Yves Cortez

Nonsense.
It woud be like assuming that centuries of Spanish rule encouraged the Philippinos to speak broken Tagalog and induced drastic grammatical changes in that language.

Sardinia was never under Germanic occupation, developed Romance dialects of its own, in complete isolation, and still the most idiosyncratic of those dialects are closer related to Italian than Polish is to Russian.

When two languages interact, it's all-or-nothing. One of them dies out, or both remain basically unchanged.

Germanic presence in Southern France was negligible while there were permanent Frankish settlements in wide areas in the North and in Wallonia. Except for the vocabulary of arts and crafts and agricultural matters, Old French wasn't significantly affected.

It even seems that —as exemplified by the Oath of Strasbourg and the Cantilène de Ste-Eulalie— the oldest known written forms of Gallo-Romance were strangely similar to Occitan. That, in other words, the Oïl/Oc split materialized later on because Northern French evolved at a faster pace than Occitan. Under the influence of Germanic phonetics perhaps, but still this is debatable.

<<When two languages interact, it's all-or-nothing. One of them dies out, or both remain basically unchanged.
>>

Oh, Like English and Anglo-Norman?

Is there nothing that happened to English as a result of the Anglo-Norman presence in Britain?

Deux trucs, Tim. L'expression "à dormir debout" ne veut pas dire "hilarant" mais "invraisemblable". D'autre part "on nage en plein délire" n'est pas une insulte : c'est une tournure imagée qui signifie "tout ceci est absurde".




Tim : « The point is that the Teutons were [...] the new kings and clerks and nobility. »

L'aristocratie gallo-romaine, ainsi que les lettrés et intellectuels attachés à cette caste, ont complètement absorbé l'élite guerrière barbare. Parmi les Francs, seules les dynasties royales ou princières ont pu préserver leur idiome plus longtemps que les autres. Tous les Francs de basse extraction ont été romanisés après une période inévitable de bilinguisme.




Tim : « As late as around 900 Hugo Capet was the first king who did not speak German [...] ».

Voir plus haut. Les langues que parlaient Charlemagne et Hugues Capet n'ont aucune incidence sur les langues parlées dans leur empire et royaume.




Tim : « [...] the local "bad Latin"= Old French = Romance [...] ».

Intéressante double équation... Le roman ne saurait se confondre avec l'ancien français qui n'en est qu'une variante parmi tant d'autres. D'autre part, ceux des lettrés germanophones importés par Charlemagne en Gaule, tel Alcuin, étaient très conscients à la fois de leur "mauvais latin" et de l'ororoman dont ils ignoraient à peu près tout.




'guest' : « Is there nothing that happened to English as a result of the Anglo-Norman presence in Britain? ».

On ne peut comparer l'influence de l'ancien français outre-Manche à partir de l fin du Xe siècle avec la romanisation de la germanophonie immigrée en Gaule après le chute de Rome. L'ancien français était une langue internationale de prestige et le premier vernaculaire à accéder au rang de véhiculaire. C'est vriment loin d'être les cas des idiomes germaniques parlés, puis abandonnés, par les envahisseurs barbares de la Gaule romane.

<<Oh, Like English and Anglo-Norman?
Is there nothing that happened to English as a result of the Anglo-Norman presence in Britain?>>

-- English has many unique features. but except for a huge French lexikon, I can't find any substantial change being caused by the Normans. Actually the interaction with Norse across the Danelaw boundary had certainly a way more destabilizing effect. If you select the simplest grammatical traits of both Dutch and Danish and combine them together, you'll get something strikingly similar to modern English grammar! (however I admit that the expression "do not" + verb is a blatant instance of pidginization but it's nearly the only one I can think of).

The point is that this English grammar has remained fully Germanic. English evolved a lot. But compared to continental Germanic languages, it doesn't show the humongous structural differences that exist between Latin and modern Romance languages.

It has been suggested that the use of compound past in French was a Germanic legacy, then transmitted to other Romance languages, but that's mere BS IMHO (Romanian was free of any Germanic influence and also features a compound past tense).

And contrary to popular belief, the use of '-s' for plurals is *not* of French origin. It also exists in Dutch and Low German dialects for many nouns (those ending in -er, el, -je etc.). Possibly Anglo-Norman encouraged those -s to generalize, that's all.

<<Voir plus haut. Les langues que parlaient Charlemagne et Hugues Capet n'ont aucune incidence sur les langues parlées dans leur empire et royaume.
>>

So, are we to conclude that the Carolingian nobility held on longer to german, or gave it up sooner than the populace? By populace, here I mean the upperclass Frankish as well.

To me, I would think that the nobility would give it up first, and the upperclass would follow suit, followed last by those beneath them (the lower classes)...right?

<<Carolingian nobility >>

Oops, I guess I ought to say Capetian...
my bad folks

<<(however I admit that the expression "do not" + verb is a blatant instance of pidginization but it's nearly the only one I can think of).
>>

How is 'do not' + VERB a form of pidginization?


<<Romanian was free of any Germanic influence and also features a compound past tense>>

Is it formed from the verb 'have' + past participle, and 'be' + past part. for condition/motion as in the germanic languages?

<<And contrary to popular belief, the use of '-s' for plurals is *not* of French origin. It also exists in Dutch and Low German dialects for many nouns (those ending in -er, el, -je etc.). Possibly Anglo-Norman encouraged those -s to generalize, that's all.>>

Das stimmt. Ich glaube dass der einzige Beispiel davon ist wo wir das Wort "Riches" als Mehrzahlform geliehen haben. keinen anderen.

>>-- English has many unique features. but except for a huge French lexikon, I can't find any substantial change being caused by the Normans. Actually the interaction with Norse across the Danelaw boundary had certainly a way more destabilizing effect. If you select the simplest grammatical traits of both Dutch and Danish and combine them together, you'll get something strikingly similar to modern English grammar!>>

Such is likely coincidental, as if one looks at even Middle English, it has far more in common with the modern continental West Germanic languages than New English grammatically. Much of the differences between New English and the rest of the continental West Germanic languages actually arose later than the Middle English period, coming about largely during the Early New English period (which is when, for example, the complex tense/aspect system of New English developed).

<<(however I admit that the expression "do not" + verb is a blatant instance of pidginization but it's nearly the only one I can think of).<<

Actually, "do not" is specifically NOT such, as it arose around the time of the transition from Early New English to New English, at which no sort of real significant contact-related change in English was taking place aside from mere loaning from Romance, Latin, and Greek.

>>The point is that this English grammar has remained fully Germanic. English evolved a lot. But compared to continental Germanic languages, it doesn't show the humongous structural differences that exist between Latin and modern Romance languages.<<

The matter here, though, is that there actually has been a great deal of parallel development in the Germanic languages as a whole, with the primary languages which did *not* undergo such parallel development being insular North Germanic and some extremely conservative continental North Germanic dialects. There is a far greater difference grammatically between English and the "old" Germanic languages, Old English included, than there is between English and the "new" Germanic languages such as New Dutch, more progressive North Germanic dialects, and New High German (even Standard German is actually much closer than New English than one would superficially think here, as the case system of Standard German is actually largely vestigial). Hence the difference between English and the "old" Germanic languages is more akin to that between Romance and Latin than one would think here, as Germanic languages other than English generally had development similar to that of English but just to varying levels of progressiveness.

>>It has been suggested that the use of compound past in French was a Germanic legacy, then transmitted to other Romance languages, but that's mere BS IMHO (Romanian was free of any Germanic influence and also features a compound past tense).<<

Furthermore, it must be emphasized that Romanian was largely isolated from the rest of Romance, so one really cannot suppose the transfer of characteristics from non-East Romance languages to Romanian after the Vulgar Latin period.

PARISIEN : « English has many unique features. but except for a huge French lexikon, I can't find any substantial change being caused by the Normans. »

Par les Normands de Guillaume le Conquérant, peut-être pas ; mais par les vétérofrancophones d'origines française et insulaire, si, certainement. On retrouve, par exemple, l'influence majeure des francographes sur le scripto-anglais. On perçoit également une influence française sur le système de numération primitif qui passe de l'ordre unité-dizaine (cf. allemand moderne) à l'agencement dizaine-unité (cf. français moderne). Enfin, plus anecdotique, le développement de <of> sur le modèle de <de> au détriment du génitif saxon original est très vraisemblablement dû à l'impact du français.

Mon avis est qu'on ne peut réduire la vétérofrancophonie outremanchaise aux "Normands". Par exemple, la majeure partie des dynastes royaux francophones parlaient des variantes d'Oïl occidental à partir du XIIe siècle ; d'autres princes ou monarques assez célèbres (Aliénor d'Aquitaine, Richard Cœur-de-Lion etc) étaient occitanophones. Mais au-delà des princes et souverains, les colons francophones n'étaient pas tous normands, loin de là.




'guest' : « So, are we to conclude that the Carolingian nobility held on longer to german, or gave it up sooner than the populace? By populace, here I mean the upperclass Frankish as well.

To me, I would think that the nobility would give it up first, and the upperclass would follow suit, followed last by those beneath them (the lower classes)...right? ».

Oui, la dynastie royale et l'élite de l'aristocratie franque ont conservé leur idiomes germaniques plus longtemps que le reste des germanophones. De même que la dynastie royale francophone d'Angleterre a conservé l'ancien français plus longtemps que le reste des francophones.

La principale différence entre la Gaule franque et l'Angleterre francophone, c'est que la langue franque n'a pas accédé au rang de véhiculaire (écrit ou oral) alors que l'ancien français est devenu langue officielle d'Angleterre au point que nombre de non-francophones l'ont intégré comme véhiculaire courant (au moins jusqu'au XIVe siècle) et que cet usage a perduré dans certaines niches jusqu'à une époque relativement récente (abrogation du staut légal du français juridique → XVIIIe siècle).

<<On perçoit également une influence française sur le système de numération primitif qui passe de l'ordre unité-dizaine (cf. allemand moderne) à l'agencement dizaine-unité (cf. français moderne).>>
-- Possible. Le suédois suit toutefois l'ordre anglo-français, alors que le danois garde le système allemand (ou arabe!) mais peut-être n'est qu'un changement récent. J'irai voir mes bouquins là-dessus...

<<plus anecdotique, le développement de <of> sur le modèle de <de> au détriment du génitif saxon original est très vraisemblablement dû à l'impact du français.>>
-- ou une virtualité déjà présente en vieil-anglais? D'autres langues germaniques ont acquis avec le temps une structure analytique prononcée. Le scand 'av' et + encore l'omniprésent néerl. 'van' sont employés alors que l'allemand, où l'usage de 'von' est très restrictivement délimité, préfère les mots composés, génitifs saxons ou articles déclinés (qui en néerl. survivent seulement dans des expressions +/- fossilisées).

<<Mon avis est qu'on ne peut réduire la vétérofrancophonie outremanchaise aux "Normands".>>
-- Absolument. Dès l'origine les Normands n'étaient qu'une minorité parmi les envahisseurs. Guillaume le Bâtard a eu le génie de faire de son conflit avec Harold une sorte de croisade où ont participé des guerriers aussi bien bretons que flamands, tout le Nord-Ouest de l'actuelle France y était représenté. On en a même conclu que cela aurait entraîné une synthèse précoce du français comme langue de commandement et de culture, et aurait fait de l'Angleterre le berceau de la littérature française...

<<Ich glaube dass der einzige Beispiel davon ist wo wir das Wort "Riches" als Mehrzahlform geliehen haben. keinen anderen.>>
-- Die Azubis, die Jungs, die Mädels, die (Verkehr)Staus, die LKWs...

<<<<plus anecdotique, le développement de <of> sur le modèle de <de> au détriment du génitif saxon original est très vraisemblablement dû à l'impact du français.>>
-- ou une virtualité déjà présente en vieil-anglais? D'autres langues germaniques ont acquis avec le temps une structure analytique prononcée. Le scand 'av' et + encore l'omniprésent néerl. 'van' sont employés alors que l'allemand, où l'usage de 'von' est très restrictivement délimité, préfère les mots composés, génitifs saxons ou articles déclinés (qui en néerl. survivent seulement dans des expressions +/- fossilisées). >>

I have to agree here with PARISIEN. The development of English "of" replacing the genitive would have occurred without French, similar to other germanic languages that use ablative to denote possession. We rarely use "of" as genitive today anyway, it's too lengthy ("the book of Jack"--ugh!). We would rather say Jack's book. It's easier.

As a form of word creation, however, it is still seen in many French calques artificially preserved and analogously maintained in older forms of English constructions like: City of Boston, Games of War, etc. Today, we wouldn't create names for concepts on this model, it's antiquated. We would say 'Boston-town' [cf. "Jackson-ville"] and 'Wargames', and forgo the "of" construction [see here? Perfect example. I said: "of-construction"; not "construction of 'of' "] altogether. "City of- " is one of several fixed phrases and will probably endure for a while longer, yet the construction itself is becoming less and less productive in English (cf. "Internet site" not "Site of Internet", "Email Address" not "Address of Email", etc).

Use of 'of' is usually ablative/instrumental--a natural development seen across many independent languages ("tired of you" = "made tired from/by you")

<<<<Ich glaube dass der einzige Beispiel davon ist wo wir das Wort "Riches" als Mehrzahlform geliehen haben. keinen anderen.>>
-- Die Azubis, die Jungs, die Mädels, die (Verkehr)Staus, die LKWs... >>

^Diese Wörter hier wären englishe aus Französisch geliehen?

"
<<<<Ich glaube dass der einzige Beispiel davon ist wo wir das Wort "Riches" als Mehrzahlform geliehen haben. keinen anderen.>>
-- Die Azubis, die Jungs, die Mädels, die (Verkehr)Staus, die LKWs... >>

^Diese Wörter hier wären englishe aus Französisch geliehen?
"

We can observe here an early stage of Romance-German Creolization = bad use of German by French invaders ;-)

"
<<Oh, Like English and Anglo-Norman?
Is there nothing that happened to English as a result of the Anglo-Norman presence in Britain?>>

-- English has many unique features. but except for a huge French lexikon, I can't find any substantial change being caused by the Normans. Actually the interaction with Norse across the Danelaw boundary had certainly a way more destabilizing effect. If you select the simplest grammatical traits of both Dutch and Danish and combine them together, you'll get something strikingly similar to modern English grammar! (however I admit that the expression "do not" + verb is a blatant instance of pidginization but it's nearly the only one I can think of).

"

We should not make too much use of analogies - historical circumstances are often unique and driven by a multitude of factors that cannot be fully reproduced. The fact remains that the hypothesis of a genesis of Romance by bad use of Latin is sustained by master Cortez himself, so q.e.d....

<<master Cortez>>

LOL, O-Kay!