Yves Cortez
'Guest' : « Consensus on the creation of the Universe is the Big Bang, yet we don't have any proof. But we can still make educated assumptions which get us as close as possible. »
Libre à toi de penser qu'une chose non démontrée est une vérité. C'est ce qu'on appelle une **CROYANCE**, et non une **CONNAISSANCE**. Il y a encore 500 ans, il existait un consensus selon lequel le Soleil tournait autour de la Terre. Cette croyance était "étayée" par les « suppositions éclairées » émises par les tenants du dogme de l'époque qui pensaient sans doute être « très près » de la vérité. Mais tout ceci a été pulvérisé par le développement ultérieur des connaissances.
'Guest' : « It's better than no explanation at all, having everyone just sitting around with their thumbs up their @ss. »
Étrange aveu : tu prétends donc qu'il est préférable d'entériner une hypothèse non-démontrée plutôt que d'envisager d'autres possibilités. Tu te situes clairement dans le camp des croyants : sache que ce n'est pas le cas de tous.
'Guest' : « What I think Guest is trying to say here is that there are words in languages that disappear, hinting at the probability that *werra existed as a synonym for "war" in germanic languages but was lost or unrecorded. »
Oui, c'est exactement cela : une probabilité. Et même une simple éventualité fondée sur rien de précis ni de tangible.
'guest' : « Well, it's not as if the attested word *werre or Wirren for that matter means "apple-tree", "banana-boat" or some s**t like that. »
Effectivement. C'est ce que je disais page 4 : « Conclusion : <Krieg> & <Wirren> ne sont **PAS SYNONYMES**, même si leurs champs sémantiques respectifs sont **VOISINS** et même **ADJACENTS** ».
'guest' : « Okay, so the first Romancers who took it from germanics applied it in the wrong way. »
Voir plus haut : 3e réponse à 'Guest'.
'Guest' : « OK Ok, it should have been: German "Wirren" is therefore ALMOST synonym to "war" and "guerre". »
Voir plus haut : 1ère réponse à 'guest'.
What could be the motivation of greg and Yves Cortez to negate evidence (nier l´évidence): great etymologists like Walther von Wartburg and Ernst Gamillscheg as well as whole generations of Romanists have shown and accepted that Germanic w became g and gu in French for war/guerre and many other words. Everybody in this forum knows further examples, it is more than obvious that guerre comes from Germanic war/Wirren. If this fact is not proven enough for greg or YC than any other statement about Romance is even more douptful.
To question the Latin origin of certain Romance words (e.G. "travail" coming from a torture tool named tripalium) is certainly more reasonable...
Tu te trompes dans la formulation de ton objection. En ce qui me concerne, je ne nie rien : je constate une absence totale de preuve.
Ton raisonnement aussi laisse songeur : tu dis que X et Y soutiennent une hypothèse et que, à leur suite, des générations entières de romanistes y souscrivent également. Cela étant, tu n'as pas (r)apporté l'once du dixième de l'ombre d'un soupçon de commencement de début de **PREUVE** — ou d'**ÉLÉMENT PROBANT** — en ce qui concerne l'origine, germanique ou italique, des étymons romans <guerra>/<guerre>/<werre>.
Une piste (parmi d'autres) : les langues italiques (ou romanes) et germaniques étant regroupée dans la famille indo-européenne, se pourrait-il qu'un étymon indo-européen soit parvenu dans les deux groupes sous des formes voisines ?
The Romance languages were very much influenced by medieval Germanic language, they are neither Latin nor Germanic but some mixed new language. Negating the German influence and inventing "Proto-Italian" remembers "nos ancetres les Geaulois" - now it´s "nos ancetres (linguistiques) les Proto-Italiens"
That is nonsensical, Romance languages don't have as much Germanic influence as some want us to believe. 70% of Romance languages' vocabulary comes from Latin. More than 50% of the English vocabulary comes from Latin and French instead of Old English and nobody says that it's a mixture of Romance and Germanic . Slavic languages have much more Germanic influence than the Romance ones by the way.
<<A lane (among others): languages italics (or Romance) and germanic being regrouped in the indo-european family, would it be possible that an indo-european etymon reaches in both groups under neighbouring forms?>>
You show here your true motivation. There is more "evidence" for a germanic origin of guerre than of P.I.>Italic mystery>romance. I can't believe you greg. You talk about knowledge, but you hope for a dream...
Quit your foolishness!
<<That is nonsensical, Romance languages don't have as much Germanic influence as some want us to believe. 70% of Romance languages' vocabulary comes from Latin. More than 50% of the English vocabulary comes from Latin and French instead of Old English and nobody says that it's a mixture of Romance and Germanic .>>
The influence of germanic over romance does not necessarily place within the realm of vocabulary (lexicon). It primarily affects stress accent, pronunciation, usage, grammatical features such as syntax, verbal construction, and in some cases morphology, and yes, vocabulary too. These impacts are greater than what Norman had over English, which was just a wordhoard for providing new and fashionable terms to add richness and variety to speech.
<<70% of Romance languages' vocabulary comes from Latin. More than 50% of the English vocabulary comes from Latin and French>>
You cannot use percentages meaningfully here. Percentages skew the perception of things with regards to total lexicon. English is reportedly the language with the most expansive lexicon on earth, having more words than it necessarily needs or uses. A word sitting in some obscure dictionary reference, that was used once in a passage by some literary writer 500 years ago is affecting your percentage. You wouldn't even know that word was an English word if I used it on you.
I agree 100% to the last post. Yves Cortez may be right in his analysis that French does not come directly and by mere evolution from Latin. But inventing some mysterious proto-Italian is definitively too hazardous. Attributing the break of evolution to the linguistic impact of migrating Germanic peoples seems more senseful.
Romance languages derive from Vulgar Latin. I don't see the need to use strange theories like the Germanic-Latin hybrid or that Proto-Latin.
Vulgar Latin = Persian-Germanic-Egyptian-Greek-Latin hybrid
<<Romance languages derive from Vulgar Latin. I don't see the need to use strange theories like the Germanic-Latin hybrid or that Proto-Latin. >>
That is true.
The majority of Romance--including French--comes from Latin. We are firmly in agreement there.
But since we are focusing our attention, let's give English equal treatment. I'm tired of all the *hype* that people put on English--calling English a Germanic-Romance hybrid just because we added a bunch of 'superfluous' [yes, I know it's Latin] words. Some even go as far as to say that the English language "developed" as a result of the blending of Anglo-Saxon and French! Rubbish. The English language wasn't born in 1066. If you want to bend the truth a little to exaggerate certain foreign qualities in English be prepared to do the same for all other languages. English really is no different than any other in this regard. Don't single it out and give it a reputation as the word-borrower. English is more than that. Trust me.
-----------
<<Romance languages derive from Vulgar Latin. I don't see the need to use strange theories like the Germanic-Latin hybrid or that Proto-Latin. >>
That is true.
The majority of Romance--including French--comes from Latin. We are firmly in agreement there.
------------
The statement "Romance languages derive from Vulgar Latin" is not in contradiction to the statements
Vulgar Latin = Persian-Germanic-Egyptian-Greek-Latin hybrid or
Vulgar Latin = child of Indo-European Proto-Italian or
Vulgar Latin = Classical Latin after continous "normal" evolution
The question is, when and how vulgar Latin was created and where it comes from?
Several authors at the end of the Roman empire from the 3rd to the 6th century mentioned that Latin was still well understood by the masses. For example, Pope Gregor the Great assumed as late as 600 that his sermons written in classical Latin were understood by the simple people; everything speaks for the fact that only in the 8. Century Classical Latin and the Romance languages were noticed as different languages. As epochal date the council of Tours in the year 813 is often considered, on which it was decided to permit from now on lectures in „the people languages “since the believers would understand no more Latin.
At the same time when Romance languages emerged, between 6.th and 8.th Century Germanic mass invasions by settlers, colonists and warriors were at a maximum level. So it must be assumed that the genesis of Romance must be closely linked to the Germanic invasions. No hypothetical Proto-Italian is needed.
<<For example, Pope Gregor the Great assumed as late as 600 that his sermons written in classical Latin were understood by the simple people>>
I am not in disagreement with your post, but this one statement above can also mean that the 'people' could have been bilingual in Latin and Proto-Romance, or could have had some understanding/familiarity with Latin if not being able to speak it fluently themselves...yeah?
How could a Pope kno if his sermons were understood by simple people? Catholic priests used Latin and not the vernacular languages in churchs until not many time ago . It seems that Pope Gregor said that to justify the usage of Latin instead of the Romance languages, but people could hardly understand it well.