English or French?
Which language is closer to being a creole?
If English is creole, then it is a West Gmc - North Gmc creole, not a creole involving French or Latin.
Due to the high number of English irregular verbs (283), the concesus view on English being a creole ranges from highly doubtful to not at all.
Due to the high number of English irregular verbs (283), the concesus view on English being a creole ranges from highly doubtful to not at all.
<<Due to the high number of English irregular verbs (283), the concesus view on English being a creole ranges from highly doubtful to not at all. >>
How many irregular verbs are there in French? (or Spanish, German, Dutch, etc.) Are there any sites with comparative statistics?
How many irregular verbs are there in French? (or Spanish, German, Dutch, etc.) Are there any sites with comparative statistics?
The English is not a creole because in English there are more than two thousands native key words that also can find in Hokkienese. The English and Hokkienese may be to have an ancestry language in archaic time.
The question is a rather loaded one, don't you think?
An untrained person will most invariably say it's English; while a linguistic specialist probably will say it's French
What factors are you basing this question on?
An untrained person will most invariably say it's English; while a linguistic specialist probably will say it's French
What factors are you basing this question on?
In France, Vulgar Latin COMPLETELY replaced local languages. In England, there was no replacement (well, technically, in England Germanic languages also replaced Celtic languages), just a gradual Latinization of the local language by the conscious choice of its speakers, especially educated speakers. The Norman invasion itself had little to do with it - it was centuries later that people started to consciously frenchify their speech, to the point that the word 'esperance' (hope, of course) entered the English language in the 15th century, though it did not survive and is now considered archaic. Such was the desire of Englishmen to creolize their speech into something of a Romance language that they were ready to replace a basic one-syllable word in English with a 'prettier' Latinate synonym. Esperance may not have survived, but the overall creolization did succeed.
French is not a creole language because there's nothing underlying the French language other than Vulgar Latin. The Celtic languages of Gaul left so pitifully few traces in modern French that they can be dismissed. What Gaul had was language REPLACEMENT, not creolization. This isn't the first and perhaps not the last time in history that the soldiery of a conquering nation manages to pass their language onto a far greater body of local peasants and townsfolk.
French is not a creole language because there's nothing underlying the French language other than Vulgar Latin. The Celtic languages of Gaul left so pitifully few traces in modern French that they can be dismissed. What Gaul had was language REPLACEMENT, not creolization. This isn't the first and perhaps not the last time in history that the soldiery of a conquering nation manages to pass their language onto a far greater body of local peasants and townsfolk.
<<In France, Vulgar Latin COMPLETELY replaced local languages. In England, there was no replacement (well, technically, in England Germanic languages also replaced Celtic languages), just a gradual Latinization of the local language by the conscious choice of its speakers, especially educated speakers. The Norman invasion itself had little to do with it - it was centuries later that people started to consciously frenchify their speech, to the point that the word 'esperance' (hope, of course) entered the English language in the 15th century, though it did not survive and is now considered archaic. Such was the desire of Englishmen to creolize their speech into something of a Romance language that they were ready to replace a basic one-syllable word in English with a 'prettier' Latinate synonym. Esperance may not have survived, but the overall creolization did succeed.
French is not a creole language because there's nothing underlying the French language other than Vulgar Latin. The Celtic languages of Gaul left so pitifully few traces in modern French that they can be dismissed. What Gaul had was language REPLACEMENT, not creolization. This isn't the first and perhaps not the last time in history that the soldiery of a conquering nation manages to pass their language onto a far greater body of local peasants and townsfolk. >>
WRONG.
<<'esperance' (hope, of course) entered the English language in the 15th century, though it did not survive and is now considered archaic>>
Did you get this from someone else on some other forum somehwere? Are you running back and forth trying to piece enough of something together to have something to say? You don't have to. Please. You don't have to.
French is not a creole language because there's nothing underlying the French language other than Vulgar Latin. The Celtic languages of Gaul left so pitifully few traces in modern French that they can be dismissed. What Gaul had was language REPLACEMENT, not creolization. This isn't the first and perhaps not the last time in history that the soldiery of a conquering nation manages to pass their language onto a far greater body of local peasants and townsfolk. >>
WRONG.
<<'esperance' (hope, of course) entered the English language in the 15th century, though it did not survive and is now considered archaic>>
Did you get this from someone else on some other forum somehwere? Are you running back and forth trying to piece enough of something together to have something to say? You don't have to. Please. You don't have to.
<< French is not a creole language because there's nothing underlying the French language other than Vulgar Latin. >>
-- Assuming there existed something like "vulgar Latin".
It's a little bit disturbing that this supposedly so influential language didn't deliver any evidence of its alleged existence.
My point is: Latin and Romance were two extremely different languages, though the latter borrowed extensively from the other. Just look at their grammars and underlying structures.
-- Assuming there existed something like "vulgar Latin".
It's a little bit disturbing that this supposedly so influential language didn't deliver any evidence of its alleged existence.
My point is: Latin and Romance were two extremely different languages, though the latter borrowed extensively from the other. Just look at their grammars and underlying structures.
«My point is: Latin and Romance were two extremely different languages, though the latter borrowed extensively from the other. Just look at their grammars and underlying structures. »
Oui et la principale raison de ces différences est l'utilisation des cinq déclinaisons dans le latin, contrairement aux langues romanes ce qui modifie la morphologie et aussi la syntaxe, un peu comme l'allemand en comparaison avec les autres langues germaniques.
Oui et la principale raison de ces différences est l'utilisation des cinq déclinaisons dans le latin, contrairement aux langues romanes ce qui modifie la morphologie et aussi la syntaxe, un peu comme l'allemand en comparaison avec les autres langues germaniques.
Ceux qui déclarent le français comme étant plus créolisé que l'anglais connaissent mal le français. Analysez bien cette dernière et vous allez constater qu'elle est bien comme les autres langues romanes. Elle utilise une syntaxe très semblable au portugais , à l'italien et à l'espagnol. Le vocabulaire est d'origine romane, donc vous vous leurrez tous, alors que l'anglais a beaucoup emprunté aux langues romanes.