Or should it be grouped together with Occitan as a separate language subgroup distinct from the Gallo-Romance and Ibero-Romance languages?
Should Catalan be classified as an Ibero-romance language?
Catalan is halfway between the Gallo-Romance group and the Gallo-Iberian one, so it can't be placed in one group or another. If so, most of linguists prefer the Iberian group. Occitan languages, despite they are more similar to Catalan , and genetically closer too,than the Iberian languages, are still much more Gallic than Catalan.
Sorry, I meant Iberian-Romance group. Gallo-Iberian is a broader one that includes the Gallo-Romance and Iberian-Romance groups.
Where is the main homeland for Catalan? Is it on the Iberian Penninsula, or is it farther up in Andorra or France? I suppose it's an authentic Romance Language?
If it's way different than the other languages in the Ibero-Romance group, perhaps that group has the wrong name?
If it's way different than the other languages in the Ibero-Romance group, perhaps that group has the wrong name?
And yet at the same time, Occitan, while more Gallic than Catalan, is far closer to Iberian and (in the case of provençau and nissart) Italic languages than it is to any Gallic ones. Catalan and Occitan are considerably more like each other than either are like any languages in their supposed "language groups".
Following that logic, shouldn't Catalan, Gascon and Occitan be grouped together as one romance subfamily rather than divided into two families in which neither fits?
Following that logic, shouldn't Catalan, Gascon and Occitan be grouped together as one romance subfamily rather than divided into two families in which neither fits?
And you cant simply assign languages to families based on geography. Following that logic, Breton and French are both members of the same family since the "main homeland" for Breton is in france?
Catalan & Occitan belong in a separate language group together, rather than placed in either gallo or ibero groups.
Catalan & Occitan belong in a separate language group together, rather than placed in either gallo or ibero groups.
<<Where is the main homeland for Catalan? Is it on the Iberian Penninsula, or is it farther up in Andorra or France? I suppose it's an authentic Romance Language?
>>
Some linguists say that Catalan had its very first homeland in Roussillon, France.
>>
Some linguists say that Catalan had its very first homeland in Roussillon, France.
<< Catalan & Occitan belong in a separate language group together, rather than placed in either gallo or ibero groups. >>
-- Exactement. Ils font partie du groupe Occitan-Catalan, qui comprend des sous-groupes gascon, limousin, provençal, languedocien, catalan.
<< Some linguists say that Catalan had its very first homeland in Roussillon, France. >>
-- Exact.
-- Exactement. Ils font partie du groupe Occitan-Catalan, qui comprend des sous-groupes gascon, limousin, provençal, languedocien, catalan.
<< Some linguists say that Catalan had its very first homeland in Roussillon, France. >>
-- Exact.
I would myself place Catalan and Occitan as essentially sister languages within their own subgroup within Western Romance, rather than associating Catalan with Ibero-Romance and implying that Occitan has some sort of special relation with the Oïl languages. (Catalan is essentially directly descended from Old Occitan, speakers of which settled along the eastern coast of the Iberian peninsula and in the Balearic islands during the Reconquista.)
Les langues catalanes s'apparentent à un groupe plus vaste dont la géographie comprend la France méridionale, l'Italie septentrionale et l'Ibérie extrême-orientale.
http://occitanet.free.fr/imatges/romania.gif
http://occitanet.free.fr/imatges/romania.gif
<< Les langues catalanes s'apparentent à un groupe plus vaste dont la géographie comprend la France méridionale, l'Italie septentrionale et l'Ibérie extrême-orientale. >>
-- Ça se discute.
Les groupes ibéro-roman, occitan-catalan, gallo-roman sont bien individualisés et cohérents, mais dès qu'on arrive en Italie c'est le bordel.
C'est vrai que le groupe "italo-roman" est hétéroclite, il y a une grosse densité d'isoglosses sur la ligne Massa-Senigallia, mais de là à ranger le groupe "gallo-italique" avec l'occitan-catalan, il y a une marge.
Ce serait simple s'il n'y avait que le piémontais. Ses formes les plus archaïques connues le rattachent pratquement à l'occitan (il faisait même ses pluriels en -s) ; pour le lombard, le ligure et l'émilien c'est moins vrai, pour le vénitien plus du tout. Mais ce dernier excepté, tous les langages gallo-italiques présentent un incontestable air de famille. Alors autant les laisser ensemble dans un groupe à part sans polluer (pardon !) l'homogénéité du groupe occitan-catalan. Et sans ignorer non plus leur cousinage avec ce dernier.
-- Ça se discute.
Les groupes ibéro-roman, occitan-catalan, gallo-roman sont bien individualisés et cohérents, mais dès qu'on arrive en Italie c'est le bordel.
C'est vrai que le groupe "italo-roman" est hétéroclite, il y a une grosse densité d'isoglosses sur la ligne Massa-Senigallia, mais de là à ranger le groupe "gallo-italique" avec l'occitan-catalan, il y a une marge.
Ce serait simple s'il n'y avait que le piémontais. Ses formes les plus archaïques connues le rattachent pratquement à l'occitan (il faisait même ses pluriels en -s) ; pour le lombard, le ligure et l'émilien c'est moins vrai, pour le vénitien plus du tout. Mais ce dernier excepté, tous les langages gallo-italiques présentent un incontestable air de famille. Alors autant les laisser ensemble dans un groupe à part sans polluer (pardon !) l'homogénéité du groupe occitan-catalan. Et sans ignorer non plus leur cousinage avec ce dernier.
What is the link between the Gauls, Iberians and Italiotes and the moder "Italo-Roman", "Ibero-Roman" and Gallo-Roman" languages? Do these categories really make sense?
I would be tempted to classify Catalan and Occitan (incl. Gascon) as a separate and integral group, though whether the majority professional linguists agree with me is a moot point, and until then I can only offer this as my lay opinion.
That being so, just consider a few points:
-It's likely that after their blossoming in the High Middle Ages, Catalan, Occitan and Ligurian (a northern Italian Gallo-Romance language) were the dominant standard tongues of maritime trading nations along the Gulf of Lyons between great ports like Barcelona, Marseilles and Genoa. Surely it is no coincidence that these regions form a continuous arc from eastern Iberia, passing through Occitania and into the Gulf of Genoa. Therefore it is likely that they constituted a dialectal continuum, hence the similarities between their languages, enough to be classified as a sub-group. The question that concerns us, however, is whether to take the western (Catalan) and middle (Occitan) sections of that arc and mark them as a further separate group. If we do this, however, we are in danger of leaving the the eastern (northern Gallo-Italian) wing more closely identified with both the Oil and Apritan languages since they would all now be classified under the term "Gallo-Romance", which seems perverse since surely a Liguarian would have found a closer intelligibility and afinity with an Occitan or a Catalan.
- However, as many of you have pointed out, this 'Gallo-Romance arc' did not exist in isolation, since its constituent languages (Catalan, Occitan, Ligurian, Piemontese etc..) were bordered by different groups entirely . Consider this: its Catalan component was flanked to its west by Castillian and Aragonese (undisputably Ibero-Romance languages). Occitan to its north was limited by the Oil language group and the Arpitan group (I don't like the term 'Franco-Provençal'; it's too awkward and lends to confusion) , both of which were more heavily 'Germanicized' (and this on top of a stronger Celtic substratum!) Gallo-Romance. And of course, the Italian branch of Galo-Romance (Ligurian, Piemontese, Lombard etc) bordered by the Italo-Dalmation group to the south and south-east.
-Let's not forget that on the peripheries of this arc, where the languages contacted the Ibero, Oil and Italo-Dalmatian tongues there were bound to be transition zones and fringes where the influences of those neighbouring languages were surely to influence Catalan, Occitan, Lombard etc.
That being so, just consider a few points:
-It's likely that after their blossoming in the High Middle Ages, Catalan, Occitan and Ligurian (a northern Italian Gallo-Romance language) were the dominant standard tongues of maritime trading nations along the Gulf of Lyons between great ports like Barcelona, Marseilles and Genoa. Surely it is no coincidence that these regions form a continuous arc from eastern Iberia, passing through Occitania and into the Gulf of Genoa. Therefore it is likely that they constituted a dialectal continuum, hence the similarities between their languages, enough to be classified as a sub-group. The question that concerns us, however, is whether to take the western (Catalan) and middle (Occitan) sections of that arc and mark them as a further separate group. If we do this, however, we are in danger of leaving the the eastern (northern Gallo-Italian) wing more closely identified with both the Oil and Apritan languages since they would all now be classified under the term "Gallo-Romance", which seems perverse since surely a Liguarian would have found a closer intelligibility and afinity with an Occitan or a Catalan.
- However, as many of you have pointed out, this 'Gallo-Romance arc' did not exist in isolation, since its constituent languages (Catalan, Occitan, Ligurian, Piemontese etc..) were bordered by different groups entirely . Consider this: its Catalan component was flanked to its west by Castillian and Aragonese (undisputably Ibero-Romance languages). Occitan to its north was limited by the Oil language group and the Arpitan group (I don't like the term 'Franco-Provençal'; it's too awkward and lends to confusion) , both of which were more heavily 'Germanicized' (and this on top of a stronger Celtic substratum!) Gallo-Romance. And of course, the Italian branch of Galo-Romance (Ligurian, Piemontese, Lombard etc) bordered by the Italo-Dalmation group to the south and south-east.
-Let's not forget that on the peripheries of this arc, where the languages contacted the Ibero, Oil and Italo-Dalmatian tongues there were bound to be transition zones and fringes where the influences of those neighbouring languages were surely to influence Catalan, Occitan, Lombard etc.
I don't think it's correct to suggest that Catalan derived from Occitan.
That would imply that Old Occitan had already formed from the Vulgar Romance of southern France as early as the 800's (just after Charlemagne), when in fact Catalonia had already been substantially populated by people from regions (that would later form Occitania) in order to create the buffer zone 'Marca Hispanica'. But these people were still speaking a particular dialect of Vulgar Romance, perhaps similar to proto-Galaicoportuguese in terms of how that vulgar romance would later split into Old Portuguese and Old Galician evolving evermore separately.
So I would venture to say that Catalan did not derive from an Occitan already formed, but rather it did so simultaneously and with increasing divergence (despite both emerging from an original broadly similar vulgarate). After all, we would never suggest that, say, Neapolitan or Sicilian are 'derivatives' of Central Italian, despite belonging to the same group.
That would imply that Old Occitan had already formed from the Vulgar Romance of southern France as early as the 800's (just after Charlemagne), when in fact Catalonia had already been substantially populated by people from regions (that would later form Occitania) in order to create the buffer zone 'Marca Hispanica'. But these people were still speaking a particular dialect of Vulgar Romance, perhaps similar to proto-Galaicoportuguese in terms of how that vulgar romance would later split into Old Portuguese and Old Galician evolving evermore separately.
So I would venture to say that Catalan did not derive from an Occitan already formed, but rather it did so simultaneously and with increasing divergence (despite both emerging from an original broadly similar vulgarate). After all, we would never suggest that, say, Neapolitan or Sicilian are 'derivatives' of Central Italian, despite belonging to the same group.