Excellent rebuttal Breanard! All of the Romance tongues lead to Rome Guest. The word list that guest compiled proves nothing, because at the end of the day what determines the mutual intelligibilty of two languages is still how the order of words in sentences are put together. And Italians use a phraseology that parallels French much more, than it does Spanish and Portuguese. This is not rocket science. And when it comes to mutual intelligibility between two languages, pronuciation is far less important than vocabulary and sentence structure. That's why immigrants can make themselves understood the language of their new country (as long as they already have a working knowledge of the new language). Sure, an immigrant will speak English, for example, with a radically different accent, but because they are using the words of their new language, albeit with an accent, they will still be able to make themselves understood. So this proves that accent is not what determines intelligibilty, it is the order of the words that appear in sentences. Jorge.
Spanish and Italian are much closer than Italian and French
Jorge,
Why the contentious phrasing. I was never engaged in a debate. I presented a list of common lexical terms.That is all!
I do not know you. My list was not intented to rile you.
Bernard reminds us that some of the terms have near semantic cognates in French. He never claimed that they can be used n the same semantic field indicated by the initial Non French term. You can find Iberian near semantic cognates for most Italo-French cognates too. This is also good. Our Western Romance languages are very close.
Thanks for noticing that my list proves nothing as it was not intented to prove anything but only to draw attention to the existance of common Italo-Iberian semantic cognates which were seemingly not being taken into account in the discussions.
I did my post-graduate studies in Romance Linguistics at UCLA so it was superfluous of you to " inform" me of the fact that the ROMAnce languages come from
ROMA.
Why the contentious phrasing. I was never engaged in a debate. I presented a list of common lexical terms.That is all!
I do not know you. My list was not intented to rile you.
Bernard reminds us that some of the terms have near semantic cognates in French. He never claimed that they can be used n the same semantic field indicated by the initial Non French term. You can find Iberian near semantic cognates for most Italo-French cognates too. This is also good. Our Western Romance languages are very close.
Thanks for noticing that my list proves nothing as it was not intented to prove anything but only to draw attention to the existance of common Italo-Iberian semantic cognates which were seemingly not being taken into account in the discussions.
I did my post-graduate studies in Romance Linguistics at UCLA so it was superfluous of you to " inform" me of the fact that the ROMAnce languages come from
ROMA.
Dinis, I assume you are "guest" because you said,
"Thanks for noticing that my list proves nothing as it was not intented to prove anything but only to draw attention to the existance of common Italo-Iberian semantic cognates which were seemingly not being taken into account in the discussions. "
What was this comment at the end,
"However, even if it be a very partial compilation, it sti;; gives some idea of the many high-frequency words absent from French but shared by the Ibero-Romance peoples with the speakers of standard Italian.
Spain's cultural roads also lead to Rome!"
if you meant the list to prove nothing?
I don't think anyone is trying to deny the similarities between Spanish and Italian. Knowing both, I can see the similarities quite clearly. However, many people here are also trying to diminish the similarities between French and Italian, while trying to strengthen them between Spanish and Italian. In short, they are trying to push their own opinion.
I advocate just telling the truth. Why must people manipulate things so?
"Thanks for noticing that my list proves nothing as it was not intented to prove anything but only to draw attention to the existance of common Italo-Iberian semantic cognates which were seemingly not being taken into account in the discussions. "
What was this comment at the end,
"However, even if it be a very partial compilation, it sti;; gives some idea of the many high-frequency words absent from French but shared by the Ibero-Romance peoples with the speakers of standard Italian.
Spain's cultural roads also lead to Rome!"
if you meant the list to prove nothing?
I don't think anyone is trying to deny the similarities between Spanish and Italian. Knowing both, I can see the similarities quite clearly. However, many people here are also trying to diminish the similarities between French and Italian, while trying to strengthen them between Spanish and Italian. In short, they are trying to push their own opinion.
I advocate just telling the truth. Why must people manipulate things so?
@ Tiffany
Cacio is the correct form of formaggio..
Infact latin Caseus= cacio , because of the palatinization of s intervocalic and the fall of eu to= io
Cacio is the correct form of formaggio..
Infact latin Caseus= cacio , because of the palatinization of s intervocalic and the fall of eu to= io
@Philx
That's fine. I'm just talking about common usage in Italy. Everyone seems to say formaggio. Correct or not.
That's fine. I'm just talking about common usage in Italy. Everyone seems to say formaggio. Correct or not.
Aldo : « do you know why French took so different road about pronunciation with respect to Italian, Spanish and Portuguese and with respect to Latin ? »
À cause d'évolutions phonétiques très complexes qui se sont déroulées sur plusieurs centaines d'années. Le processus d'évolution est allé très loin dans les régions d'Oïl. Par exemple certaines voyelles finales non-accentuées ont disparu (même de l'écriture) : Fr <chanter> = La <cantare>, comme en Es <cantar>, chute du <e>.
À cause d'évolutions phonétiques très complexes qui se sont déroulées sur plusieurs centaines d'années. Le processus d'évolution est allé très loin dans les régions d'Oïl. Par exemple certaines voyelles finales non-accentuées ont disparu (même de l'écriture) : Fr <chanter> = La <cantare>, comme en Es <cantar>, chute du <e>.
@ Tiffany
Formaggio is also correct but is to be found more often in the spoken language, obviously no one italian teacher dares to correct Formaggio in a written homework....
Formaggio is also correct but is to be found more often in the spoken language, obviously no one italian teacher dares to correct Formaggio in a written homework....
Jorge said that the word order and the building of the sentence in italian is closer to french than to spanish or portoguese, for wha i know about french, it uses rigidly SVO sentences while italian is more ductile on that aspect, most common OVS
SOV, VSO,. VSo when there is an interrogative clauses. Ex: Fai tu cosa?
SOV whent the subject it is a pronoun ex : Che cosa stai facendo?
Also in italian personal pronouns are not expressed , while in french yes
SOV, VSO,. VSo when there is an interrogative clauses. Ex: Fai tu cosa?
SOV whent the subject it is a pronoun ex : Che cosa stai facendo?
Also in italian personal pronouns are not expressed , while in french yes
Greg,
The reason usually given by the experts for the accelerated pace of drastic phonetic change attested in the evolution of the Northern Gallo Romance dialects are the mirror phenomena of substatum (Celtic dialects) and superstratum (Germanic dialects). The "classical" work on this topic is W. von Wartburg's Evolution et Structure de la Langue Francaise.
A work on which I am not qualified to comment because I have never read it.
But a note by Harvard professor Anthony Arotto in his popular book Introduction to Historical Linguistics (1972) capsulates the substratum theory as it applies to French as follows:
"We assume that before the armies of Rome moved into Ancient Gaul (Modern France) in the first century B.C., the inhabitants of that country spoke a Celtic language known as Gaulish. The Roman occupation lasted several centuries, and the people of Gaul [gradually] adopted the language of their conquerors. It has been claimed that certain features of the Gaulish language "seeped through" to the new tongue.Thus French is sometimes spoken of as a descendant of Latin with a Gaulish substratum."
We see the effect of substratum all the time here in the American Southwest (i.e.communities that were historically Spansh speaking which have however lost the Spanish language or in which the language is preserved only in vestigial form by a small number of bilinguals and yet all those raised in tight isolation within the community have a Chicano accent or ,again, consider the case of a Southwestern reservation in which no one preserves the ancient tribal tongue and yet there still remains something very Indian in everyone's pronunciation.)
The imprint of the original language's phonology on the newly arrived language takes place during the period of bilingualism (which can last for centuries) because ,of course, of the linguistic interference occuring in the speech patterns of those who know both languages.
A lot of extraneous influences enter into the process of linguistic assimilation socio- and pshycologica that explain why over the course of generations (even centuries) a situation of bilingualism and biculturalism may result in a cross-cultural synthesis.
The reason usually given by the experts for the accelerated pace of drastic phonetic change attested in the evolution of the Northern Gallo Romance dialects are the mirror phenomena of substatum (Celtic dialects) and superstratum (Germanic dialects). The "classical" work on this topic is W. von Wartburg's Evolution et Structure de la Langue Francaise.
A work on which I am not qualified to comment because I have never read it.
But a note by Harvard professor Anthony Arotto in his popular book Introduction to Historical Linguistics (1972) capsulates the substratum theory as it applies to French as follows:
"We assume that before the armies of Rome moved into Ancient Gaul (Modern France) in the first century B.C., the inhabitants of that country spoke a Celtic language known as Gaulish. The Roman occupation lasted several centuries, and the people of Gaul [gradually] adopted the language of their conquerors. It has been claimed that certain features of the Gaulish language "seeped through" to the new tongue.Thus French is sometimes spoken of as a descendant of Latin with a Gaulish substratum."
We see the effect of substratum all the time here in the American Southwest (i.e.communities that were historically Spansh speaking which have however lost the Spanish language or in which the language is preserved only in vestigial form by a small number of bilinguals and yet all those raised in tight isolation within the community have a Chicano accent or ,again, consider the case of a Southwestern reservation in which no one preserves the ancient tribal tongue and yet there still remains something very Indian in everyone's pronunciation.)
The imprint of the original language's phonology on the newly arrived language takes place during the period of bilingualism (which can last for centuries) because ,of course, of the linguistic interference occuring in the speech patterns of those who know both languages.
A lot of extraneous influences enter into the process of linguistic assimilation socio- and pshycologica that explain why over the course of generations (even centuries) a situation of bilingualism and biculturalism may result in a cross-cultural synthesis.
Philx : « for wha i know about french, it uses rigidly SVO sentences while italian is more ductile on that aspect, most common OVS »
A1 : « Manges-tu des pommes ? » —> VSO
A2 : « Tu manges des pommes ? » —> SVO
A3 : « Que manges-tu ? » —> OVS
B : « Tu manges. » —> SV
C1 : « Tu manges des pommes. » —> SVO
C2 : « Tu les manges. » —> SOV
D1 : « Tu donnes la pomme à ton ami. » —> SVO¹O²
D2 : « Tu la lui donnes. » —> SO¹O²V
A1 : « Manges-tu des pommes ? » —> VSO
A2 : « Tu manges des pommes ? » —> SVO
A3 : « Que manges-tu ? » —> OVS
B : « Tu manges. » —> SV
C1 : « Tu manges des pommes. » —> SVO
C2 : « Tu les manges. » —> SOV
D1 : « Tu donnes la pomme à ton ami. » —> SVO¹O²
D2 : « Tu la lui donnes. » —> SO¹O²V
Thanks greg, i said in fact for what i know about french.
But french personal pronouns have to be expressed or i'm wrong?
But french personal pronouns have to be expressed or i'm wrong?
We can use all the tables and graphs we want - and they do look nice, but at the end of the day it is the spoken standard of a language that we are talking about. The mutual intelligibility of spoken romance languages in particular. Let's face it...no one speaks any language strictly by the book as it were. The fact is, accent matters much less than the words which are spoken, and the order that they are spoken in.
philx : « But french personal pronouns have to be expressed or i'm wrong? »
Je ne comprends pas ta question, Philx. Que veux-tu dire ?
Un exemple a propos de l'impact sémantique qu'aurait la supression des pronoms personnels :
A : « Tu la lui donnes. »
Tu donne quelque chose de grammaticalement féminin à une personne ou un animal dont le sexe est indéterminé ou inconnu.
B : « Tu la donnes. »
Tu donne quelque chose de grammaticalement féminin mais on ignore l'existence (et a fortiori l'identité et le sexe du destinataire).
C : « Tu lui donnes. »
Une personne ou un animal dont le sexe est indéterminé ou inconnu reçoit quelquechose de toi dont l'identité est inconnue.
D : « Tu donnes. »
On sait que tu donnes quelque chose : mais on ne sait pas quoi, ni même si tu le donnes à quelqu'un ou à un animal.
Je ne comprends pas ta question, Philx. Que veux-tu dire ?
Un exemple a propos de l'impact sémantique qu'aurait la supression des pronoms personnels :
A : « Tu la lui donnes. »
Tu donne quelque chose de grammaticalement féminin à une personne ou un animal dont le sexe est indéterminé ou inconnu.
B : « Tu la donnes. »
Tu donne quelque chose de grammaticalement féminin mais on ignore l'existence (et a fortiori l'identité et le sexe du destinataire).
C : « Tu lui donnes. »
Une personne ou un animal dont le sexe est indéterminé ou inconnu reçoit quelquechose de toi dont l'identité est inconnue.
D : « Tu donnes. »
On sait que tu donnes quelque chose : mais on ne sait pas quoi, ni même si tu le donnes à quelqu'un ou à un animal.
I mean that unlike in italian the personal pronouns in french are even expressed,
Ex: Mangio
Sei andato la? No , non sono andato. As can you see in italian are not necesseary
I mean subject is ever expressed in french or not ?
Ex: Mangio
Sei andato la? No , non sono andato. As can you see in italian are not necesseary
I mean subject is ever expressed in french or not ?
Ça dépend. Par exemple, si quelqu'un possède une pomme et la tient dans sa main et que tu désires qu'il te la remettes, tu peux lui dire : « Donne ! » ou « Donne-la moi ! ».