|
|
The relationships between the neo-Latin languages
Reading some more of the comments, I believe more in the "Northern and Southern" ctegory of latin tounges
Being a natural spanish speaker, I see Portugese, Spanish, Italian, Gallego, etc. (southern european) to be different from French, Catalan, Romanian, etc. (northern) because of the germanic and Slavic influence.
I can barely understand french, written or spoken, and I am from Spain. Yet, Italian sounds very similar as does portugese. Yet I understand Romanian even less then I do french!
So here is what I believe are closer: (in order from closest)
Spanish - Italian
Spanish - Portugese
Spanish - French
Spanish - Romanian
Italian - Spanish
Italian - Portugese
Italian - Romanian
Italian - French
French - Spanish
French - Italian
French - Portugese
French - Romanian
Portugese - Spanish
Portugese - Italian
Portugese - French
Portugese - Romanian
Romanian - Italian
Romanian - French
Romanian - Spanish
Romanian - Portugese
Romanian sounds a little more similar to Italian than Spanish does. But Romanian words are VERY different, nd so is the sentence structure. In my opinion, CASTILLIAN Spanish (spanish spoken in spain) is the closest to Italian. As I said before, Italians and Spaiards can have conversations without ever having to be bilingual, the words and sentence structure is so similar, that both will understand what eachother says easily.
------>>>>
This is true to some extent, if they use -academic- words they'll probably understand eachother more so then just plain basic words.
Spanish: {{formal}}
retornar; (retorno, retornas, retorna, retornamos, retornan & retornáis)
poseer; (poseo, posees, posee, poseemos, poseen & poseéis)
Italian: {{basic}}
ritornare; (ritorno, ritorni, ritorna, ritorniamo, ritornano & ritornate)
possedere; (possedo, possedi, possede, possediamo, possedeno & possedete)
&
Prender: ((1. tr. Asir, agarrar, sujetar algo.))
Agarrar: ((2. tr. Coger, tomar.))
Coger: ((1. tr. Asir, agarrar o tomar. U. t. c. prnl.))
{{{{{According to the -real academia espanola-}}}}
I COULD USE:
Quiero prender aquella cosa (spanish)
Voglio prendere quella cosa (italian)
I want to get/grasp that thing (english)
Nice, eh?
Here's the Spanish translation: (it's similar)
"You (all) need to bring your chair from the other room." (En)
"(Voi) Dovete portare la vostra sedia dall'altra stanza/camera" (It)
"(Vosotros) Debéis traer vuestra silla de la otra habitación/recámara" (sp)
>>Hey Sérgio I like your name it´s a pitty you got her before me.
Hi Joey,
What do you mean by that?
" French - Spanish
French - Italian
French - Portugese
French - Romanian "
I don't agree. French is much closer to Italian than to Spanish.
From a french point of view, Spanish, as Portuguese seem "less latin related" than does Italian and French.
" Reading some more of the comments, I believe more in the "Northern and Southern" category of latin tounges "
" I see Portugese, Spanish, Italian, Gallego, etc. (southern european) to be different from French, Catalan, Romanian, etc. (northern) because of the germanic and Slavic influence. "
No, the difference is between "western" and "eastern" groups of latin languages, not between a "northern" and "southern" group. And by the way I don't see what is more "northern" about Catalunia than Galicia...
Contrary of what preconcieved ideas that some posters here would want to believe, the influcence of germanic languages is not bigger in French than in Spanish.
Spanish and portugese sound different since the portugese have a very exagerated accent. ~~
I noticed the Portuguese and Galician sound almost the same way, they are the closest]
Galician and Portuguese sound alike. They both have the same "very exagerated" accent. Tehey are the same langauge.
They're not the same language since a few centuries, they're brother languages (both descending from medieval Galaico-Portuguese). But anyway, Ricardo, what do you mean by "exagerated accent"??? I guess it can only express your subjective feeling when earing Portuguese...
Tell me that the Galician and Portuguese speakers, on those samples, are not speaking the same language. Many linguists still consider them the same language.
It is obvious that Ricardo does not speak like them. He must speak with a thick spanish accent. In Galicia we call it castrapo.
The Catalan and Basque show more PRIDE in their language and take better care od it instead of making it sound like a spanish dialect.
<<Contrary of what preconcieved ideas that some posters here would want to believe, the influcence of germanic languages is not bigger in French than in Spanish. >>
Yes, I believe that is correct. French borrowed a few Frankish words here and there, but Spanish adopted many Gothic words as well.
Spanish and Portuguese share a great deal of Arabic loan words, which French and Italian do not possess, because unlike the Iberians, they were never subjected to Arab rule and influence.
Lexically, Italian is the most closely related to French. They share 89% of the same vocabulary. (This does not mean that 89% of their words are the exact same. For instance, French will omit a vowel at the ends of the Italian cognate, or will pronounce the word spelled the same differently, or French will flip a few letters around, or omit some, or add some, etc. Especially in spoken form, French words of the same origin as their Italian equivalents are barely recognizable by speakers of the opposite language because of the drastic differences in pronouncing or alterting the word which is virtually the same.)
Italian -
Formaggio
molto buono
Buongiorno
amore
amico
Napoleone Buonaparte
French-
Fromage
tres? bon
Bonjour
amour
ami
Napoleon Bonaparte (both names drop the final vowel sound)
In spoken French, you have a profound nasalization of many sounds, an uvular 'r' as opposed to a rolled 'r', and numerous flat endings, and unpronounced consonants all of which makes French, in spoken form, sound very different from Italian.
In spoken form, French sounds very "un-Latin" to most people, and they assume that it is the most distant, most "Germanic" of the Romance languages, when in reality, it is no more "Germanic" than Spanish, and in actuality, closely related to Italian.
I believe all of this applies to the relationship shared between Spanish and Portuguese.
LAA : « French (...) do not possess, because unlike the Iberians, they were never subjected to Arab rule and influence. »
Absolument faux ! Une partie du futur royaume de France a été occupée par les Arabes et les Arabes ont énormément influencé les lettres & sciences d'Oc & d'Oïl.
LAA : « In spoken French, you have a profound nasalization of many sounds (...) ».
Non, le concept de "profonde" nasalisation ne veut rien dire. Ou c'est nasal, ou ça ne l'est pas. Il y a 4 voyelles nasales en français (c'est pas très "profond") et deux ou trois consonnes nasales (pas très "profond" non plus).
LAA : « (...) an uvular 'r' as opposed to a rolled 'r' (...) ».
Tu n'as rien compris encore une fois : le <r> uvulaire ne s'oppose pas au <r> roulé. Ce sont deux variantes non-phonémiques.
En français, tu peux utiliser un <r> roulé à l'italienne ou bien prononcé à l'anglaise : ça n'a ***AUCUNE*** importance.
LAA : « (...) and numerous flat endings (...) ».
Au contraire, comme je te l'ai répété déjà 650 fois, l'accentuation de mot (très légère) porte la plupart du temps sur la ***DERNIÈRE*** syllabe :<aimé> [e'me], <parti> [paR'ti], <aperçu> [apER'sy] etc.
LAA : « In spoken form, French sounds very "un-Latin" to most people(...) ».
Oui, si tu parles des gens qui ***CONFONDENT*** latinité avec hispanité ou italianité. Le latin ne ressemblait ni à l'espagnol ni à l'italien (et ni au français bien sûr). Tu ne fais que superposer tes clichés perso de façon anachronique sur une réalité qui t'échappe complètement.
/In spoken French, you have a profound nasalization/
Didn't you want to say Portuguese ? If French has a profound nasalization Portuguese has a very profound nasalization.
"or will pronounce the word spelled the same differently"
LAA,
You're forgetting the numerous times where basic (very common) french and italian words spell quite differently but are pronounced the same way:
QUI - CHI
TOUTES - TUTTE
EST - E
ES - E
LES - LE
etc.
when their spanish equivalents are different both on spelling and pronounciation : QUIEN, TODAS, ESTA, ERES, LAS, etc.
" French words of the same origin as their Italian equivalents are barely recognizable by speakers of the opposite language "
How can you speak in the name of Italian speakers? you're not even one on them!
" because of the drastic differences in pronouncing or alterting the word which is virtually the same.) "
The exemple you gave are tipically the exemple of words that sound very similar more than spell alike !
Formaggio, molto (moult), buono, Buongiorno, amore, amico, Napoleone Buonaparte ... Are completly sounding alike in both languages, they sound like their french equivelents spoken with an italian accent.
" In spoken French, you have a profound nasalization of many sounds "
first, among romance laguages nasalization is not a french specificity, it is found also in portuguese (and mybe others).
And secondly, the "nasal vowels" (In, On, En (and their derivations "ein, ain, un"), are not prononced "nazalized" in all french accents, the Quebec prononciation is very different and the southern accents pronounce lightely the "n" and not a nasalized "in/en/on".
It is not a necessity to "nasalize" them, as a lot of francophnes doesn't.
" an uvular 'r' as opposed to a rolled 'r' "
Once again, "uvular r" is not a characteristic of French.
French was spoken with a "rolled r" for centuries, and a lot of francophones continue today to roll their "r" (and ARE native french speakers !!)
The quebec "r" is often rolled to, or prononced the american way by native french speakers.
The French african accents tend to not pronounce their "r" at all.
A lot of "r" pronouciations exist in real french, the "uvular r" is not at all an obligation, just a modern feature of "standard" European French.
" In spoken form, French sounds very "un-Latin" to most people "
LAA, your problem still the same; you continue to confuse "latin"(related to latin civilisation) with "hispanic"(centred around castillian language and civilisation).
I don't blame you for that, since we all know that it is the way the modern medias try to brainwash all of us. This confusion has become complete in the mind of a lot of people, especially when those terms are applied on "racial" features (such as Antonio Banderas), as the unique reference of the "latin person.
Castillian language is presented by most medias as the reference of "latiness". "latin" music shoud necessary be sang in spanish, etc.
We should not forget that Spanish culture is only one branch of the latin family, and is not especially a branch with a central position (linguistically, nor geographically or historically).
<<LAA, your problem still the same; you continue to confuse "latin"(related to latin civilisation) with "hispanic"(centred around castillian language and civilisation).>>
No. As Greg would say, "Absolument Faux!" When I think of Latin culture and civilization, I think of southwestern Europe, and only secondly, do I think of Latin America. Hispanic-America is Latin in the sense that it is an offshoot of Latin European culture and civilization. How many times do I have to explain my view to you on this matter?
<<We should not forget that Spanish culture is only one branch of the latin family, and is not especially a branch with a central position (linguistically, nor geographically or historically).>>
So who has a "central position"? France?
<<I don't blame you for that, since we all know that it is the way the modern medias try to brainwash all of us. This confusion has become complete in the mind of a lot of people, especially when those terms are applied on "racial" features>>
Evidently you missed my post featuring several paragraphs on the idiocy of categorizing all of the people of Latin America into one racial classification called "Latino" based on the Mestizo or Hispanic look.
|