How Is French A Romance Language?
I think I have an idea but am not completely sure.
First off, the reason I ask this question is because French sounds the least like the other Romance languages, but I really think it sounds the least like Latin. It could be the influences of the old Gaulish languages spoken in Ancient France, I don't know...
Despite the reasons why French seems to not be a Romance language, here are some reasons why I think it is so:
- Most of French vocabulary derives from Vulgar Latin rather than ancient Gaulish or Celtic languages.
- French uses a conjugation system that is very similar to the other Romance languages.
- Ancient Gaul (modern-day France) combined its cultures and languages with the Roman Empire so much that Roman features (language, culture, etc.) are more prevalent in modern-day France than Celtic features.
Anything else to add?
It has been said that French is the most evolved of the Romance languages, as many of the conjugations have merged - e.g. je parle, il parle, on parle, tu parles, ils parlent, all pronounced the same.
the reason I ask this question is because French sounds the least like the other Romance languages, but I really think it sounds the least like Latin.
If you hear European Portuguese you will notice that it is even less similar to the other Romance languages. In every language group there are these differences, for instance Russian phonetics is quite different from the other slavic tongues
Languages aren't categorized by the way they 'sound' or the culture of their speakers, but by which language is their mother language. It is Vulgar Latin after 1600 or so years of phonetic and grammatical innovation and it would be a Romance language even if it developed a tonal system, became agglutinative and was written with Egyptian hieroglyphs.
And generally speaking, languages aren't that much like their mother languages, otherwise we would just call it the same thing.
"And generally speaking, languages aren't that much like their mother languages, otherwise we would just call it the same thing. "
Modern Greek is relatively close to Ancien Greek, so your statement is not correct
Ancient and Modern Greek are as relatively close as Modern and Middle English. My point was that understanding one doesn't allow you to understand the other. If they didn't sound different, we wouldn't treat them as different things.
Jay : « First off, the reason I ask this question is because French sounds the least like the other Romance languages, but I really think it sounds the least like Latin. »
Beaucoup de langues romanes ont un vocalisme très développé (= non limité à cinq voyelles au plus), si telle était la conception que tu te faisais de la "romanité" d'une langue romane.
D'autre part aucune langue romane moderne n'a préservé le phonétisme de la langue latine classique.
Seulement le castillan, le sicilien et le sarde ont un vocalisme limité à cinq voyelles!
being a romance language is not a question of "sounding"...
French is probably more influenced by the language of the Franks of the Middle Ages than the Gauls...
The idiocy of some folks here knows no limits. You say that French does not sound like Latin. First off, do you know how did Latin sound? if you do, tell us. I'm curious.
<<The idiocy of some folks here knows no limits. You say that French does not sound like Latin. First off, do you know how did Latin sound? if you do, tell us. I'm curious.>>
And the idiocy seems to be limited to you. Yes, I know how Latin sounds. I study Latin in school and my class often reads the Latin aloud. Also, I have been to Catholic Mass once or twice.
Or what? This doesn't count as having heard Latin?
correction : « being a romance language is not a question of "sounding"... ».
Absolument ! La silhouette sonore d'une langue (inventaire & combinatoire phonologiques) est sans doute le critère le moins assuré pour réfléchir sur la parenté linguistique.
Brennus : « The morphology and vocabulary of French is sufficiently Latin to classify it as a Romance language. »
Ton propos est nébuleux et chancelant. Que veut dire « suffisamment » ? Pourquoi recourir au "latin" pour examiner la romanité d'un idiome contemporain ou médiéval ? La romanité n'est-elle pas davantage un ensemble de traits partagés par les langues romanes (modernes ou anciennes) plutôt qu'un pseudo-legs prétendument hérité du "latin" ? D'autre part, et en supposant que la France ait été occupée par la Pologne et l'Ukraine pendant mille ans — suscitant ainsi, par hypothèse, une évolution morpholexicale slavisante vers un modèle drastiquement original au sein de la famille romane —, la langue française n'aurait pas été moins romane pour autant.
Skippy : « French is probably more influenced by the language of the Franks of the Middle Ages than the Gauls... ».
Simple conjecture. Les idiomes gaulois nous étant inconnus, il est en conséquence impossible de décider. En revanche, et d'après ce qu'on sait du vieux bas-francique, l'influence de cette paléolangue germanique sur l'ancien français est quasi-nulle, et ce malgré le radotage tautologique d'une littérature vraiment délirante sur ce point.
<<And the idiocy seems to be limited to you. Yes, I know how Latin sounds. I study Latin in school and my class often reads the Latin aloud>>
You are the best example of the idiocy I'm talking about. You know how your teacher tries to speak Latin, nothing more, and unless he has a secret time machine his pronounciation has nothing to do with the way the Romans pronounced Vulgar Latin (not to mention Classical Latin).
<<You know how your teacher tries to speak Latin>>
Tries? Okay, what? By the way you're writing here, you're an expert at the subject of Latin right? Even better than my instructor who has a PhD in Latin, correct? A strong dose of reality is in order for you.