren sculdigon
inti ni gileitest unsih in costunga
uzouh arlosi unsih fon ubile
Old English:
Fæder ūser þū sē eart on heofonum,
sī þīn nama gehālgod.
Tōbecume þīn rīce.
Gewurþe þīn willa
on eorþan swā swā on heofonum.
ūserne gedæghwǣmlīcan hlāf sele ūs tō dæg.
And forgief ūs ūsre gyltas,
swā swā wē forgiefaþ ūsrum gyltedum.
And ne gelǣd þū ūs on contnunga
ac ālȳs ūs of yfele.
Sōthlīce.
Due to the Wulfila bible, other Gothic text fragments and runes old Germanic languages are comparatively well documented since the 4th century.
Stan´s analysis above does fully explain the real situation.
to Mr buddy
USA gave hospitality and future to millions of peaples, mostly europeans:spaniards,english,portuguese,italians, greeks,germans,irish
polish,russians,french, you name it, and all these peaples made the actual USA, wether you wanted or not. So , mr "buddy"or nobody, wathever, please, respect yourself, don't spit on your past, whoever you might be.Anyone wth a minimum of culture would confirm you that the western civilisation is based on Greece and Rome. How can you wth a few vulgars words erace from history more than thousand years. Sincerely I don't think you are honorig your american fellows.
I said I admire Usa for what they have achived in the past. I am not american, I don't live in USA. You ask me why a lot of italians came in USA? I guess for the same reason you or your ancester did.I am very sorry you didn't like the air of Rome,maybe you are allergic to LAUREL wich grow so much in italy (don't go back, please, we don't waste perls for.......;or if you do: be sure to bring with you a bottle of fresh,pure american air, possibly from New-York.
Sorry if you saw patches of cornfield, at least peaple is working without poisoning the planet.Did you know that FIAT, the producer of our "dinky" automobil is helping CHRYSLER? and maybe GM to? How small is the world, isn't it!!
By the way if italians came to USA they followed CRISTOFARO COLOMBO,AMERICO VESPUCCI(AMERICA????!!!!),GIOVANNI DA VERRAZZANO,ENRICO FERMI,GIOVANNI CABOTO,FIORELLO LA GUARDIA,AMADEO GIANNINI ( founder of Bank of Italy, S.F. 1904,than Bank of Italy and America, 1920, and finally Bank of America today.FILIPPO MAZZEI, friend of T.JEFFERSON, who's thesis on Equality of Man was included in the Bill of Rights of USA;WILLIAM PACA, signer of Declaration of Indipendence; CONSTANTINO BRUMIDI,known as the Mchelangelo of USA, for the dome of the CAPITOL;MEUCCI ANTONIO,
the real inventor of our telephone, confirmed by an U. S. court; and
many others.
Again, all this is to inlight ignorants and idiots like you, without being pretentuos ;peaples from other parts of Europe also contributed to what USA has became. ARRIVEDERCI.......(roma????)..... vales!!
<< Sire Pere, qui es es ceaus,
sanctifiez soit li tuens uons;
avigne li tuens regnes.
Soit faite ta volonte, si comme ele est faite el ciel, si foit ele faite en terre. Nostre pain de chascun jor nos donne hui. Et pardone-nos nos meffais, si comme nos pardonons a cos qui maeffait nos ont. Sire, ne soffre que nos soions tempte par mauvesse temptation; mes, Sire, delivre-nos de mal. Amen.
Here I notice that the language has a markedly rougher quality, and looks markedly Less like the Latin than does the Modern French, when, supposedly, it should more closely resemble it, being nearer to it in time.
It also shows the same divergences from Latin as Modern French. Additionally, I spy two more germanic type loans ("meffais" & "maeffait") which neet the germanic prefix "mes-". >>
Pas d'accord.
La syntaxe du vieux français est plus proche de l'italien (par ex. article + possessif dans "li tuens regnes", usage du subjonctif seul sans "que" introductif dans "sanctifiez soit" etc.).
Quant au préfixe "mé-", "més-", il est toujours vivant en français moderne ("mépris", "mésinterpréter", "médire"), donc pas de changement.
<< So my conclusion would be that Old French had a stronger germanicity than Modern French >>: en fait, on pourrait dire exactement l'inverse !
« En fait, les seules similarités qu'on trouve sont avec l'anglais moderne. »
<Fater>, <unsēr>, <bist>, etc.
Ça fait plus penser à l'allemand qu'à l'anglais.
Même chose pour himilom, namo, giuuīhit...
lucca Pietro : « [...] même la MAGNA CHARTA –fierté britannique- porte le nom latin , a etée rédigée en latin et c’ est inspirée du droit romain [...] ».
La fierté "britannique" a été en fait rédigée par des barons français contre un roi franco-occitan qui perdait toutes ses batailles en France.
Leasnam : « French words of Germanic origin [...] ».
Preuves ?
Leasnam : « Well, according to lexis, French comes mainly from Latin. But according to syntax, the argument here put forth by Ouest and others, which I also can see, is that (Latin Lexis) + (Germanic Syntax) = (Romance languages) from which also French derives [--"Germanic Syntax" does not mean "German Syntax". »
Ce tissu de sottises est un véritable concentré de paresse : où sont les exemples, les preuves ? On assiste ici à une véritable fétichisation de termes tels que "lexique" ou "syntaxe", mais où est la « substantifique moelle » ? Savent-ils au moins ce que l'acception de ces vocables recouvre ?
Leasnam : « This supports my theory that the word was a borrowed ONCE, in ONE Romance language before spreading to others. Not all words were marginal terms like *BLANK & *WERRA. Some such as *RIKI ("rich") are shared between Romance and Germanic. »
Il ne s'agit pas de "ta" théorie mais d'un poncif éculé et ressassé en boucle depuis la nuit des temps : l'ancien français (ou le paléoroman de Gaule septentrionale) aurait servi de plateforme de redistribution lexicale dans le sens germanique → roman. C'est ce qu'on appelle aussi le germanopériphérisme — dont l'unique fonction est de suppléer aux nombreuses lacunes du latinocentrisme (des pans entiers du vocabulaire roman ne se retrouvent pas en latin).
Il va de soi que l'ancien français a effectivement servi de centre distributeur de mots — mais pas dans le sens que tu fantasmes. Le sens attesté est le suivant : roman (+ grec, médiolatin, arabe etc) → langues germaniques (dont le néerlandais et l'anglais).
Leasnam : « French borrowed the points of the compass from English, and then the other Romance languages followed suit after French (as is wonted). »
Le parfait exemple de l'idéologie creuse dont il est question dans le message précédent.
CID : « You should be aware that, like texts in Old French, there are very few texts in Frankish because at this time in Medieval Europe all texts were being written in Latin. »
Faux : la littérature paléofrançaise est pléthorique. Tu en trouve même au Pays-Bas, dans les Îles britanniques, en Italie etc.
En revanche les écrits de l'ancien bas-francique ne se bousculent pas au portillon. Ceux sont pourtant ces rares traces qui "justifient" le reconstruction des "étymons" paléogermaniques (germanopériphérisme) qui viennent au secours des latinistes (latinocentrisme) quand ceux-ci ne peuvent expliquer des vocables romans. En toute fin de circuit, viennent Ouest et autres Leasnam, exhibant fièrement leur verroterie "étymologique", qui n'est rien moins que l'eau bénite de la Sainte Alliance, latinocentrisme + germanopériphérisme.
Maybe a small example can illustrate. The Frankish Kings were like the Barack Obamas of their day. Everyone wanted to talk, walk, dress, act like them, so if they used a word which was new it would spread like wildfire among the population. This is basically what happened.
THIS THEAD HAS REALLY BREAK EVERYONE'S BALLS
THIS THEAD HAS REALLY BREAK EVERYONE'S BALLS
I love you ça suffit! I'm really fed up with all these stupid guys always talking about the same topic!
stan: «you keep missing the point. the point is not that French has words of Frankish origin (though it has some), but that the syntax is Frankish influenced.»
Non, avec moins de mille mots d'origine francique dans son vocabulaire et surtout une syntaxe qui dérive d'un vieux dialecte du latin classique, le français n'est pas non plus différent des autres langues romanes à ce niveau. Les différences proviennent du fait que le latin écrit est une langue qui est nettement plus vieille que les langues germaniques à l'écrit, peut-être deux fois plus âgée, donc on peut observer un écart notable avec le latin classique, mais on y retrouve aussi davantage de ressemblance avec le français d'aujourd'hui qu'avec le germanique.
Il faut alors croire ce que je vous redis et qui est documenté; que les Francs ont été romanisé assez rapidement à partir du IIIe siècle dans certains cas, qu'ils ont abandonné leur langue au profit du latin déjà bien établis et adopté un mode de vie plus romain, ce qui allait de soi surtout après les victoires de Clovis et son baptême sous l'influence de Clothilde, même si les rois et leurs cours ont continué à parler le francique jusqu'au couronnement de Hugues Capet, un peu comme aujourd'hui avec le latin pour les prêtres, mais que la population n'apprend plus, malgré notre capacité d'instruction plus élevé qu'à cette époque.
Ouest, leasnam, you continue not wishing to answer to the fundamental questions that ask you theories: I'll repeat them once again:
If french is made from frankish people who tried to speak latin using a frankish-based structure, bringing with them a lot of frankish words.
1. How can you explain that those structural elements are present in the other romance languages?
2. How do you explain that the lexical elements are also present in the other romance language?
3. Does it mean that the other romance languages are derived from french?
4. If not how can you explain that all of them have integrated the same words the same way AND also the same syntaxical constructions the same way?
5. How do you explain that words like ("guerre" or "blanc", etc.) are not spread in other germanic languages than "Frankish" (which is not even sure). When yourself developped* the idea that words borrow easierly between languages of same families (idea to which I tend to agree)
* "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."
The frankish empire was not french-based. At least in the early medival times. Yourself (or ouest I don't remember) claimed that Frankish was heavily spoken in frenckish empire, even in the today romance speaking areas. If a language should have infulence the others it should have been frankish itself. But then once again, why we don't find those borrowdings in modern German, Duthc, etc. (the borrowding must have been much more efficient between frankish and Dutch - Dutch considered the heir of the first, or in german) While we find them in all romance language?
" Ce qui est important, ce sont les structures grammaticales très spécifiques des parlers romans. Elles ont des points communs avec le germanique, c'est clair. Mais il est à exclure que ces structures viennent d'emprunts. On les retrouve dans tous les dialectes romans, qu'il aient eu un fort contact avec le domaine germanique ou pas de contact du tout. Par conséquent, ces grammaires font partie du fonds natif des langues romanes (si jamais, par hypothèse, elle provenaient effectivement d'influences germaniques, ç'aurait été à un stade très antérieur aux grandes invasions). "
I agree complelty. I'll translate for Ouest and Leasnam, hoping to understand their arguments to maintain their point of view:
"What is important are the gramatical structures very specific to all romance dialects. All have some common points with germanic, that is clear. BUT it is to exclude that those structures come from borrowdings: We find them in ALL the romance dialects, whatever they has a strong contact with the Germanic area or not at all. Consequently, these grammars are part of the native base of romance languages (if never, by hypothesis, they would effectively come from germanic influences, it would have been at a very older time than big invasions - (ps: I would had 'and so spread by and with roman culture itself in the whole roman empire')
I would aslo has that if by hypothesis we would at all price follow Ouest/leasnam theories that claim that those structures come from the mix of Franksih with latin in northern france, the only valid hypothesis would be that all romance languages (including Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Etc) not only borrowed some supposed germanic-based words from french, but completly DERIVE from french... In this case romance languages should be not "romance" language but "french languages"... A bit hard position to maintain.
" Pourrait-tu nous proposer un texte en francique par exemple, afin qu'on puisse le comparer une fois pour toute avec du français moderne et du latin, au lieu de nous lancer constamment les mêmes sornettes. "
Completly agree.
This is what would be a good start to begin with the subject of this thread "what makes french a germanic-latin mixed language?". Comparing French with latin and modern German has no meaning as argument. All it says is that french is syntaxically different to both German and latin, and lexically speaking completly different to German.
The only valid comparision if we want to demonstrate that the syntaxical differences we observe between French and latin were made by a supposed mix of Frankish with latin... What modern German has to do in that story? We all know that germanic languages are vastly different one to the others, and so probably evoluted very profondly during times. If we don't even know how frankish did look like, and if we can't analayse the languages that were supposed (following the "Ouest/leasnam" theory) to mix to form french, any serious analisis can't be made.
When people said that words like "guerre", or "blanc" were supposed to come from Frankish it was only because those words were not found in the classical latin texts we have... It was a time in wich any non-classical latin words was necesserally coming from a germanic root. But in most of the case this germanic root doesn't exist in most of modern germanic language, and in old trace of Frankish neither... How serious it is? Please answer "Ouest" and "Leasnam".
" 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. "
Am I dreaming? you say that french (oil) is supposed to have heavy germanic influences (even 50/50 base on ouest theory), but in the same time you say that "oc" has little to no germanic influence?? Don't you realise how similar are oil and oc languages are ??
All the supposed elements that you and ouest claimed to be the "proof" of the supposed "germanic" mix with latin that makes french are also present in oc (as weel as in the other romance languages)
So, if in oc languages (I supposed you meant that it was also the case in the other romance languages) were under "little to no germanic influence" how do you explain they show the same syntaxical and structural elements that are seen in French (elements that are supposed by yourself and ouest to be of "heavy germanisation" ?
Concerning the differenciation between oil and oc languages, there is a more logical explanation: the south of France (Gaul at that time) has been Romanized since about 100 years before the romanisation of the north; the southern dialects of roman oral language began to take root long time before and so they necesarally know a different evolution from the later rooted ones in the north.
" Here I notice that the language has a markedly rougher quality, and looks markedly Less like the Latin than does the Modern French, when, supposedly, it should more closely resemble it, being nearer to it in time. "
(Sire Pere, qui es es ceaus, sanctifiez soit li tuens uons; avigne li tuens regnes.
Soit faite ta volonte, si comme ele est faite el ciel, si foit ele faite en terre. Nostre pain de chascun jor nos donne hui. Et pardone-nos nos meffais, si comme nos pardonons a cos qui maeffait nos ont. Sire, ne soffre que nos soions tempte par mauvesse temptation; mes, Sire, delivre-nos de mal. Amen)"
If it doesn't look like latin that much it is not because of a supposed more germanized influence, that was supposed to have diseappear. Actually as already said it has ITALIAN (I say Italian, not latin) characteristics (that are found also in Catalan for exemple, probably in occitan) that have diseappeard in modern French: such as "li tuens". We fond also "nostre", as found in italian "nostra" (instead of "nôtre"). French comes from Roman (vulgar latin, or proto-Italian), not from Classical latin don't forget it.
|