Luca : comment comptes-tu t'y prendre pour prouver la dissimilarité français/italien ?
Spanish and Italian are much closer than Italian and French
<<2. Dr. Costa is not Italian -There are too many mistakes in his VERY FEW Italian sentences.
And, if he really was Italian, it's even worse: an Italian Doctor, in Italian Literature, making all these mistakes? Come on...>>
Exactly what I thought and I'm not even a native speaker. So for me to see them, that means they were gross (as in big) mistakes.
And, if he really was Italian, it's even worse: an Italian Doctor, in Italian Literature, making all these mistakes? Come on...>>
Exactly what I thought and I'm not even a native speaker. So for me to see them, that means they were gross (as in big) mistakes.
I can't believe the nonsense I've been reading here. The two closest romance languages are Portuguese and Spanish, period. Italians think their language is closer to Spanish, but when they try to have a conversation with Spanish speakers, the dialogue gets muddled very quickly - the context gets lost. This does not happen when educated Portuguese and Spanish speakers have a conversation. I am Canadian of Portuguese descent, but I am fluent in Portuguese and Spanish. If you speak Portuguese, Spanish is a gift. It requires the slightest practice to speak it. Even before I became a fluent speaker of Spanish, I always understood it perfectly, as though it were my mother tongue. I understand a lot of Italian too, but when it comes to speaking, it requires my careful attention to vocabulary, sentence structure and grammar. The Portuguese spoken in Portugal has a kind of nasalized French accent, and since the Portuguese spoken in Brazil has more of a Spanish accent, the Spanish speakers will usually understand it easier. Nevertheless, if one compares Spanish and Portuguese sentences, line by line, he will immeadiately notice the remarkable similarity in the vocabulary and structure of these two languages. Jorge.
I have had several conversations with multi-latin language speaking individuals. One was an opera singer who indicated that Italian and Portuguese are closer than Italian and Spanish. I speak neither, but from spelling comparisons I tend to agree. Another individual was a French Canadian who also spoke Italian. I met him at our hotel in Cancun, Mexico and he indicated that Italian was easier for him because Spanish had too many "dropped letters."
On another occasion I pasted sections of multilanguage toy instructions together...Italian / Portuguese and Portuguese / Spanish. I gave the first to my Spanish speaking friend and the second to my Italian speaking friend. Both agreed that they could make out about 50% of what was being described. My Italian friend, for whatever reason, could make out a little more, especially the Portuguese.
Thoughts?
On another occasion I pasted sections of multilanguage toy instructions together...Italian / Portuguese and Portuguese / Spanish. I gave the first to my Spanish speaking friend and the second to my Italian speaking friend. Both agreed that they could make out about 50% of what was being described. My Italian friend, for whatever reason, could make out a little more, especially the Portuguese.
Thoughts?
Correction...my Canadian friend was a Portuguese, French and Italian speaker....and for some reason found the Spanish in "Mexico" more difficult.
I wonder where did French get its nasalization. Not from the Germanic languages...since none of them are nasal...Celtic? But none of the current Celtic languages possess nasal sounds....any ideas?
Dhuiran,
Si tu cherches à identifier les causes du processus de nasalisation en français, il faut remonter dans le passé. C'est-à-dire que toute comparaison ou analogie avec l'état ***ACTUEL*** d'une langue vivante (latine, germanique ou celtique) revient à partitr dans la mauvaise direction : le fait qu'une langue X soit dépourvue de voyelle nasale en 2006 ne prouve pas que c'était le cas en 1850, en 1530 ou en 785.
D'autre part, quand tu affirmes qu'aucune langue germanique ne possède de voyelles nasales, c'est faux. L'allemand a importé du français au moins 2 voyelles nasales : [Ã] & [Õ]. Et quant à l'anglais, des variantes nord-américaines possèdent des voyelles nasales non-phonémiques.
Enfin la nasalisation des voyelles est un processus qui s'est déroulé entre les XIe & XIVe siècles essentiellement. Le phénomène n'est pas dû à l'influence d'une quelconque langue étrangère (latine, celtique ou germanique) mais plutôt à l'influence des consonnes nasales sur l'articulation des voyelles orales.
Si tu cherches à identifier les causes du processus de nasalisation en français, il faut remonter dans le passé. C'est-à-dire que toute comparaison ou analogie avec l'état ***ACTUEL*** d'une langue vivante (latine, germanique ou celtique) revient à partitr dans la mauvaise direction : le fait qu'une langue X soit dépourvue de voyelle nasale en 2006 ne prouve pas que c'était le cas en 1850, en 1530 ou en 785.
D'autre part, quand tu affirmes qu'aucune langue germanique ne possède de voyelles nasales, c'est faux. L'allemand a importé du français au moins 2 voyelles nasales : [Ã] & [Õ]. Et quant à l'anglais, des variantes nord-américaines possèdent des voyelles nasales non-phonémiques.
Enfin la nasalisation des voyelles est un processus qui s'est déroulé entre les XIe & XIVe siècles essentiellement. Le phénomène n'est pas dû à l'influence d'une quelconque langue étrangère (latine, celtique ou germanique) mais plutôt à l'influence des consonnes nasales sur l'articulation des voyelles orales.
I am a speaker of both Italian and Spanish and without a doubt, in most cases, Italian and Spanish are mutually intelligible to someone who never formally studied the other language--if spoken clearly and slowly.
I am currently residing in Mexico, and here in Mexico I have met many non-English speaking Italian tourists who told me that they are more comfortable traveling in Spanish-speaking countries than in other parts of the world because in Spanish-speaking countries they never have any trouble communicating in (broken) Spanish. They are more ¨at home¨ with Spanish. There is no communication problem, no struggle, and they are not forced to use English or another language. All they have to do is use their own knowledge of the Italian language and change it slightly from time to time. There are a few tricks for changing Italian into Spanish and everyone who speaks Italian knows what they are. If there is a problem in communication the use of an alternate (Italian) synonym (or words from archaic Italian) will usually suffice. Some verbs and nouns need to be picked up of course, but they are just a handful of words. Basic Communication is never a problem--all one needs to do is notice the (few) differences, change (just a few) things and thats all that needs to be done to switch from Italian to Spanish. Italians already have "an ear" for this being already familiar with dialects within Italy, some of which are actually far more different from each other than Italian and Spanish are. Of course The kind of Spanish I am talking about is the ¨broken¨ Spanish of someone who never studied it formally in school, but it is more than enough to communicate without any difficulty.
Anyone who speaks Italian, is able to do this.
I am currently residing in Mexico, and here in Mexico I have met many non-English speaking Italian tourists who told me that they are more comfortable traveling in Spanish-speaking countries than in other parts of the world because in Spanish-speaking countries they never have any trouble communicating in (broken) Spanish. They are more ¨at home¨ with Spanish. There is no communication problem, no struggle, and they are not forced to use English or another language. All they have to do is use their own knowledge of the Italian language and change it slightly from time to time. There are a few tricks for changing Italian into Spanish and everyone who speaks Italian knows what they are. If there is a problem in communication the use of an alternate (Italian) synonym (or words from archaic Italian) will usually suffice. Some verbs and nouns need to be picked up of course, but they are just a handful of words. Basic Communication is never a problem--all one needs to do is notice the (few) differences, change (just a few) things and thats all that needs to be done to switch from Italian to Spanish. Italians already have "an ear" for this being already familiar with dialects within Italy, some of which are actually far more different from each other than Italian and Spanish are. Of course The kind of Spanish I am talking about is the ¨broken¨ Spanish of someone who never studied it formally in school, but it is more than enough to communicate without any difficulty.
Anyone who speaks Italian, is able to do this.
In reply to Tiffany who said Italian and Spanish ¨do not even share a border¨, I would like to point out to everyone that geography is precisley the reason why the two countries (Italy and Spain) have so many similarities and are closer to the old ¨Latin¨ language which they originated from (unlike the case with France).
The situation with France was different from Spain and Italy. France being flat and open to the north and north-east, was more suseptible to invasion and influence from northern European Non-Latin peoples and this is why French is ¨less Latin¨ than Spain and Italy, and more northern European--especially in its pronunciation. Upon looking at a <geography map> it becomes very clear that France is part of the large North European plain which is unobstructed, open, and stretches across Northern Europe, including northern France. There are no natural barriers at all to the migration of vast numbers of people in this area. The people who traveled freely across this open plain changed French and made it a less Latin language.
The geographic situation regarding Italy and Spain was very different. Though not sharing a common border, they were both protected from large-scale linguistic changes by mountain barriers which France did not have. Italy was protected from Non-Latin-areas by the the Alps, while Spain was protected from Non-Latin areas by the Pyrenees. As a result Italian and Spanish did not diverge as much and kept many similarities.
One more thing that I would like to point out is that for a few centuries many regions of Italy were united either directly or indirectly with Spain. This is also one more reason why the two languages remained similar.
The situation with France was different from Spain and Italy. France being flat and open to the north and north-east, was more suseptible to invasion and influence from northern European Non-Latin peoples and this is why French is ¨less Latin¨ than Spain and Italy, and more northern European--especially in its pronunciation. Upon looking at a <geography map> it becomes very clear that France is part of the large North European plain which is unobstructed, open, and stretches across Northern Europe, including northern France. There are no natural barriers at all to the migration of vast numbers of people in this area. The people who traveled freely across this open plain changed French and made it a less Latin language.
The geographic situation regarding Italy and Spain was very different. Though not sharing a common border, they were both protected from large-scale linguistic changes by mountain barriers which France did not have. Italy was protected from Non-Latin-areas by the the Alps, while Spain was protected from Non-Latin areas by the Pyrenees. As a result Italian and Spanish did not diverge as much and kept many similarities.
One more thing that I would like to point out is that for a few centuries many regions of Italy were united either directly or indirectly with Spain. This is also one more reason why the two languages remained similar.
Nasal vowels are a Germanic feature; they arose from Germanic languages.
Latin nor Greek had/has this feature.
Latin nor Greek had/has this feature.
The uvular R (pronounced in the throat) in French is also a Germanic phenomenon.
The antiquated pronunciation of R, alveolar R, followed that of Latin and other Romance languages, produced by the rolling of the tongue.
The antiquated pronunciation of R, alveolar R, followed that of Latin and other Romance languages, produced by the rolling of the tongue.
Thank you for that explanation FJ. I do not doubt the similarities between Spanish and Italian. As a speaker of both, I can plainly see them.
I do however, find it really odd that both Spanish and Portuguese speakers will tell me their language is closer to Italian than to each other. My comment was in regards to this.
My comment (Tiffany Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:59 pm GMT):
<<
I find it funny that both Portuguese and Spanish say they are closer to Italian than even othr even though you border each other on both continents.>>
I can't remember where I literally said "Italy and Spain do not even share a border" on this thread. Could you be so kind to point to where that may be?
I do however, find it really odd that both Spanish and Portuguese speakers will tell me their language is closer to Italian than to each other. My comment was in regards to this.
My comment (Tiffany Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:59 pm GMT):
<<
I find it funny that both Portuguese and Spanish say they are closer to Italian than even othr even though you border each other on both continents.>>
I can't remember where I literally said "Italy and Spain do not even share a border" on this thread. Could you be so kind to point to where that may be?
FJ : « I would like to point out to everyone that geography is precisley the reason why the two countries (Italy and Spain) have so many similarities and are closer to the old ¨Latin¨ language which they originated from (unlike the case with France). »
Cet argument n'est pas valable. S'il l'était, comment expliquer la persistance de la déclinaison bicasuelle dans les Gaule septentrionale (plaines) & méridionales (montagnes + plaines) et comment expliquer la grande similarité du vocabulaire entre anciennes langues d'Oc & anciennes langues d'Oïl ?
L'argument du relief (les montagnes) est si peu fondé que l'ancien occitan etait parlé de part et d'autres des Pyrénées et des Alpes !
D'autre part, une grande partie de la Gaule méridionale est constituée de plaines : vallée du Rhône, plaine littorale du Languedoc, bassin Aquitain (dont les dimensions sont gigantesques et les ouvertures se font par la vallée de la Garonne, la Saintonge et l'Angoumois). L'aire gasconne correspond grosso modo à la rive occidentale de la Garonne jusqu'à l'Atlantique, les Pyrénes, la Saintonge et l'Angoumois : aucune montage — pourtant le gascon est resté occitan... Les plaines & vallées de la Gaule méridionale ont été envahies (et parfois occupées durablement) par à peu près tous les peuples barbares ainsi que par les Sarrasins, tout comme la Gaule septentrionale.
Enfin, FJ, ton affirmation (selon laquelle l'orolatin d'Hispanie ou d'Italie serait du latin et l'orolatin des Gaules n'en serait pas) est tout à fait absurde. Toutes les langues d'Oïl et d'Oc (y compris le français bien sûr) ***SONT*** du latin soumis à une évolution de plusieurs siècles !
FJ : « French is ¨less Latin¨ than Spain and Italy, and more northern European »
Bravo ! Tu compare une langue (le français) avec 2 pays (l'Espagne & l'Italie) et une entité aux contours mal définis (nord-européen). Outre que cette langue (le français) a subi au moins 4 phases bien distinctes que tu ne spécifies même pas dans ton approche qui se veut diachronique (!), la seule hétérogénité des termes de ta 'comparaison' suffit à invalider les 'conclusions' que tu en 'tires'.
Enfin, pour terminer, ton analyse ne tient pas la route ne serait-ce qu'une seule seconde car il y manque (entre autres choses) un élément central (au sens propre comme au sens figuré) : la Romanie centrale d'Europe (occitan, catalan, lombard, piedmontais etc).
Cet argument n'est pas valable. S'il l'était, comment expliquer la persistance de la déclinaison bicasuelle dans les Gaule septentrionale (plaines) & méridionales (montagnes + plaines) et comment expliquer la grande similarité du vocabulaire entre anciennes langues d'Oc & anciennes langues d'Oïl ?
L'argument du relief (les montagnes) est si peu fondé que l'ancien occitan etait parlé de part et d'autres des Pyrénées et des Alpes !
D'autre part, une grande partie de la Gaule méridionale est constituée de plaines : vallée du Rhône, plaine littorale du Languedoc, bassin Aquitain (dont les dimensions sont gigantesques et les ouvertures se font par la vallée de la Garonne, la Saintonge et l'Angoumois). L'aire gasconne correspond grosso modo à la rive occidentale de la Garonne jusqu'à l'Atlantique, les Pyrénes, la Saintonge et l'Angoumois : aucune montage — pourtant le gascon est resté occitan... Les plaines & vallées de la Gaule méridionale ont été envahies (et parfois occupées durablement) par à peu près tous les peuples barbares ainsi que par les Sarrasins, tout comme la Gaule septentrionale.
Enfin, FJ, ton affirmation (selon laquelle l'orolatin d'Hispanie ou d'Italie serait du latin et l'orolatin des Gaules n'en serait pas) est tout à fait absurde. Toutes les langues d'Oïl et d'Oc (y compris le français bien sûr) ***SONT*** du latin soumis à une évolution de plusieurs siècles !
FJ : « French is ¨less Latin¨ than Spain and Italy, and more northern European »
Bravo ! Tu compare une langue (le français) avec 2 pays (l'Espagne & l'Italie) et une entité aux contours mal définis (nord-européen). Outre que cette langue (le français) a subi au moins 4 phases bien distinctes que tu ne spécifies même pas dans ton approche qui se veut diachronique (!), la seule hétérogénité des termes de ta 'comparaison' suffit à invalider les 'conclusions' que tu en 'tires'.
Enfin, pour terminer, ton analyse ne tient pas la route ne serait-ce qu'une seule seconde car il y manque (entre autres choses) un élément central (au sens propre comme au sens figuré) : la Romanie centrale d'Europe (occitan, catalan, lombard, piedmontais etc).