What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language

guest guest   Sat May 09, 2009 12:07 pm GMT
Ouest, leasnam, you continue not wishing to answer to the fundamental questions that ask you theories: I'll repeat them once again:


If french is made from frankish people who tried to speak latin using a frankish-based structure, bringing with them a lot of frankish words.
1. How can you explain that those structural elements are present in the other romance languages?
2. How do you explain that the lexical elements are also present in the other romance language?
3. Does it mean that the other romance languages are derived from french?
4. If not how can you explain that all of them have integrated the same words the same way AND also the same syntaxical constructions the same way?
5. How do you explain that words like ("guerre" or "blanc", etc.) are not spread in other germanic languages than "Frankish" (which is not even sure). When yourself developped* the idea that words borrow easierly between languages of same families (idea to which I tend to agree)


* "An emprunt or adaptation of an borrowing in one spread to another, just like the latest fashion accessory. French was the leader in this due to its position the Frankish kingdom and Medieval Europe. When a germanic borrowing, like 'guerre/guerra' or 'blanc/bianco' appears in several dialects and languages, it is due primarily to BORROWING BETWEEN ROMANCE LANGUAGES."
The frankish empire was not french-based. At least in the early medival times. Yourself (or ouest I don't remember) claimed that Frankish was heavily spoken in frenckish empire, even in the today romance speaking areas. If a language should have infulence the others it should have been frankish itself. But then once again, why we don't find those borrowdings in modern German, Duthc, etc. (the borrowding must have been much more efficient between frankish and Dutch - Dutch considered the heir of the first, or in german) While we find them in all romance language?




" Ce qui est important, ce sont les structures grammaticales très spécifiques des parlers romans. Elles ont des points communs avec le germanique, c'est clair. Mais il est à exclure que ces structures viennent d'emprunts. On les retrouve dans tous les dialectes romans, qu'il aient eu un fort contact avec le domaine germanique ou pas de contact du tout. Par conséquent, ces grammaires font partie du fonds natif des langues romanes (si jamais, par hypothèse, elle provenaient effectivement d'influences germaniques, ç'aurait été à un stade très antérieur aux grandes invasions). "

I agree complelty. I'll translate for Ouest and Leasnam, hoping to understand their arguments to maintain their point of view:
"What is important are the gramatical structures very specific to all romance dialects. All have some common points with germanic, that is clear. BUT it is to exclude that those structures come from borrowdings: We find them in ALL the romance dialects, whatever they has a strong contact with the Germanic area or not at all. Consequently, these grammars are part of the native base of romance languages (if never, by hypothesis, they would effectively come from germanic influences, it would have been at a very older time than big invasions - (ps: I would had 'and so spread by and with roman culture itself in the whole roman empire')
I would aslo has that if by hypothesis we would at all price follow Ouest/leasnam theories that claim that those structures come from the mix of Franksih with latin in northern france, the only valid hypothesis would be that all romance languages (including Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Etc) not only borrowed some supposed germanic-based words from french, but completly DERIVE from french... In this case romance languages should be not "romance" language but "french languages"... A bit hard position to maintain.






" Pourrait-tu nous proposer un texte en francique par exemple, afin qu'on puisse le comparer une fois pour toute avec du français moderne et du latin, au lieu de nous lancer constamment les mêmes sornettes. "

Completly agree.
This is what would be a good start to begin with the subject of this thread "what makes french a germanic-latin mixed language?". Comparing French with latin and modern German has no meaning as argument. All it says is that french is syntaxically different to both German and latin, and lexically speaking completly different to German.
The only valid comparision if we want to demonstrate that the syntaxical differences we observe between French and latin were made by a supposed mix of Frankish with latin... What modern German has to do in that story? We all know that germanic languages are vastly different one to the others, and so probably evoluted very profondly during times. If we don't even know how frankish did look like, and if we can't analayse the languages that were supposed (following the "Ouest/leasnam" theory) to mix to form french, any serious analisis can't be made.
When people said that words like "guerre", or "blanc" were supposed to come from Frankish it was only because those words were not found in the classical latin texts we have... It was a time in wich any non-classical latin words was necesserally coming from a germanic root. But in most of the case this germanic root doesn't exist in most of modern germanic language, and in old trace of Frankish neither... How serious it is? Please answer "Ouest" and "Leasnam".




" Correct. Only in the North where it caused the differentiation of Oïl (under heavier germanic influence) and Oc (under little to no germanic influence). Twi-lingualism lasted for a couple to a few hunderd years, especially among the upper class and nobility--the first French King to require a translator for German being Hugh Capet (c 987), but true the Old French was dominant among the masses. "


Am I dreaming? you say that french (oil) is supposed to have heavy germanic influences (even 50/50 base on ouest theory), but in the same time you say that "oc" has little to no germanic influence?? Don't you realise how similar are oil and oc languages are ??
All the supposed elements that you and ouest claimed to be the "proof" of the supposed "germanic" mix with latin that makes french are also present in oc (as weel as in the other romance languages)
So, if in oc languages (I supposed you meant that it was also the case in the other romance languages) were under "little to no germanic influence" how do you explain they show the same syntaxical and structural elements that are seen in French (elements that are supposed by yourself and ouest to be of "heavy germanisation" ?
Concerning the differenciation between oil and oc languages, there is a more logical explanation: the south of France (Gaul at that time) has been Romanized since about 100 years before the romanisation of the north; the southern dialects of roman oral language began to take root long time before and so they necesarally know a different evolution from the later rooted ones in the north.







" Here I notice that the language has a markedly rougher quality, and looks markedly Less like the Latin than does the Modern French, when, supposedly, it should more closely resemble it, being nearer to it in time. "
(Sire Pere, qui es es ceaus, sanctifiez soit li tuens uons; avigne li tuens regnes.
Soit faite ta volonte, si comme ele est faite el ciel, si foit ele faite en terre. Nostre pain de chascun jor nos donne hui. Et pardone-nos nos meffais, si comme nos pardonons a cos qui maeffait nos ont. Sire, ne soffre que nos soions tempte par mauvesse temptation; mes, Sire, delivre-nos de mal. Amen)"


If it doesn't look like latin that much it is not because of a supposed more germanized influence, that was supposed to have diseappear. Actually as already said it has ITALIAN (I say Italian, not latin) characteristics (that are found also in Catalan for exemple, probably in occitan) that have diseappeard in modern French: such as "li tuens". We fond also "nostre", as found in italian "nostra" (instead of "nôtre"). French comes from Roman (vulgar latin, or proto-Italian), not from Classical latin don't forget it.
Lobo   Sat May 09, 2009 1:21 pm GMT
Le francique a connu son extension maximum probablement au début du VIIe siècle à peu près au moment de la disparition complète du gaulois, après quoi il a connu un déclin progressif sous les rois fainéants, donc n'a pas été utilisé assez longtemps en France pour laissé des traces durables.

Charlemagne a dû se préoccuper de l'apprentissage de la langue qui s'était déteriorée dans les monastères avec des clercs de moins en moins instruits qui transmettait une langue de plus en plus vernaculaire, d'où probablement les différences que vous (Ouest, Leasnam et certains autres) croyez provenir du francique, mais qui seraient plutôt dues aux déformations du bas-latin original, qui a toutefois été en partie redressé à partir des efforts de Charlemagne et de ses auxiliaires.
Lobo   Sat May 09, 2009 4:55 pm GMT
De plus, il y a même apparemment un enclave qui couvrirait plus ou moins la Champagne pour aller en Wallonie, où le français n'aurait à peu près jamais été parlé, ce qui expliquerait pourquoi la Belgique dans sa partie sud aurait conservé sa langue romane depuis l'époque de César. Alors le francique ne s'est jamais implanté fermement sur le territoire français.
Lobo   Sat May 09, 2009 4:58 pm GMT
lire: le francique n'aurait jamais... au lieu de ''français''
Lobo   Sat May 09, 2009 5:48 pm GMT
Le français en Gaule c'est un peu l'inverse de l'anglais en (Grande) Bretagne. Le latin s'est bien implanté sur l'ensemble du territoire des Gaules alors qu'en Bretagne le latin n'a été principalement parlé que dans le bassin londonien ce qui fait qu'il a disparu lors des invasions germaniques, alors qu'en Gaule c'est le francique qui ne s'est pas tellement répandu ailleurs que sur l'île de France, ce qui fait qu'il a fini par céder sa place au latin beaucoup plus utilisé par la population environnante.
dean   Sat May 09, 2009 6:12 pm GMT
Ouest, leasnam, you continue not wishing to answer to the fundamental questions that ask you theories: I'll repeat them once again:


If french is made from frankish people who tried to speak latin using a frankish-based structure, bringing with them a lot of frankish words.
1. How can you explain that those structural elements are present in the other romance languages?
2. How do you explain that the lexical elements are also present in the other romance language?
3. Does it mean that the other romance languages are derived from french?
4. If not how can you explain that all of them have integrated the same words the same way AND also the same syntaxical constructions the same way?
5. How do you explain that words like ("guerre" or "blanc", etc.) are not spread in other germanic languages than "Frankish" (which is not even sure). When yourself developped* the idea that words borrow easierly between languages of same families (idea to which I tend to agree)

===================================================

Some good questions there. It will be interesting to see the responses.
Ouest   Sat May 09, 2009 8:30 pm GMT
guest guest Sat May 09, 2009 12:07 pm GMT


5. How do you explain that words like ("guerre" or "blanc", etc.) are not spread in other germanic languages than "Frankish" (which is not even sure). When yourself developped* the idea that words borrow easierly between languages of same families (idea to which I tend to agree)
......
The frankish empire was not french-based. At least in the early medival times. Yourself (or ouest I don't remember) claimed that Frankish was heavily spoken in frenckish empire, even in the today romance speaking areas. If a language should have infulence the others it should have been frankish itself. But then once again, why we don't find those borrowdings in modern German, Duthc, etc. (the borrowding must have been much more efficient between frankish and Dutch - Dutch considered the heir of the first, or in german) While we find them in all romance language?

....
When people said that words like "guerre", or "blanc" were supposed to come from Frankish it was only because those words were not found in the classical latin texts we have... It was a time in wich any non-classical latin words was necesserally coming from a germanic root. But in most of the case this germanic root doesn't exist in most of modern germanic language, and in old trace of Frankish neither... How serious it is? Please answer "Ouest" and "Leasnam".

___________________________________________________


The etymology of "guerre" or "blanc" are well documented, and both words are still in use in modern German:

"guerre" comes from Old German "werran", a word that ment "to confuse". It comes probably from an Indogermanic root word meaning "to turn around" and "to bend". Until the 16th century, the Middle High German substantive "werra" meaning guerre/war was use. In modern German, "Kriegswirren" still means war. "werran" is the root of modern German words like: verwirren,Verworrenheit, verworren, entwirren, Gewirr, Wirrwarr, Kriegswirren etc.

"blanc", the French word that describes the color of this page's background, stems from Old German "blanch", "blank" meaning white, shiny, bright. It is still in use in modern German with meaning shiny, bright. Other modern German words with "blank" are

blank [ugs.]
cash-strapped {adj} [coll.]

blank [ugs.: mittellos]
broke {adj} [coll.]

blank gewetzt
(worn) shiny {adj} {pp}

blank poliert
brightly polished

blank putzen
to furbish

blank reiben
to furbish

blank ziehen [z.B. Säbel]
to unsheathe

(from http://www.dict.cc/deutsch-englisch/blank.html)
CID   Sat May 09, 2009 10:48 pm GMT
<<Anyone wth a minimum of culture would confirm you that the western civilisation is based on Greece and Rome.>>

Western cilvilisation is built upon more than just Greece and Rome, although those are the only two that seem to get the credit for it. They certainly are not the only two who deserve it. Western culture is Frankish/Carolingian < Roman < Greek < Phoenecian < Egyptian--it took all of them to achieve what we have today. Without the Germans in the Middle Ages we wouldn't know anything of Rome and Greece.

The Roman Empire fell because it was flawed. See below.

"In 476 A.D. the western Roman Empire, which had ruled modern-day Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and England for centuries collapsed due to a combination of economic decline and drastically reduced military strength, allowing invasion by barbarian tribes originating in southern Scandinavia and modern-day northern Germany. According to many authors, the main causes for the fall of any empire are internal, such as racial, religious or political divisions within the country. Also, warfare and economic crisis may contribute to the empire's collapse. In England, several Germanic tribes invaded, including the Angles and Saxons. In Gaul (modern-day France, Belgium and parts of Switzerland) and Germania Inferior (The Netherlands), the Franks settled, in Iberia the Visigoths invaded and Italy was conquered by the Ostrogoths. Christianity ceased to be the dominant religion in these lands and much of Roman culture disappeared. Only Ireland, which had never been ruled by Rome, remained Christian throughout this time."


<<By the way if italians came to USA they followed CRISTOFARO COLOMBO,AMERICO VESPUCCI(AMERICA????!!!!),GIOVANNI DA VERRAZZANO,ENRICO FERMI,GIOVANNI CABOTO,FIORELLO LA GUARDIA,AMADEO GIANNINI ( founder of Bank of Italy, S.F. 1904,than Bank of Italy and America, 1920, and finally Bank of America today.FILIPPO MAZZEI, friend of T.JEFFERSON, who's thesis on Equality of Man was included in the Bill of Rights of USA;WILLIAM PACA, signer of Declaration of Indipendence; CONSTANTINO BRUMIDI,known as the Mchelangelo of USA, for the dome of the CAPITOL;MEUCCI ANTONIO,>>

You conveniently seem to have left off the ancestors of the native Americans who were pioneers from Asia, Gunnbjörn Ulfsson, Bjarni Herjólfsson, and Leif Eriksson.
comme greg   Sat May 09, 2009 10:59 pm GMT
<<Il faut alors croire ce que je vous redis et qui est documenté; que les Francs ont été romanisé assez rapidement à partir du IIIe siècle dans certains cas, qu'ils ont abandonné leur langue au profit du latin déjà bien établis et adopté un mode de vie plus romain, ce qui allait de soi surtout après les victoires de Clovis et son baptême sous l'influence de Clothilde, même si les rois et leurs cours ont continué à parler le francique jusqu'au couronnement de Hugues Capet, un peu comme aujourd'hui avec le latin pour les prêtres, mais que la population n'apprend plus, malgré notre capacité d'instruction plus élevé qu'à cette époque. >>


Preuves?
Guest   Sat May 09, 2009 11:15 pm GMT
<<1. How can you explain that those structural elements are present in the other romance languages? >>

Some are, others are not. This is consistent with the assertion of Ouest.

<<2. How do you explain that the lexical elements are also present in the other romance language? >>

Again, some are and some are not. Modern Spanish does not have the same "bleu" as Italian does ("blu"). Old Spanish had it as "blavo"), yet this etymon is attested in all germanic languages (O.E. blaw/blaewen, OFris blaw, Dutch blauw, OHG blao, ONorse blar). Spanish and Italian do not have "choisir" (Eng "choose" Dutch "kiezen", Ger "kiesen", Icel "kjosa")

3. Does it mean that the other romance languages are derived from french? hmm, that's a novel idea...

4. If not how can you explain that all of them have integrated the same words the same way AND also the same syntaxical constructions the same way?

They don't all have the same lexical terms nor syntactical structures. Spanish only uses "haber" as an auxillary verb where French & Italian use both avoir/etre; avere/essere

5. How do you explain that words like ("guerre" or "blanc", etc.) are not spread in other germanic languages than "Frankish" (which is not even sure). When yourself developped* the idea that words borrow easierly between languages of same families (idea to which I tend to agree)

"Guerre" was borrowed as a substitute word in Romance to replace "bellum" due to "bellum"'s coalescence with "bellus" ("beautiful"). Both forms in Italian/Spanish would end up being "bello" and there would be ambiguity between the two words. So when presented the chance to switch one word out (in this case "bellum") it was taken.

F blanc (adj.) < Gmc; cf. OE blanca white horse, OHG blanch bright, white

Someone has already explained above why some words borrowed into Romance were marginal words in Germanic and not the main words for such concepts.
Stan   Sun May 10, 2009 12:13 am GMT
<<I would aslo has that if by hypothesis we would at all price follow Ouest/leasnam theories that claim that those structures come from the mix of Franksih with latin in northern france, the only valid hypothesis would be that all romance languages (including Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Etc) not only borrowed some supposed germanic-based words from french, but completly DERIVE from french... In this case romance languages should be not "romance" language but "french languages"... A bit hard position to maintain.
>>

*Or*, there was more than one influence from the germanic languages. We know from history that influence from Germanic mercenaries in the Romanc legions was a driving force behind the development of the vulgar form of Latin from that of Classical. So not all germanic elements in languages like Spanish and Italian come from Frankish, but from earlier germanic contact.
Guest   Sun May 10, 2009 12:29 am GMT
continued*

<4. If not how can you explain that all of them have integrated the same words the same way AND also the same syntaxical constructions the same way?

They don't all have the same lexical terms nor syntactical structures. Spanish only uses "haber" as an auxillary verb where French & Italian use both avoir/etre; avere/essere
>

In Portuguese there is no exact equivalent to the present perfect tense like in other Romance languages (Sp. haber + past part). It is also worthy to note that Portugal is furthest away from the centre of Germanic influence: Northern Italy and Gaul.
Lucca, Pietro   Sun May 10, 2009 3:59 am GMT
I Am An Italian American
I am an Italian American. My roots are deep in an ancient soil drenched by the Mediterranean
sun, and watered by pure streams from snow capped mountains.
I am enriched by thousands of years of culture. My hands are those of the mason, the artist,
the man of the soil. My thoughts have been recorded in the annals of Rome, the poetry of Virgil,
the creations of Dante, and the philosophy of Benedetto Croce.
I am an Italian American and from my ancient world, I first spanned the seas to the new world.
I am Cristoforo Colombo.
I am Giovanni Caboto known in American history as John Cabot, discoverer of the mainland
of North America.
I am Amerigo Vespucci, who gave my name to the new world, America.
First to sail on the Great Lakes in 1679, founder of the territory that became the State of
Illinois, colonizer of Louisiana and Arkansas, I am Enrico Tonti.
I am Filippo Mazzei, friend of Thomas Jefferson and my thesis on the equality of man was
written into the Bill of Rights.
I am William Paca, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
I am an Italian American, I financed the Northwest Expedition of George Rogers Clark and
accompanied him through the lands that would become Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and
Michigan. I am Colonel Francesco Vigo.
I mapped the Pacific from Mexico to Alaska and to the Philippines. I am Alessandro
Malaspina.
I am Giacomo Beltrami, discoverer of the source of the Mississippi River in 1823.
I created the Dome of the United States Capitol. They called me the Michelangelo of America.
I am Constantino Brumidi.
In 1904, I founded in San Francisco, the Bank of Italy now know as the Bank of America, the
largest financial institution in the world. I am A.P. Giannini.
I am Enrico Fermi, father of nuclear science in America.
First enlisted man to win the medal of Honor in World War II, I am John Basilone of New
Jersey.
I am an Italian American. I am the million strong who served in America's armies and the tens
of thousands whose names are enshrined in military cemeteries from Guadalcanal to the Rhine.
I am the steel maker in Pittsburgh, the grower in the Imperial Valley of California, the textile
designer in Manhattan, the movie maker in Hollywood, the home maker and the breadwinner in
10,000 communities.
I am an American without stint or reservation, loving this land as only one who understands
history, its agonies and its triumphs can love it and serve it.
I will not be told that my contribution is any less nor my role not as worthy as that of any other
American.
I will stand in support of this nation's freedom and promise against all foes.
My heritage has dedicated me to this nation. I am proud of my full heritage, and I shall remain
worthy of it.
I Am An Italian American.
-Angelo Bianchi, Esq
This is on behalf of all italian american, and this is the last intervention.
G7   Sun May 10, 2009 12:54 pm GMT
....reminds me of “THE OX AND THE FROG”, a fable by Jean de La Fontaine
PARISIEN   Sun May 10, 2009 1:05 pm GMT
<< In Portuguese there is no exact equivalent to the present perfect tense like in other Romance languages (Sp. haber + past part). It is also worthy to note that Portugal is furthest away from the centre of Germanic influence: Northern Italy and Gaul. >>

-- Exemple non valide.

Primitivement, l'auxiliaire portugais pour les temps composés était 'haver'.

Mais c'est un fait que dans les langues romanes autres que le français, le champ sémantique de 'avoir' tend à être colonisé par 'tenere', 'tener' etc. En portugais, 'ter' est allé jusqu'à supplanter 'haver' dans les temps composés. En espagnol, 'tener' est presque le verbe normal pour 'avoir'. En italien, le phénomène existe mais est moins fréquent.

Tout ce qu'on peut conclure est que le voisinage des langues germaniques a *peut-être* retenu le français d'évoluer dans cette direction.

A propos, en Italie, significativement, la substitution de 'avere' par 'tenere' devient plus commune à mesure qu'on va vers le Sud.