What makes French Latin?

<<<À part ça, quel est le rapport avec le sujet ? >>>

The topic "What makes French Latin?" is closely linked to the question, whether there is a continuity between the vulgar Latin speaking Gallo-Roman population and the French population of today. Was there an original population in Gaul (or England) of many million Celts that survived the barbaric invasions and gave to the French (British) people a special "Gallic" character?
Or was the original Gallo-Roman (or Celtic-Roman in England) population in large extent replaced by barbaric rulers, settlers and their descendants? In this latter case, the French people would not be of Celtic but of Germanic ancestry, which would explain the dramatic differences between French and Latin. French would be then rather a simplified Kreole between Germanic and vulgar Latin.

"germanic or latin is not a question of DNA... there is no gene that say you are latin or germanic. It is a question of language and culture !
English people are of course 100% germanic"

Guest, I disagree. Germanic is an adjective so it needs a noun to have a meaning. As for "latin" it has so many acceptions that to say "He/She is a Latin" is totally meaningless.

So the following sentences are correct:

Over 90% of English males don't have Germanic genes.
English people speak a Germanic language.

I think your sentence "English people are of course 100% Germanic" is of course incorrect because "are" in this case tries to define the "essence" of the English people not their language.

A more correct sentence would be
"It seems that a small minority of English males are Germanic".

So the following sentences are correct:

Studies indicate that Central English population is of Germanic ancestry.
English people speak a Germanic language.

Ouest,

Let's make that East Anglia, but for I've read even in those areas your sentence might not be true. For example the viking "invasions" barely qualify as invasions and apparently they mostly settled by the Coast. We could speculate that as "traders", "sailors" and "bribe collectors" didn't have farming skills and were probably not interested in the kind of life you could find far from the coast.

Anyway my information is obviously from "second hand" but we could end this thread by saying that

"The British are not what used to be"

And if we look at the rest of the planet with the new tools provided by genetics this might probably apply to all of us.

Saludos

I've read accounts where the Celts were described as fair haired, reddish-blonde, types of people. Now, I'm reading that the carriers of the R1b dna gene were migratory Celts originating from Iberia, who ended up settling in the British Isles, whose racial make up consists of dark hair and eyes. What is the truth? Are these Atlantic Celts of the same racial ethnic makeup of the Gauls of Central Europe who migrated into Italy and the Balkans circa 500 B.C.?

« Guest » : « <<<À part ça, quel est le rapport avec le sujet ? >>> The topic "What makes French Latin?" is closely linked to the question, whether there is a continuity between the vulgar Latin speaking Gallo-Roman population and the French population of today. Was there an original population in Gaul (or England) of many million Celts that survived the barbaric invasions and gave to the French (British) people a special "Gallic" character?
Or was the original Gallo-Roman (or Celtic-Roman in England) population in large extent replaced by barbaric rulers, settlers and their descendants? In this latter case, the French people would not be of Celtic but of Germanic ancestry, which would explain the dramatic differences between French and Latin. French would be then rather a simplified Kreole between Germanic and vulgar Latin. »

Je constate que tu as grand besoin de dépoussiérer tes connaissances historiques et d'acquérir des notions de base sur la langue française.

Il y a bien évidemment une continuité entre la latinophonie gauloise et la francophonie française. Cette continuité s'appelle « histoire de la langue française ». L'impact purement ethnique des invasions barbares sur la poulation gallo-romaine est négligeable, même si les influence culturelles mutuelles sont avérées. Les différences entre le français (c'est-à-dire le latin tel qu'on le parle en France — et ailleurs — en 2007) et l'orolatin parlé en Gaule au début de notre ère sont celles inscrites par deux millénaires d'évolution continue. Le français n'est pas un "créole" germano-latin : le français *EST* du latin — tout comme la catalan, le lombard, l'aragonais, le sarde et le wallon.

"I've read accounts where the Celts were described as fair haired, reddish-blonde, types of people. Now, I'm reading that the carriers of the R1b dna gene were migratory Celts originating from Iberia, who ended up settling in the British Isles, whose racial make up consists of dark hair and eyes. What is the truth? Are these Atlantic Celts of the same racial ethnic makeup of the Gauls of Central Europe who migrated into Italy and the Balkans circa 500 B.C.?"

My reading is that these people carrying R1b DNA are Basques not Celts and that these genes are predominant in all Western Europe but especially in the British Islands... and that this happened waaayyyy before the Celts moved to Western Europe. The studies do not mention their hair or eyes since these traits are not determined by the Y chromosome.

greg, you wrote in another thread: <<Le latin comprend un système de déclinaisons à six cas : nominatif, vocatif, accusatif, génitif, datif et ablatif.
Est-ce certaines langues romanes ont conservé tout ou partie du système latin ?
L'ancien français un système de déclinaisons à deux cas :
1/ le cas sujet : souvent issu du nominatif latin, il servait d'équivalent au nominatif et vocatif latins
2/ le cas régime : issu de l'accusatif latin, il remplaçait l'accusatif, le génitif, le datif et l'ablatif latins.
Les anciennes langues d'Oc avait un système de déclinaison isomorphique à celui de l'ancien français.
Les déclinaisons de l'ancien français ne sont pas passées en moyen-français. >>

You should admit that a language that did loose all of the Latin declension and most of the Latin conjugation system as well as the syntax cannot be identified with Latin ("le français *EST* du latin "????). Vocabulary is douptless mostly of Latin origin, but also here there are so big differences in respect to Latin (pronunciation, characters etc.) that they cannot be explained simply by "evolution". If you look for a language that was altered by pure evolution you should look at German for example, which preserved most of the syntax and vocabulary of Old German.

N'IMPORTE QUOI!
This topic is fulled with incorrect informations....

Je ne comprends pas le désir de ces quelques individus qui cherchent absoluement à faire de la France un pays germanique !

Quant à ces histoire de gênes c'est ridicule, depuis quand les gènes sont porteurs de caractères typiquement germaniques ou latins ?
Je veux dire par là qu'il y a un TAS de suédois qui sont bruns et un TAS d'espagnols qui sont blonds...donc du coup on ne doit plus les considérer comme des suédois ou des espagnols ? Laissez-moi rire !
La France, pays de culture germanique ? Que nenni ! Ayant de la famille autant au nord qu'au sud du pays je peux vous dire que le nord n'est pas moins "latin" que le sud, que ce soit dans la langue (on parle le même français partout...et même, l'idiome picard n'est pas moins latin que l'occitan), ou dans la culture.

La langue française n'est pas non plus moins romane que l'italien ou le portugais.L'influence des langues germaniques sur le français est moins importante que l'influence qu'a eu la langue arabe sur l'espagnol !
80% du français tire ses origine du latin et une autre partie importante (je ne connais pas le pourcentage exact) nous vient du grec ancien !
De plus le français a un socle commun au niveau du vocabulaire avec l'italien de 89%...l'italien serait donc une langue germanique aussi ? ARGH !

Tout à fait d'accord avec toi Clovis.
---------------
Completely all right with you Clovis.

<<
Je veux dire par là qu'il y a un TAS de suédois qui sont bruns et un TAS d'espagnols qui sont blonds...
-------------
I mean there that there is a HEAP of Swedish which(who) are brown and a HEAP of Spanish which are fair...
>>


Personally, I have already said it, I am French and I'm brown, the french are more germanic than the british?


Ouest wrote:
<<<<
greg, you wrote in another thread: <<Le latin comprend un système de déclinaisons à six cas : nominatif, vocatif, accusatif, génitif, datif et ablatif.
Est-ce certaines langues romanes ont conservé tout ou partie du système latin ?
L'ancien français un système de déclinaisons à deux cas :
1/ le cas sujet : souvent issu du nominatif latin, il servait d'équivalent au nominatif et vocatif latins
2/ le cas régime : issu de l'accusatif latin, il remplaçait l'accusatif, le génitif, le datif et l'ablatif latins.
Les anciennes langues d'Oc avait un système de déclinaison isomorphique à celui de l'ancien français.
Les déclinaisons de l'ancien français ne sont pas passées en moyen-français. >>
You should admit that a language that did loose all of the Latin declension and most of the Latin conjugation system as well as the syntax cannot be identified with Latin ("le français *EST* du latin "????). Vocabulary is douptless mostly of Latin origin, but also here there are so big differences in respect to Latin (pronunciation, characters etc.) that they cannot be explained simply by "evolution". If you look for a language that was altered by pure evolution you should look at German for example, which preserved most of the syntax and vocabulary of Old German.
>>>>

Ouest, are you really French?



Pour les non-comprenants je traduis, ce que Clovis a écrit:
Clovis wrote in French:

<<<<
I don't understand the desire of these persons who look absolutely to say that France is a Germanic country!
As for these ridiculous stories, since when the genes are typically Germanic or Latin? I mean there that there is a HEAP of Swedish who are brown and a HEAP of Spanish which are fair thus of the blow we do not have to consider them any more how Swedish or Spanish? Leave

France, country of Germanic culture? Que nenni! I have family as much in the North as in the South of the country I can say to you that the North is "not less Latin" as the South, in the language (we speak same French everywhere and even, the picard idiom is not less Latin no as the occitan), or in the culture.
The French language isn't less Romanic than the Italian or the Portuguese. The Germanic language influences on the French is less important than the influence of the Arabic language had on the Spanish!

80 % of French words have Latin origin and another important part (I do not know the exact percentage) comes to us from ancient Greek!
And, French has a common base at the level of the vocabulary with Italian of 89 %... Italian would thus be a Germanic language also? ARGH!
>>>>

The Latin tradition is perhaps less present in France, for example the catholic religion (moreover all religions practised in France as Islam) is not very present in the life of French compared to Spanish or Italian people. That is due to the republican tradition and atheism inherited from the french revolution.

Ouest : « You should admit that a language that did loose all of the Latin declension and most of the Latin conjugation system as well as the syntax cannot be identified with Latin ("le français *EST* du latin "????). Vocabulary is douptless mostly of Latin origin, but also here there are so big differences in respect to Latin (pronunciation, characters etc.) that they cannot be explained simply by "evolution". If you look for a language that was altered by pure evolution you should look at German for example, which preserved most of the syntax and vocabulary of Old German. »

Mais il faut comprendre que le remaniement du système des déclinaisons du scriptolatin classique avait commencé bien avant l'apparition du protofrançais ! En d'autre termes, la refonte de la déclinaison latine est un processus complexe, graduel et pluriséculaire amorcé avant Cicéron et dont le terme se situe un peu avant le moyen-français. C'est la raison pour laquelle la latinité du français ne saurait être remise en question par un processus évolutif dont on ne retiendrait, artificiellement, que le terme, en refusant de considérer (tout aussi artificiellement) son commencement et son déroulement.

D'autre part il est normal que des évolutions graduelles accumulées sur une très longue période te paraissent être des changements profonds : c'est une question de perspective. En négligeant le temps (c'est-à-dire la ***SUCCESSION*** des changements), ton prisme te conduit à ne voir qu'un facteur pour un seul effet là où il s'agit en fait d'une longue succession d'événements plurifactoriels. Ainsi tu gonfles artificiellement ce que tu crois avoir isolé en un fait unique, alors que tu as négligé la complexité d'un phénomène qui s'apparente davantage à une lente stratification sédimentaire.

Enfin, tu ne peux te prévaloir d'évolutions différenciées (allemand & français par ex.) pour justifier l'absence d'évolution à partir du latin dans le cas du français. Ça n'est pas logique.

<<Les différences entre le français (c'est-à-dire le latin tel qu'on le parle en France — et ailleurs — en 2007) et l'orolatin parlé en Gaule au début de notre ère sont celles inscrites par deux millénaires d'évolution continue. Le français n'est pas un "créole" germano-latin : le français *EST* du latin — tout comme la catalan, le lombard, l'aragonais, le sarde et le wallon. >>

You say incorrectly that French is the Latin that is spoken in France and elsewhere in 2007. That is absolutely RIDICULOUS. French is not Latin. That's the same as saying English is *Proto-German, or that Latin is *Indo-European. No it's not.
You however do redeem yourself later by stating "le français *EST* du latin"--yes, that is correct. It is from Latin (--kind of--in a polluted, corrupted sort of way).

Why cling to an ancient culture and language that is dead and buried? If you are Latin, then are you Greek and Phoenician and Egyptian too? Just like the Greeks before them, who could not rise beyond a certain level of sophistication and civilization, so too were the Latins, whose baton of influence had to to be handed off to new-comers who had the ability, skill and ingenuity to build upon what was established and and carry it further: the germans. The Latins couldn't handle their own culture, and it crumbled. No kudos to them beyond what they gave us. Forget the glory days--they are meaningless. LATINS, what the hell are you doing today??? Not a damn thing (outside of bickering about how great you used to have it and how great you 'think' you still are on forums such as these).

<<D'autre part il est normal que des évolutions graduelles accumulées sur une très longue période te paraissent être des changements profonds : c'est une question de perspective. En négligeant le temps (c'est-à-dire la ***SUCCESSION*** des changements), ton prisme te conduit à ne voir qu'un facteur pour un seul effet là où il s'agit en fait d'une longue succession d'événements plurifactoriels. Ainsi tu gonfles artificiellement ce que tu crois avoir isolé en un fait unique, alors que tu as négligé la complexité d'un phénomène qui s'apparente davantage à une lente stratification sédimentaire. >>

This is often the case with languages that have a prominent body of literary work, where the written language often lags behind and does not depict the spoken language until much later, and it seems that a drastic change in the language has occurred. However, this is not enough to account for all or even the greater part of the divergences seen in French, and we must look elsewhere for the answer...

<<<The Latin tradition is perhaps less present in France, for example the catholic religion (moreover all religions practised in France as Islam) is not very present in the life of French compared to Spanish or Italian people. That is due to the republican tradition and atheism inherited from the french revolution.>>>

Catholic religion is not a Latin tradition - Cicero, Caesar or Seneca were not christian at all. Rome was a multicultural and polyethnic construct founded on religious tolerance, military dominance and slavery. One of the main things that christianity introduced was the abolishment of slavery, the cease of religious tolerance as well as the reject of militarism.