Similitudes entre l'ancien français et l'ancien occitan
CSS : cas sujet singulier
CRS : cas régime singulier
CSP : cas sujet pluriel
CRP : cas régime pluriel
CSS AO <lo/le murs> — AF <li murs>
CRS AO <lo mur> — AF <le/lo mur>
CSP AO <li/lhi mur> — AF <li mur>
CRP AO <los murs> — AF <les murs>
CSS AO <la/li maisons> — AF <la maisons>
CRS AO <la maison> — AF <la maison>
CSP AO <las maisons> — AF <les maisons>
CRP AO <las maisons> — AF <les maisons>
CSS AO <la/li sòr> — AF <la suer>
CRS AO <la seror> — AF <la seror>
CSP AO <las serors> — AF <les serors>
CRP AO <las serors> — AF <les serors>
CSS AO <la/li mólher/moiller> — AF <la moiller/moillier>
CRS AO <la molher/moiller> — AF <la moiller/moillier>
CSP AO <las molhèrs/moillers> — AF <les moillers/moilliers>
CRP AO <las molhèrs/moillers> — AF <les moillers/moilliers>
CSS AO <lo/le coms> — AF <li cuens/cons>
CRS AO <lo comte> — AF <le/lo conte/comte>
CSP AO <li/lhi comte> — AF <li conte/comte>
CRP AO <los comtes> — AF <les contes/comtes>
CSS AO <lo/le bar> — AF <li ber>
CRS AO <lo baro/baron> — AF <le/lo baron>
CSP AO <li/lhi baro/baron> — AF <li baron>
CRP AO <los baros/barons> — AF <les barons>
CSS AO <lo/le companh> — AF <li compaing>
CRS AO <lo companho/companhon> — AF <le/lo compaignon>
CSP AO <li/lhi companho/companhon> — AF <li compaignon>
CRP AO <los companhos/companhons> — AF <les compaignons>
Connaissez-vous d'autres similarités entre le français & l'occitan — anciens ou modernes ?
My dear Brennus:
I don't quite understand how you can say that southern France was largely rural. What about Marseille, Toulouse, Narbonne, Avignon, Aix, Bordeaux and so many others. Southern France is precisely very much an urban civilisation since Roman times (and even before!).
The only reason why Occitan and French retain different features is because Occitan has always been more conservative and has been a distinct language from the start.
Mediaeval Southern France had a language and a civilisation of its own that was taught in its universities and was official in its administration. French and Occitan never got in real contact until the Middle Ages.
The influence of Paris was really important on the oïl varieties from the start.
Much later on (specially from the 16th c. onwards) it produced a "language shift" on oc varieties. This really happened, on a very large scale, from the mid 19th c. onwards. Before that only the "elite" spoke French. The majority of the Occitan population was still monolingual in Occitan around 1850. By 1920, most of the Occitan population had already shifted to French although the process continued until the 1960s and is still going on in isolated areas.
There is also a comeback of Occitan in smaller circles (precisely in urban environments).
Catalanòfon : bien sûr que les plaines littorales ou fluviales méridionales ont toujours conservé leur « urbanitas » immémoriale — même si l'« urbanitas » atlanto-gasconne diffère profondément de l'« urbanitas » méditerranéo-provençale.
Je ne suis pas d'accord pour affirmer que la Gaule latinophone était dès le départ vouée à la bipartition oïl/oc à moins que tu puisses nous fournir des éléments convaincants. La bipartition telle que nous la connaissons est effectivement arrivée mais peut-être aurait-elle pris un tour différent dans d'autres circonstances.
Je ne vois pas trop ce que tu veux dire quand tu affirmes que « le français et l'occitan ne sont jamais entrés réellement en contact jusqu'au moyen-âge ». Où situes-tu le départ du moyen-âge ? 476 ? Plus tard ?
ERRATUM : à la tripartition oïl / oc / francoprovençal.
Greg,
From a strictly linguistic point of view there is a clear boundary between Oil and Oc dialects. It would seem, according to philologists, that the area of Oc dialects has retreated slightly since the Middle Ages.
It cannot be said that Oil and Oc dialects form a diasystem although they are related. The oldest French and Occitan texts are already quite different.
Obviously Vulgar Latin spoken in Gaul must have been similar but by the 8th century people from the north and the south could not understand each other, as you know.
That has nothing to do, of course, with politics but the poetry of the troubadours are clearly in a different language than the language of the trouvères.
I trust you will agree.
Je ne conteste pas la frontière oc/oïl — ni son évolution au cours du temps. Et bien sûr oc/oïl forment deux familles distinctes quoiqu'extraordinairement similaires. Mais je ne sais pas si les latinophones du VIIIe s. ne se comprenaient plus. Les gens étaient sûrement accoutumés à la variation.
Je crois qu'ils devaient encore se comprendre à un certain degré (au VIIIe. s et pour toute les langues latines naissantes) mais l'isolement devait déjà commencer à créer des problèmes.
Les frontières linguistiques sont aussi souvent des frontières politiques et même géographiques et religieuses (les parlers sont souvent très uniforme dans une même êveché. On se retrouve "à la capitale" ou au marché, ou à la foire du petit royaume ou comté et, surtout, on n'ose pas sortir des territoires amis et voisins. Même sortir du village devient un problème grave mais on se retrouve, hélas, au champ de bataille à l'appel du seigneur de la baronnie. Il y a, donc, des aires d'influences et quelques siècles d'isolement. Et après il y a l'enseignement et la littérature naissante en néo-roman qui commence a créer des koinès différentes et établiees.
Évidemment la genèse maintient la parenté étroite (encore de nos jours) mais il s'agit d'une parenté qui s'éloigne jusqu'au moment que les cousins disent prou et qu'il faut envahir les autres. Ça aura des conséquences linguistiques bien que le retour est toujours très lent et pas toujours très juste. Il y a une perte valueuse parce que les civilisations créent les langues.
Brennus : va falloir que tu révises ta géo et que tu reprennes des cours d'histoire...
Dear Brennus:
I agree with Greg although I will try to be brief. To begin with, I apologize if I've been rude at times but, quite frankly, it is impossible to pretend to know about everything in all countries and in all the world.
As far as cities are concerned, they will influence their natural areas, languages and cultures. The most important city in the 15th century Iberian peninsula was Valencia, for example and Barcelona only took a second place in the Aragon confederation at that time. Valencia had over 100.000 people, which is an enormous city for that time. The only other city that could compare itself then was Granada, still a moorish kingdom, as you must surely know, until 1492.
The heirs of Aragon (including Aragon, Catalanonia, Kingdom of Valencia and Balearic islands) and Castille (Ferdinand and Isabel, as you know) married in 1469 and united their possessions although these remained independent in every sense. Ferdinand and Isabel happened to be second cousin. When Isabel died, Ferdinand remarried to Germana de Foix (an Occitan!) and for a while it seemed the monarchic unity would be lost if a heir was born. By the way, Castilians knew the king as "el catalanote" (a despective way which could broadly be translated as "the bloody Catalan" as an Englishman or Australian would put it.
As a matter of fact, and just to give you an example, only the Castilians and their former kingdoms were able to trade with the Americas until the 18th century. America was declared a discovery of Castile and not of Spain. Do you understand what I mean?
Citizens from the Castiles or citizens of the former Aragon kingdoms could not hold office out of their territories. Just to give you an example --a fact in Spain nobody will deny- the only official language of the Catalan-speaking territories was Catalan until the end of the Spanish War of Succession (1707-1714). It was absolute monolingualism. The new Borbonic dinasty (Felipe V of the house of Anjou) changed all that since Spain remained a confederation of states throughout the Austrias (name of the ruling family until then. The last heir died without a successor and that meant the most important early 18th c. European war with the British and the French defending different sides ).
Catalonia was never a part of the kingdom of Aragon. There was also a confederation from the Middle Ages. As a matter of fact, the ruling family were the Counts of Barcelona and the Trastamara family began to rule, as heirs to the Count of Barcelona, after the death of Martí l'Humà (1410). Ferdinand was a Trastamara.
I don't intend to give you a class of history but I repeat, dear Brennus, that my knowledge of American history is probably slightly higher than your knowledge of European History, Iberian History and, of course, Romance languages.
To forget the importance of cities such as Marseille, Avignon, Montpellier or Toulouse during the Middle Ages would mean to forget just a few of the highly urban cities (in civilisation and not in a continental ranking of "sizes") who gave the first and most important Romance literature: the poetry of the troubadours, written in Occitan and with a great influence not only in northern France but also all over Europe.
I trust you will appreciate my effort and my kind words.
Sans oublier le rôle de villes comme Narbonne — et là je ne parle pas de la Narbonne antique mais de la Narbonne médiévale — dans la genèse de la littérature juive multilingue de France : arabe, français, occitan etc.
Si a algunos nacionalistas paletos como Jordi que han mamado solo nacionalismo de libros escritos por nacionalistas terroristas les diera por mirar el archivo de la Corona de Aragon verian que eran bilingües ya en el siglo XVI. El propio Juan Boscán, catalán, (1493-1542) escribía muchas de sus obras en castellano (español, que cojones).
La generalidad de Cataluña intenta la creación de un estado donde la lengua ocupa el lugar de la religión en las dictaduras islámicas.
In the 16th century there are also Portuguese and Italian writers in Castilian. The fact is we Catalans, are not Castilian.
What is the current status of Occitan and Provencal today? Have they been recognized as official languages in France, or in the areas of France in which they are spoken? Are these languages dying out? Or, are they beginning to be spoken in larger amounts especially by the younger generation?
"None of these towns were major metropolitan centers either during the Roman period or the Middle Ages. The premier cities in Europe during much of that time were Cordoba, Barcelona, Rome, Genoa, Florence , Venice and Constantinople. In the latter Middle Ages, the axis of trade and culture shifted from the Mediterranean to the Rhineland and the North Sea. It was during this time that cities like Munich, Paris, Ghent, Brughes, London Hamburg and Amsterdam gained importance. This was bad news for Constantinople, the Italian city states, even Catalonia which, as part of the kingdom of Aragon, finally merged with Castile in 1469."
Non seulement Catalanofon et Greg ont raison, mais je pense qu'il faut aussi citer des villes ayant eu une extrême importance de l'Antiquité jusqu'à aujourd'hui (en passant pazr le Moyen Age et la Rennaissance), il s'agit de Lyon. Ville qui fût de tous temps alimentée uniquement par les florentins (c'est aussi le cas de Grenoble).
On citera aussi Avignon, et dans une moindre mesure Nîmes.
quant à l'industrialisation de la France, si elle a été plus lente qu'en Angleterre, elle l'a trés vite dépassé.
Tu dois revoir non seulement ta géographie, car celle ci au Moyen Age est différente mais aussi l'histoire de France.