Il y a eu beaucoup de discussions dernièrement sur ce forum à savoir si une langue, en l'occurence le français pouvait être considérée comme un mélange de germanique et de latin. Encore faut-il savoir qu'est-ce qu'une langue germanique ou romane, car on pourrait affirmer, par exemple que l'anglais est une langue du groupe roman avec son vocabulaire contenant plus de 50% de mots d'origine latine. Qu'est-ce qui peut le mieux distinguer les deux groupes ayant la même racine indo-européenne et avec quels exemples?
What makes a language Romance or Germanic?
It is the history of the language that determines it. Since English descended from a language spoken by Germanic tribes, it is Germanic. French descended from Latin, so it is a Romance language.
En anglais il est possible de tenir une conversation en n'employant que des mots germaniques, alors qu'il est difficile de construire une seule phrase avec seulement des mots romans.
Donc l'anglais reste une langue germanique.
Tu vois, c'est simple !
Les jeux de prépositions, pronoms, conjonctions etc. sont ce qu'il y a de plus indispensable dans une langue, et de plus stable. Ils définissent sans ambiguïté l'appartenance d'une langue à tel groupe.
Donc l'anglais reste une langue germanique.
Tu vois, c'est simple !
Les jeux de prépositions, pronoms, conjonctions etc. sont ce qu'il y a de plus indispensable dans une langue, et de plus stable. Ils définissent sans ambiguïté l'appartenance d'une langue à tel groupe.
<<En anglais il est possible de tenir une conversation en n'employant que des mots germaniques, alors qu'il est difficile de construire une seule phrase avec seulement des mots romans.
Donc l'anglais reste une langue germanique.
Tu vois, c'est simple !
Les jeux de prépositions, pronoms, conjonctions etc. sont ce qu'il y a de plus indispensable dans une langue, et de plus stable. Ils définissent sans ambiguïté l'appartenance d'une langue à tel groupe. >>
What you say about English is true.
That notwithstanding, I doubt whether this should be noten as the defining feature. For this hints at the mightlihood that English may one day becoming a language of a different family. I'm not sure that a language can do this.
I would say that you have to analyse the language and determine the origins of each component part. Furthermore, language history weighs in as well--the story behind how the parts came to be infused into the Sprache.
A byspel of such mingling can be seen in such words as French 'avec' (< 'apud hoc' ("with this"), replacing 'cum'), 'forêt' (< the adjective "outside" , replacing 'sylva' "forest") where the etymon is Latin, but it's use (originally, *mis-use*) is due to another language (In the case with "forestem sylvam", French takes it from German where it had been misunderstood that the construction was leading from 'forestrem' as the substantive, and 'sylvam' as the modifier)
English on the other hand "looks" more Romance than it actually is. It is eath to get the wrong impression from English. English is a very Germanic language.
Donc l'anglais reste une langue germanique.
Tu vois, c'est simple !
Les jeux de prépositions, pronoms, conjonctions etc. sont ce qu'il y a de plus indispensable dans une langue, et de plus stable. Ils définissent sans ambiguïté l'appartenance d'une langue à tel groupe. >>
What you say about English is true.
That notwithstanding, I doubt whether this should be noten as the defining feature. For this hints at the mightlihood that English may one day becoming a language of a different family. I'm not sure that a language can do this.
I would say that you have to analyse the language and determine the origins of each component part. Furthermore, language history weighs in as well--the story behind how the parts came to be infused into the Sprache.
A byspel of such mingling can be seen in such words as French 'avec' (< 'apud hoc' ("with this"), replacing 'cum'), 'forêt' (< the adjective "outside" , replacing 'sylva' "forest") where the etymon is Latin, but it's use (originally, *mis-use*) is due to another language (In the case with "forestem sylvam", French takes it from German where it had been misunderstood that the construction was leading from 'forestrem' as the substantive, and 'sylvam' as the modifier)
English on the other hand "looks" more Romance than it actually is. It is eath to get the wrong impression from English. English is a very Germanic language.
<< A byspel of such mingling can be seen in such words as French 'avec' (< 'apud hoc' ("with this"), replacing 'cum') >>
- If I am not mistaken, 'apud' meant "near", "close to".
Interestingly, a parallel drift took place in English with 'with' replacing normal Germanic words like 'mit', 'met', 'med'. "With" is related to Scandinavian 'vid' = "close to" and to German 'wider' = "against".
But compounds like "to withstand" and "Widerstand" have retained the same meaning!
Scand. 'vid' is also related to Ger. 'weit' (or Eng. 'wide'), though it means just the opposite. But the comparatives 'vidare' and 'weiter' both mean 'further'!
- If I am not mistaken, 'apud' meant "near", "close to".
Interestingly, a parallel drift took place in English with 'with' replacing normal Germanic words like 'mit', 'met', 'med'. "With" is related to Scandinavian 'vid' = "close to" and to German 'wider' = "against".
But compounds like "to withstand" and "Widerstand" have retained the same meaning!
Scand. 'vid' is also related to Ger. 'weit' (or Eng. 'wide'), though it means just the opposite. But the comparatives 'vidare' and 'weiter' both mean 'further'!
<<Interestingly, a parallel drift took place in English with 'with' replacing normal Germanic words like 'mit', 'met', 'med'. "With" is related to Scandinavian 'vid' = "close to" and to German 'wider' = "against".
But compounds like "to withstand" and "Widerstand" have retained the same meaning!
>>
Yes, for wis.
I believe that it may have been owed to Scandianvian instreaming that English changed from note of 'mid' ("with") to 'with' which originally meant "against, next to". Otherwise, it can still sortof be explained ('next to' kinda means the same thing as 'with' [cf. The book is 'next to' the cup = the book is 'with' the cup])
The only place where we still use 'mid' is in the term 'midwife' ("with-wife").
I love words!
But compounds like "to withstand" and "Widerstand" have retained the same meaning!
>>
Yes, for wis.
I believe that it may have been owed to Scandianvian instreaming that English changed from note of 'mid' ("with") to 'with' which originally meant "against, next to". Otherwise, it can still sortof be explained ('next to' kinda means the same thing as 'with' [cf. The book is 'next to' the cup = the book is 'with' the cup])
The only place where we still use 'mid' is in the term 'midwife' ("with-wife").
I love words!
<< byspel >>
-- I love this rendition of Ger. "Beispiel"! Did you invent it?
"For instance" could as well translate as "by forebuilt" (following Dutch "bijvoorbeeld") or as "samplewise" (to match Swedish "exempelvis")...
-- I love this rendition of Ger. "Beispiel"! Did you invent it?
"For instance" could as well translate as "by forebuilt" (following Dutch "bijvoorbeeld") or as "samplewise" (to match Swedish "exempelvis")...
<<<< byspel >>
-- I love this rendition of Ger. "Beispiel"! Did you invent it?
>>
I wish I did, not alas no :(
It's an actual English word:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/byspel
it's pretty rare nowadays, but I like it :)
<<"For instance" could as well translate as "by forebuilt" (following Dutch "bijvoorbeeld") or as "samplewise" (to match Swedish "exempelvis")... >>
Kewl.
Do you like coining new words? I do, and I try to do just what you bring up here, by modeling them after existing or older words...
-- I love this rendition of Ger. "Beispiel"! Did you invent it?
>>
I wish I did, not alas no :(
It's an actual English word:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/byspel
it's pretty rare nowadays, but I like it :)
<<"For instance" could as well translate as "by forebuilt" (following Dutch "bijvoorbeeld") or as "samplewise" (to match Swedish "exempelvis")... >>
Kewl.
Do you like coining new words? I do, and I try to do just what you bring up here, by modeling them after existing or older words...
<<Encore faut-il savoir qu'est-ce qu'une langue germanique ou romane, car on pourrait affirmer, par exemple que l'anglais est une langue du groupe roman avec son vocabulaire contenant plus de 50% de mots d'origine latine>>
Spanish has many loanwords of arabic or basque origin,but Spanish is romance language,not semitic or sort of basque.The same is with French-many germanic loanwords,Germanic phonology,but French is romance language,not Germanic.
Spanish has many loanwords of arabic or basque origin,but Spanish is romance language,not semitic or sort of basque.The same is with French-many germanic loanwords,Germanic phonology,but French is romance language,not Germanic.
In the following centuries dumb people will say Spanish is an English-derived language because of hundreds of English loanwords that are passing into Spanish.
<,In the following centuries dumb people will say Spanish is an English-derived language because of hundreds of English loanwords that are passing into Spanish. >>
Es tru-dad!
Es tru-dad!
" English on the other hand "looks" more Romance than it actually is. "
English doesn't looks romance. It is very germanic looking to me.
" The same is with French-many germanic loanwords"
400 words, with the majority of them not used in usual speech is not what we could call "many". germanic influence in french is not really much more important than in spanish
English doesn't looks romance. It is very germanic looking to me.
" The same is with French-many germanic loanwords"
400 words, with the majority of them not used in usual speech is not what we could call "many". germanic influence in french is not really much more important than in spanish
I noticed that current english is more intelligible for a spanish speaker than english wrote 5 centuries ago, I think english has become closer to latin lenguages in this time... what do you think?
Obviosly lenguages are not statical, they evolute, mix, loan, closer, get far and so on etc...Boundaries will change between lenguages in a future.
Obviosly lenguages are not statical, they evolute, mix, loan, closer, get far and so on etc...Boundaries will change between lenguages in a future.
Harman : « I noticed that current english is more intelligible for a spanish speaker than english wrote 5 centuries ago »
That would be conclusive if Spanish speakers devoted the same amount of time to studying present-days English and Middle English.
On the contrary, the average English-learning Spanish speaker gets something like five years and more(*) of exposure to present-days English as opposed to infinitesimal to no exposure to Middle English.
(*) At least in Spain it's probably much more than that as I hear that they start studying English as early as nursery school. To be confirmed...
That would be conclusive if Spanish speakers devoted the same amount of time to studying present-days English and Middle English.
On the contrary, the average English-learning Spanish speaker gets something like five years and more(*) of exposure to present-days English as opposed to infinitesimal to no exposure to Middle English.
(*) At least in Spain it's probably much more than that as I hear that they start studying English as early as nursery school. To be confirmed...
Lobo Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:27 pm GMT
"Qu'est-ce qui peut le mieux distinguer les deux groupes ayant la même racine indo-européenne et avec quels exemples? "
_________________________________________
Grammar makes the difference, vocabulary is volatile...
"Qu'est-ce qui peut le mieux distinguer les deux groupes ayant la même racine indo-européenne et avec quels exemples? "
_________________________________________
Grammar makes the difference, vocabulary is volatile...