<<What is "very similar" between "northern French culture" and germanic countries (Germany, England) ? I am curious... >>
--it's the attitude
--it's the attitude
What makes French Latin?
French regional cuisine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cuisine#Regional_cuisine
And when you said that only Alsace and Nord-Pas de Calais, respectively, have German and Dutch architecture, I would agree. When I originally made my statement, I was thinking specifically of places like Lille and Strasbourg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cuisine#Regional_cuisine
And when you said that only Alsace and Nord-Pas de Calais, respectively, have German and Dutch architecture, I would agree. When I originally made my statement, I was thinking specifically of places like Lille and Strasbourg.
" And when you said that only Alsace and Nord-Pas de Calais, respectively, have German and Dutch architecture, I would agree. When I originally made my statement, I was thinking specifically of places like Lille and Strasbourg. "
It is strange than when you think of the "tipical place" of northern France you think about two particular, bordering cities (one at a few kilometers from Belgium - the other a few kilometers from Germany).
http://www.politicalinformation.net/encyclopedia/Fr-map.jpg
Those cities, outside of been geographically excentred are part of regions historically excentred (Alsace is definitly included in France since 1945 only), and culturally traditionally outside from direct french influence for long time.
Nord-pas-de-calais and Alsace are also, because of the specific historical situation the only two regions of what is now france that have been Germanic-speaking (see the black in the following map). (not Lille, however, which was the last romance speaking place before the flemish-speaking area - but which was under the Flemish county.)
http://www.mondeberbere.com/presse/20031004_lemonde_langregion.gif
with britanny, the only historically non-romance-speaking region of northern France.
http://www.couleur-lauragais.fr/pages/journaux/2006/cl%2087/images/FRANCE-des-Langues.jpg
It is strange than when you think of the "tipical place" of northern France you think about two particular, bordering cities (one at a few kilometers from Belgium - the other a few kilometers from Germany).
http://www.politicalinformation.net/encyclopedia/Fr-map.jpg
Those cities, outside of been geographically excentred are part of regions historically excentred (Alsace is definitly included in France since 1945 only), and culturally traditionally outside from direct french influence for long time.
Nord-pas-de-calais and Alsace are also, because of the specific historical situation the only two regions of what is now france that have been Germanic-speaking (see the black in the following map). (not Lille, however, which was the last romance speaking place before the flemish-speaking area - but which was under the Flemish county.)
http://www.mondeberbere.com/presse/20031004_lemonde_langregion.gif
with britanny, the only historically non-romance-speaking region of northern France.
http://www.couleur-lauragais.fr/pages/journaux/2006/cl%2087/images/FRANCE-des-Langues.jpg
I would like to add another element to the cultural equation, RELIGION.
I have a good example. The Roman province of Africa (Tunis and part of modern Argelie) was the richest and culturally more important province of the Late Roman Empire, If the Byzantines would have defnded it aginst muslims, or even if the Vandali would have been able to create a succesful kingdom, we will have a chrisitian, latin North Africa.
On the other hand, if Germanic invaders had a religion linked to a holly book written in Germanic, France probably would have been a Germanic country.
As for the theory on the germanic origin of French aristocracy, it was by Gobineau, a French nobleman himself. He was the first one to try the "race argument" for explaining historic developments.
I have a good example. The Roman province of Africa (Tunis and part of modern Argelie) was the richest and culturally more important province of the Late Roman Empire, If the Byzantines would have defnded it aginst muslims, or even if the Vandali would have been able to create a succesful kingdom, we will have a chrisitian, latin North Africa.
On the other hand, if Germanic invaders had a religion linked to a holly book written in Germanic, France probably would have been a Germanic country.
As for the theory on the germanic origin of French aristocracy, it was by Gobineau, a French nobleman himself. He was the first one to try the "race argument" for explaining historic developments.
<<<<Donc tu reconnais que les Francs ont toujours été une minorité en France... Sinon nous parlerions une langue apparentée à l'Hollandais... Est-ce le cas ?
>>>>
Franks have been a minority only in the beginning. The first barbaric intruders and conquerors in the 5th century were soldiers - they shurely were a minority in the first time. But since the Franks decided to stay in Gaul instead of plundering it and going back home like the Normans did in later centuries, the Frank soldiers were followed by successive waves of immigration consisting of Frankish settlers and women as well as complete families from their overcrowded Germanic home lands. This is proven by the fact that from the 9th century on until the 12th century, 50% of the population in Southern France and 95% of the population in Northern France had Germanic names. (see for reference the article below, Les noms d'origine germanique, by Hélène Morvan)
Since the waves of Germanic speaking immigrants came one after the other during several centuries, each new immigrant entered a territoy where the population spoke some kind of Germano-Latin contact language, a language with the high prestige of Latin, but much simpler than Latin, using mostly Latin vocabulary, heavily simplified Germanic-Latin grammar and Germanic syntax and pronunciation.
So the decisive facor for a territory in Gaul to become Germanic or Germano-Latin (=Romanic) speaking was the velocity of immigration, i.e. the frequency and size of immigration waves. This phenomenon could be observed in the USA, where succesive waves of German immigrants became English speaking. Today, 25% of the population in the US are of German ancestry, more that the percentage of Irish, Scottish and English together - still some kind of English is spoken ;-)
from
http://www.retrofolies.com/v2/editorial/article-559-les-noms-d-origine-germanique.html
Les noms d'origine germanique
Hélène Morvan
L’installation des premiers Germains en Gaule date de l’époque impériale. La langue des Germains ne supplante pas le latin. Mais ce qui est étonnant, c’est l’engouement pour les noms de personnes des Francs. En effet, la diffusion des noms germaniques est si rapide que du IX e au XII e siècle, dans la moitié sud de la Gaule 50 % des noms de personnes sont d’origine germanique et que cette proportion s’élève à 95 % dans le Nord !! On trouvera ce même enthousiasme pour les prénoms germaniques et ce, jusqu’au Moyen Age et le développement du culte chrétien.
L’expansion des noms germaniques
Le système anthroponyme des principaux peuples germaniques (Francs, Burgondes, Wisigoths) était assez uniforme et reposait sur un nom unique comme le système gaulois. Les noms d’origine germanique se présentaient sous deux formes.
La première est celle des noms composés, constitués de deux éléments, le second étant un substantif (-frid, paix ; -hildis, armée) ou un adjectif (-berth, brillant ; -hard, dur, fort) ; le premier élément était le déterminatif du second.
La seconde forme est celle des noms hypocoristiques (les « diminutifs »), qui pouvaient eux-mêmes revêtir une forme simple, constituée par le premier élément des noms composés : Berta, nom de la femme de Pépin le Bref, est la forme familière de Berhtrada qui a donné la forme savante Bertrade, forme populaire Bertrée. Ils pouvaient aussi revêtir une forme double comme Betto = Berhtramnus.
Dans le système des noms germaniques le lien familial s’exprimait selon trois procédés :
L’appellation, peu employée, consistait à donner à l’enfant le nom de son père ou de sa mère : Fermenoldus faber = Fermenoldus filius.
L’allitération : les noms de certains membres de la famille pouvaient commencer par la même consonne ou voyelle, tels : Adelardus + Bova = Adelbertus Boso.
La variation thématique : dans ce procédé, un des éléments du nom du père ou de la mère pouvait se retrouver dans celui de l’enfant ; ainsi, Tetmarus + Ermengardis = Teudrada, Ermenhildis, Tethildis, Ermenherus.
Grâce à ces trois procédés, la possibilité de créations multiples et variées des noms composés était grande. Cependant, à la fin de la période carolingienne, le système de dénomination des personnes évolue. En effet, avec le développement du culte chrétien des saints, la variété des noms se raréfie. Le nombre de personnes portant le même nom individuel ou nom de baptême va se développer, multipliant ainsi les risques d’homonymie. De là résulte l’apparition des surnoms au XI e siècle d’abord dans le sud de la France, puis au Nord dans les textes latins.
Les prénoms d’origine germaniques
Les Germains portaient le plus souvent des noms composés, formés en général de deux éléments à signification bien précise. Ils sont à l’origine d’un très grand nombre de prénoms français. On peut citer notamment Bertrand (bert-hramm, « illustre corbeau »), Gontran (gund-hramm, « combat du corbeau), Arnould(arn-wulf, « aigle-loup), Berthier (bert-hari, « brillante armée »), Brémond (bert-mund, « illustre protecteur »), Raymond (ragin-mund, « qui protège de ses sages conseils »), Richard (rîc-hari, « de la puissante armée), Guillaume (wil-hem, « inébranlable casque »), Bernard (bern-hard, « ours fort »).
Détail à souligner : tandis que chez les Grecs et chez les Romains, les femmes portent uniquement le nom de leur époux, de leur père ou de leur lignée au féminin, chez les Germains, elles ont un nom qui leur est propre – et dont la composition obéit aux mêmes lois que les noms masculins : Frédégonde (fried, « paix »+ gund, « guerre »), Gertrude (ger, « lance »+ trud, « fidèle »), etc.
Au Moyen Âge après l’installation de l’anthroponymie germanique provoquée par les « grandes invasions », on enregistre une seconde vague de prénoms de même origine, due cette fois au culte des saints ou d’évêque ayant porté ces noms. On voit alors se multiplier les Fulcrand, les Frézal, les Bédouin ou Baudoin (dérivés de Betwin), les Aldiguier, etc.
Plus tard, on assiste à la diminution dans des proportions très importantes, du nombre des noms couramment utilisés. Ce phénomène est dû, pour l’essentiel, à l’influence de l’Eglise. En effet, de décennie en décennie, le nombre de prénoms employés décroît. L’Eglise tend de limiter de plus en plus à limiter le choix des parents à des prénoms « acceptables » du point de vue chrétien, c’est-à-dire ayant été porté par de pieux personnages...
Sources : articles de Marie-Thérèse Morlet et de Robert de Herte dans Enquête sur l’histoire, n°11.
>>>>
Franks have been a minority only in the beginning. The first barbaric intruders and conquerors in the 5th century were soldiers - they shurely were a minority in the first time. But since the Franks decided to stay in Gaul instead of plundering it and going back home like the Normans did in later centuries, the Frank soldiers were followed by successive waves of immigration consisting of Frankish settlers and women as well as complete families from their overcrowded Germanic home lands. This is proven by the fact that from the 9th century on until the 12th century, 50% of the population in Southern France and 95% of the population in Northern France had Germanic names. (see for reference the article below, Les noms d'origine germanique, by Hélène Morvan)
Since the waves of Germanic speaking immigrants came one after the other during several centuries, each new immigrant entered a territoy where the population spoke some kind of Germano-Latin contact language, a language with the high prestige of Latin, but much simpler than Latin, using mostly Latin vocabulary, heavily simplified Germanic-Latin grammar and Germanic syntax and pronunciation.
So the decisive facor for a territory in Gaul to become Germanic or Germano-Latin (=Romanic) speaking was the velocity of immigration, i.e. the frequency and size of immigration waves. This phenomenon could be observed in the USA, where succesive waves of German immigrants became English speaking. Today, 25% of the population in the US are of German ancestry, more that the percentage of Irish, Scottish and English together - still some kind of English is spoken ;-)
from
http://www.retrofolies.com/v2/editorial/article-559-les-noms-d-origine-germanique.html
Les noms d'origine germanique
Hélène Morvan
L’installation des premiers Germains en Gaule date de l’époque impériale. La langue des Germains ne supplante pas le latin. Mais ce qui est étonnant, c’est l’engouement pour les noms de personnes des Francs. En effet, la diffusion des noms germaniques est si rapide que du IX e au XII e siècle, dans la moitié sud de la Gaule 50 % des noms de personnes sont d’origine germanique et que cette proportion s’élève à 95 % dans le Nord !! On trouvera ce même enthousiasme pour les prénoms germaniques et ce, jusqu’au Moyen Age et le développement du culte chrétien.
L’expansion des noms germaniques
Le système anthroponyme des principaux peuples germaniques (Francs, Burgondes, Wisigoths) était assez uniforme et reposait sur un nom unique comme le système gaulois. Les noms d’origine germanique se présentaient sous deux formes.
La première est celle des noms composés, constitués de deux éléments, le second étant un substantif (-frid, paix ; -hildis, armée) ou un adjectif (-berth, brillant ; -hard, dur, fort) ; le premier élément était le déterminatif du second.
La seconde forme est celle des noms hypocoristiques (les « diminutifs »), qui pouvaient eux-mêmes revêtir une forme simple, constituée par le premier élément des noms composés : Berta, nom de la femme de Pépin le Bref, est la forme familière de Berhtrada qui a donné la forme savante Bertrade, forme populaire Bertrée. Ils pouvaient aussi revêtir une forme double comme Betto = Berhtramnus.
Dans le système des noms germaniques le lien familial s’exprimait selon trois procédés :
L’appellation, peu employée, consistait à donner à l’enfant le nom de son père ou de sa mère : Fermenoldus faber = Fermenoldus filius.
L’allitération : les noms de certains membres de la famille pouvaient commencer par la même consonne ou voyelle, tels : Adelardus + Bova = Adelbertus Boso.
La variation thématique : dans ce procédé, un des éléments du nom du père ou de la mère pouvait se retrouver dans celui de l’enfant ; ainsi, Tetmarus + Ermengardis = Teudrada, Ermenhildis, Tethildis, Ermenherus.
Grâce à ces trois procédés, la possibilité de créations multiples et variées des noms composés était grande. Cependant, à la fin de la période carolingienne, le système de dénomination des personnes évolue. En effet, avec le développement du culte chrétien des saints, la variété des noms se raréfie. Le nombre de personnes portant le même nom individuel ou nom de baptême va se développer, multipliant ainsi les risques d’homonymie. De là résulte l’apparition des surnoms au XI e siècle d’abord dans le sud de la France, puis au Nord dans les textes latins.
Les prénoms d’origine germaniques
Les Germains portaient le plus souvent des noms composés, formés en général de deux éléments à signification bien précise. Ils sont à l’origine d’un très grand nombre de prénoms français. On peut citer notamment Bertrand (bert-hramm, « illustre corbeau »), Gontran (gund-hramm, « combat du corbeau), Arnould(arn-wulf, « aigle-loup), Berthier (bert-hari, « brillante armée »), Brémond (bert-mund, « illustre protecteur »), Raymond (ragin-mund, « qui protège de ses sages conseils »), Richard (rîc-hari, « de la puissante armée), Guillaume (wil-hem, « inébranlable casque »), Bernard (bern-hard, « ours fort »).
Détail à souligner : tandis que chez les Grecs et chez les Romains, les femmes portent uniquement le nom de leur époux, de leur père ou de leur lignée au féminin, chez les Germains, elles ont un nom qui leur est propre – et dont la composition obéit aux mêmes lois que les noms masculins : Frédégonde (fried, « paix »+ gund, « guerre »), Gertrude (ger, « lance »+ trud, « fidèle »), etc.
Au Moyen Âge après l’installation de l’anthroponymie germanique provoquée par les « grandes invasions », on enregistre une seconde vague de prénoms de même origine, due cette fois au culte des saints ou d’évêque ayant porté ces noms. On voit alors se multiplier les Fulcrand, les Frézal, les Bédouin ou Baudoin (dérivés de Betwin), les Aldiguier, etc.
Plus tard, on assiste à la diminution dans des proportions très importantes, du nombre des noms couramment utilisés. Ce phénomène est dû, pour l’essentiel, à l’influence de l’Eglise. En effet, de décennie en décennie, le nombre de prénoms employés décroît. L’Eglise tend de limiter de plus en plus à limiter le choix des parents à des prénoms « acceptables » du point de vue chrétien, c’est-à-dire ayant été porté par de pieux personnages...
Sources : articles de Marie-Thérèse Morlet et de Robert de Herte dans Enquête sur l’histoire, n°11.
Ouest : l'anthroponymie germanisante est une illustration du phénomène que je t'expliquais à la page précédente, à savoir la créolisation culturelle. Pour mieux faire ressortir l'inexistence dela "créolisation" linguistique. Car il semble que tu n'as toujours pas saisi ce qui distingue les deux. Mais ne perdons pas espoir — tu auras peut-être pigé une dizaine de pages plus loin...
regarding <<<<l'inexistence dela "créolisation" linguistique>>>:
in an other forum you find the following asking <<<Latin/Italian: How similar are they?>>>
<<<I'm Italian and I've studied Latin at school for six years. Latin is not easy at all, even if you are Italian. It's useful because it helps you to understand the etymology of a lot of Italian words, but its grammar is quite difficult. For example, Latin has got cases (Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Vocative, Ablative) that have disapperead in modern Italian.
....
Little analysis about similarities and differences between Latin and Italian:
WORDS
The similarity between the words is very high, even if some words change meaning in time (for example, a tipical word, fortuna, that in Italian means "luck" and in Latin "fate"). Other very common words changed too (for example puer/ragazzo (boy)), but they still share the biggest part of the vocabolary.
GRAMMATIC
Nouns
One of the biggest difference is of course the cases of the nouns. Let's see only one example of this in the two languages:
Latin Italian English
Lupus - Il lupo - The wolf (subject)
Lupi - Del lupo - Of the wolf
Lupo - Al lupo - To the wolf
Lupum - Il lupo - The wolf (object)
Lupe - Lupo - Wolf (vocative)
Lupo - Con il lupo - With the wolf
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lupi - I lupi - The wolves (subject)
Luporum - Dei lupi - Of the wolves
Lupibus - Ai lupi - To the wolves
Lupos - I lupi - The wolves (object)
Lupi - Lupi - Wolves (vocative)
Lupus - Il lupi - The wolves
Lupibus - Con i lupi - With the wolves
As you see, Italian has only singular and plural, while Latin has six cases for both them. Moreover, Latin didn't have the articles (definitive or indefinitive), while Italian does.
Latin nouns have three genders, while Italian ones have two. Since usually neuter nouns became masculine in Italian, they cause confusion especially for the plural, that it's similar to a feminine singular (ending with -a). However Italian still has some few "neuter" nouns.
Verbs
Some tenses are similar to the Italian ones, other aren't. Present and imperfect are very similar for example, while future simple is completely different, since Italian created it from infinitive + present of the verb avere.
Endings of present
1st singular: Latin (-o, -io), Italian (-o)
2nd singular: Latin (-as, -es, -is), Italian (-i)
3rd singular: Latin (-at, -et, -it), Italian (-a, -e)
1st plural: Latin (-amus, -emus, -imus), Italian (-iamo)
2nd plural: Latin (-atis, -etis, -itis), Italian (-ate, -ete, -ite)
3rd plural: Latin (-ant, -ent, -unt), Italiano (-ano, -ono)
Word order
The deeper difference. The elements of the word in Latin are placed completely different than in Italian. This plus the cases makes a Latin sentence incomprehensible for Italians, even if we understand the single words.
....
If you only look at vocabulary, phonetics and/or morphology I don’t think there is any good answer to this question. You have to go much deeper into the structure, if not the typology of the two languages. ....
Latin was a synthetic language, it had six cases and it had the faculty of making huge nominal cluster sentences by heaping all sort of participial constructions on to each other. Italian is an analytic language, and nominal forms of the verb are very limited. Now, of course, one can ask how natural this complexity was being felt during the Roman Golden Age. Certainly, the written language lived a life of its own and Roman authors simply made use of the potential which the language actually offered in order to construct intricate, but extrememly precise sentences.
I don’t think, however, that the structure we meet in Classical Latin was artificial to such a degree that there was a chasm between written and spoken language. Many students of Latin would tend to look at a sentence in Livy as something too amazing to be true. In fact, Livy is absolutely impossible to understand unless you proceed to a proper analysis of each sentence – but, if you have done this so many times that you have got used to the sentence structure, and (of course) have acquired a reasonably large vocabulary, you may be able to read Livy ex tempore, and just enjoy it!
The reason why I don’t believe in any particularly artificial character of Classical Latin is that there are modern languages which behave in exactly the same way – in terms of complexity. Turkish is such a language, and it is indeed a very good characteristic to say that «Turkish is some sort of upside down Latin». As Turkish is equally famous among linguists for its stunning regularity, there is a good reason to have a look at this language in order to get a feeling as to how Latin is being felt by, say, BlueWolf. And Turkish is actually spoken today – Latin is not!
I think Latin and Italian – from a typological point of view – are so different that any discussion about more superficial features like phonetics or vocabulary will never properly answer the question: «How dissimilar [sic] are they?»:)>>>>>
This shows that Romance languages like Italian and French have so little in common with Latin that a process of Creolization must have happened since late antiquity. Since written and spoken Latin were obviously still reasonably close together at the fall of the Roman empire. 400 years later this was not the case anymore, so that the Oaths of Strasbourg had to be written in a new language (Proto-French) in order to be understood by the romanized soldiers of Neustria. Therefore, the Creolization (=creation of a simplified mixture of two languages) has probably happened during the Völkerwanderung.
in an other forum you find the following asking <<<Latin/Italian: How similar are they?>>>
<<<I'm Italian and I've studied Latin at school for six years. Latin is not easy at all, even if you are Italian. It's useful because it helps you to understand the etymology of a lot of Italian words, but its grammar is quite difficult. For example, Latin has got cases (Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Vocative, Ablative) that have disapperead in modern Italian.
....
Little analysis about similarities and differences between Latin and Italian:
WORDS
The similarity between the words is very high, even if some words change meaning in time (for example, a tipical word, fortuna, that in Italian means "luck" and in Latin "fate"). Other very common words changed too (for example puer/ragazzo (boy)), but they still share the biggest part of the vocabolary.
GRAMMATIC
Nouns
One of the biggest difference is of course the cases of the nouns. Let's see only one example of this in the two languages:
Latin Italian English
Lupus - Il lupo - The wolf (subject)
Lupi - Del lupo - Of the wolf
Lupo - Al lupo - To the wolf
Lupum - Il lupo - The wolf (object)
Lupe - Lupo - Wolf (vocative)
Lupo - Con il lupo - With the wolf
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lupi - I lupi - The wolves (subject)
Luporum - Dei lupi - Of the wolves
Lupibus - Ai lupi - To the wolves
Lupos - I lupi - The wolves (object)
Lupi - Lupi - Wolves (vocative)
Lupus - Il lupi - The wolves
Lupibus - Con i lupi - With the wolves
As you see, Italian has only singular and plural, while Latin has six cases for both them. Moreover, Latin didn't have the articles (definitive or indefinitive), while Italian does.
Latin nouns have three genders, while Italian ones have two. Since usually neuter nouns became masculine in Italian, they cause confusion especially for the plural, that it's similar to a feminine singular (ending with -a). However Italian still has some few "neuter" nouns.
Verbs
Some tenses are similar to the Italian ones, other aren't. Present and imperfect are very similar for example, while future simple is completely different, since Italian created it from infinitive + present of the verb avere.
Endings of present
1st singular: Latin (-o, -io), Italian (-o)
2nd singular: Latin (-as, -es, -is), Italian (-i)
3rd singular: Latin (-at, -et, -it), Italian (-a, -e)
1st plural: Latin (-amus, -emus, -imus), Italian (-iamo)
2nd plural: Latin (-atis, -etis, -itis), Italian (-ate, -ete, -ite)
3rd plural: Latin (-ant, -ent, -unt), Italiano (-ano, -ono)
Word order
The deeper difference. The elements of the word in Latin are placed completely different than in Italian. This plus the cases makes a Latin sentence incomprehensible for Italians, even if we understand the single words.
....
If you only look at vocabulary, phonetics and/or morphology I don’t think there is any good answer to this question. You have to go much deeper into the structure, if not the typology of the two languages. ....
Latin was a synthetic language, it had six cases and it had the faculty of making huge nominal cluster sentences by heaping all sort of participial constructions on to each other. Italian is an analytic language, and nominal forms of the verb are very limited. Now, of course, one can ask how natural this complexity was being felt during the Roman Golden Age. Certainly, the written language lived a life of its own and Roman authors simply made use of the potential which the language actually offered in order to construct intricate, but extrememly precise sentences.
I don’t think, however, that the structure we meet in Classical Latin was artificial to such a degree that there was a chasm between written and spoken language. Many students of Latin would tend to look at a sentence in Livy as something too amazing to be true. In fact, Livy is absolutely impossible to understand unless you proceed to a proper analysis of each sentence – but, if you have done this so many times that you have got used to the sentence structure, and (of course) have acquired a reasonably large vocabulary, you may be able to read Livy ex tempore, and just enjoy it!
The reason why I don’t believe in any particularly artificial character of Classical Latin is that there are modern languages which behave in exactly the same way – in terms of complexity. Turkish is such a language, and it is indeed a very good characteristic to say that «Turkish is some sort of upside down Latin». As Turkish is equally famous among linguists for its stunning regularity, there is a good reason to have a look at this language in order to get a feeling as to how Latin is being felt by, say, BlueWolf. And Turkish is actually spoken today – Latin is not!
I think Latin and Italian – from a typological point of view – are so different that any discussion about more superficial features like phonetics or vocabulary will never properly answer the question: «How dissimilar [sic] are they?»:)>>>>>
This shows that Romance languages like Italian and French have so little in common with Latin that a process of Creolization must have happened since late antiquity. Since written and spoken Latin were obviously still reasonably close together at the fall of the Roman empire. 400 years later this was not the case anymore, so that the Oaths of Strasbourg had to be written in a new language (Proto-French) in order to be understood by the romanized soldiers of Neustria. Therefore, the Creolization (=creation of a simplified mixture of two languages) has probably happened during the Völkerwanderung.
Ouest : « This shows that Romance languages like Italian and French have so little in common with Latin that a process of Creolization must have happened since late antiquity. »
Pur syllogisme.
En voici un autre : « le français de 2007 est si différent de l'ancien français de 1200 qu'un processus de créolisation a dû intervenir à partir de la quatrième croisade ».
Et je ne te le répèterai jamais assez : la grande majorité des processus évolutifs qui ont conduit aux langues romanes a été initiée bien avant la chute de Rome...
Pur syllogisme.
En voici un autre : « le français de 2007 est si différent de l'ancien français de 1200 qu'un processus de créolisation a dû intervenir à partir de la quatrième croisade ».
Et je ne te le répèterai jamais assez : la grande majorité des processus évolutifs qui ont conduit aux langues romanes a été initiée bien avant la chute de Rome...
<<<En voici un autre : « le français de 2007 est si différent de l'ancien français de 1200 qu'un processus de créolisation a dû intervenir à partir de la quatrième croisade ». >>>
Loosing almost all of the Latin Grammar by drastic simplification and new structures is much more important than the minor changes of French since 1200.
In the Oaths of Strasbourg:
Pro Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.
all the changes like the loss of inflections, declensions, the change of word order, the use of prepositions etc., are already completed. The changes in French since the 9th century are in comparison minor, artificial and driven by the will to reintrroduce Latin with the goal of purification. Since Charlemagne, French changed not by evolution but rather by state interventionism.
<<<<<Et je ne te le répèterai jamais assez : la grande majorité des processus évolutifs qui ont conduit aux langues romanes a été initiée bien avant la chute de Rome... >>>>>>>
As shown before, Germanic creolization of Latin before the fall of Rome most probably arose from the great number of Germanic slaves:
Because no one transcribed phonetically the daily speech of Latin speakers during the period in question, students of Vulgar Latin must study it indirectly through other methods. The knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from three chief sources. First, the comparative method reconstructs the underlying forms from the attested Romance languages, and notes where they differ from classical Latin. Please note that this approach is based on the ***HYPOTHESIS*** that Romance languages have evolved from Latin. It is not possible to proove by this approach that Romance languages have evolved from Latin.
Second, various prescriptive grammar texts from the late Latin period condemn linguistic errors that Latin speakers were liable to commit, telling us how Latin speakers used their language. What kind of Latin speakers (barbaric slaves or of Latin descendence) is not known.
Some literary works with a low register of Latin from the Classical Latin period also provide a glimpse into the world of early Vulgar Latin. The works of Plautus and Terence, being comedies with many characters who were ***SLAVES***, preserve some early basilectal Latin features; so too the recorded speech of **FREEDMEN*** (=former slaves) in the Cena Trimalchionis by Petronius Arbiter.
Loosing almost all of the Latin Grammar by drastic simplification and new structures is much more important than the minor changes of French since 1200.
In the Oaths of Strasbourg:
Pro Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.
all the changes like the loss of inflections, declensions, the change of word order, the use of prepositions etc., are already completed. The changes in French since the 9th century are in comparison minor, artificial and driven by the will to reintrroduce Latin with the goal of purification. Since Charlemagne, French changed not by evolution but rather by state interventionism.
<<<<<Et je ne te le répèterai jamais assez : la grande majorité des processus évolutifs qui ont conduit aux langues romanes a été initiée bien avant la chute de Rome... >>>>>>>
As shown before, Germanic creolization of Latin before the fall of Rome most probably arose from the great number of Germanic slaves:
Because no one transcribed phonetically the daily speech of Latin speakers during the period in question, students of Vulgar Latin must study it indirectly through other methods. The knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from three chief sources. First, the comparative method reconstructs the underlying forms from the attested Romance languages, and notes where they differ from classical Latin. Please note that this approach is based on the ***HYPOTHESIS*** that Romance languages have evolved from Latin. It is not possible to proove by this approach that Romance languages have evolved from Latin.
Second, various prescriptive grammar texts from the late Latin period condemn linguistic errors that Latin speakers were liable to commit, telling us how Latin speakers used their language. What kind of Latin speakers (barbaric slaves or of Latin descendence) is not known.
Some literary works with a low register of Latin from the Classical Latin period also provide a glimpse into the world of early Vulgar Latin. The works of Plautus and Terence, being comedies with many characters who were ***SLAVES***, preserve some early basilectal Latin features; so too the recorded speech of **FREEDMEN*** (=former slaves) in the Cena Trimalchionis by Petronius Arbiter.
Autant d'inepties par centimètre linéaire commises par un expert du copier-coller qui prétend parler français sans en comprendre un traître mot, voilà qui sort de l'ordinaire.
Mais ce qui est extraordinaire c'est qu'après tant de pages de "discussion" tu n'es toujours pas parvenu à articuler une esquisse d'ébauche de commencement de preuve de ce que tu affirmes et ressasses en boucle : le "créole germanolatin". Que ce doit être pénible de tomber de Charybde en Scylla en permanence ! Quand tu essuies une attaque sur un flanc, tu prends la fuite à la faveur d'une digression sur les esclaves. Quand tes contradictions éclatent au grand jour, tu te réfugies dans des paradoxes encore plus voyants : « Loosing almost all of the Latin Grammar by drastic simplification and new structures is much more important than the minor changes of French since 1200 ». La démonstration vient d'être faite que tu ne sais pas ce dont tu parles puisque tu ne connais pas la différence entre l'ancien français et le français moderne.
Te voilà démasqué par ta propre ignorance. Espérons que cet épisode t'aura donné le goût d'en savoir davantage, car t'as vraiment du pain sur la planche... Bon courage !
Mais ce qui est extraordinaire c'est qu'après tant de pages de "discussion" tu n'es toujours pas parvenu à articuler une esquisse d'ébauche de commencement de preuve de ce que tu affirmes et ressasses en boucle : le "créole germanolatin". Que ce doit être pénible de tomber de Charybde en Scylla en permanence ! Quand tu essuies une attaque sur un flanc, tu prends la fuite à la faveur d'une digression sur les esclaves. Quand tes contradictions éclatent au grand jour, tu te réfugies dans des paradoxes encore plus voyants : « Loosing almost all of the Latin Grammar by drastic simplification and new structures is much more important than the minor changes of French since 1200 ». La démonstration vient d'être faite que tu ne sais pas ce dont tu parles puisque tu ne connais pas la différence entre l'ancien français et le français moderne.
Te voilà démasqué par ta propre ignorance. Espérons que cet épisode t'aura donné le goût d'en savoir davantage, car t'as vraiment du pain sur la planche... Bon courage !
Ouest,
Have you ever considered writing a book?! This side of the story needs to be told!
These perspectives are fascinating, not to mention revealing, esp. in light of how things 'actually' occurred, opposed to how scholars through the ages ulteriorly appraised them.
I would buy it.
Think about it...
Have you ever considered writing a book?! This side of the story needs to be told!
These perspectives are fascinating, not to mention revealing, esp. in light of how things 'actually' occurred, opposed to how scholars through the ages ulteriorly appraised them.
I would buy it.
Think about it...
<<<<Ouest,
Have you ever considered writing a book?! This side of the story needs to be told!
These perspectives are fascinating, not to mention revealing, esp. in light of how things 'actually' occurred, opposed to how scholars through the ages ulteriorly appraised them.
I would buy it.
Think about it... >>>>
Thank you for your interest! Since I have no time for writing big books I am happy that some literature showing that French is a Creole language is already on the market. You (and greg!) should buy for example
CERQUIGLINI, Bernard. «H comme Histoire. Le français: un créole qui a réussi» dans Le français dans tous ses états, Paris, Flammarion, p. 109-123, 2000.
or
Bernard Cerquiglini
Une langue orpheline, 240 p. ,2007, 21,50 €
ISBN : 9782707319814
GENCOD : 9782707319814
I hope you can read French or an English translation will be published...
Have you ever considered writing a book?! This side of the story needs to be told!
These perspectives are fascinating, not to mention revealing, esp. in light of how things 'actually' occurred, opposed to how scholars through the ages ulteriorly appraised them.
I would buy it.
Think about it... >>>>
Thank you for your interest! Since I have no time for writing big books I am happy that some literature showing that French is a Creole language is already on the market. You (and greg!) should buy for example
CERQUIGLINI, Bernard. «H comme Histoire. Le français: un créole qui a réussi» dans Le français dans tous ses états, Paris, Flammarion, p. 109-123, 2000.
or
Bernard Cerquiglini
Une langue orpheline, 240 p. ,2007, 21,50 €
ISBN : 9782707319814
GENCOD : 9782707319814
I hope you can read French or an English translation will be published...