OK; so you mean it was the ignorance of the Germanic academics that caused modern French ortography to be so different from the original Latin one?
The tongue(s) of Charlemagne
Non ! L'orthographe actuelle du français est le produit de siècles d'histoire, pas simplement le résultat de l'époque carolingienne. D'autre part l'immense majorité des Européens d'alors vivaient dans l'oralité : ils étaient illétrés (latinophones, germanophones, celtophones, slavophones etc). Mais il est vrai que le décalage réel entre orolatin & scriptolatin tardifs a été mis en relief par un triple mouvement :
1/ réécriture de l'orolatin tardif (langue vivante & diasystémique) : le scriptolatin tardif change d'apparence (pour les lettrés seulement : le phénomène n'est — en principe — pas perceptible pour les illétrés)
2/ changement de nom de langue : l'orolatin tardif s'appelait « latin» ; on l'appellera « roman » à partir du moment où il sera écrit à l'aide de l'orthographe réformée
3/ parallèlement, le mot « latin » servira non plus à désigner le diasystème latin vivant, mais un orolatin pseudo-classique (l'oromédiolatin ou orolatin médiéval), c'est-à-dire une langue artificielle (pas de locuteurs maternels, prononciation conventionnelle, grammaire arbitraire, pseudo-conservatisme lexical et néologie médiévale, orthographe non-réformée) qui faisait fonction de langue internationale de communication au sein de l'élite des lettrés encadrés par le pouvoir carolingien et l'Église.
La nouvelle orthographe (essentiellement) phonographique est une œuvre expérimentale instituée par des intellectuels dans le but de communiquer efficacement en orolatin tardif. À la limite, on pourrait considérer que pour les carolingiens toute parole orolatine retranscrite d'après la nouvelle orthographe est du roman alors que la même parole couchée sur le papier à l'aide de l'ancienne orthographe est du latin.
1/ réécriture de l'orolatin tardif (langue vivante & diasystémique) : le scriptolatin tardif change d'apparence (pour les lettrés seulement : le phénomène n'est — en principe — pas perceptible pour les illétrés)
2/ changement de nom de langue : l'orolatin tardif s'appelait « latin» ; on l'appellera « roman » à partir du moment où il sera écrit à l'aide de l'orthographe réformée
3/ parallèlement, le mot « latin » servira non plus à désigner le diasystème latin vivant, mais un orolatin pseudo-classique (l'oromédiolatin ou orolatin médiéval), c'est-à-dire une langue artificielle (pas de locuteurs maternels, prononciation conventionnelle, grammaire arbitraire, pseudo-conservatisme lexical et néologie médiévale, orthographe non-réformée) qui faisait fonction de langue internationale de communication au sein de l'élite des lettrés encadrés par le pouvoir carolingien et l'Église.
La nouvelle orthographe (essentiellement) phonographique est une œuvre expérimentale instituée par des intellectuels dans le but de communiquer efficacement en orolatin tardif. À la limite, on pourrait considérer que pour les carolingiens toute parole orolatine retranscrite d'après la nouvelle orthographe est du roman alors que la même parole couchée sur le papier à l'aide de l'ancienne orthographe est du latin.
OK!
As a Germanophile I never thought about the option of considering Late Vulgar latin / Early French as the oral version/pronounciation of written Latin! But now I see that that is how it must have appeared for Gregor de Tours, while Charlemagne looked on them as two different languages!
Thanks, you have enlightened me!
As a Germanophile I never thought about the option of considering Late Vulgar latin / Early French as the oral version/pronounciation of written Latin! But now I see that that is how it must have appeared for Gregor de Tours, while Charlemagne looked on them as two different languages!
Thanks, you have enlightened me!
Aber weißt du Fredrik, es gibt eine Menge von widersprüchlichen Theorien. Das war nur eine, obwohl ich denke daß, sie glaubhaft, einleuchtend & wahrscheinlich ist.
Charlemagne's native tongue is a matter of controversy. Although he himself was a Frank, he did not speak Old Frankish, as Charlemagne was born in 742 or 747 and Frankish went extinct during the early 7th century. Linguists know very little about Old Frankish, as it wasn't directly attested and is reconstructed from loanwords in its descendant, Old Low Franconian, also called Old Dutch, and Old French.
The area of Charlemagne's birth does not make determination his native language easier. Most historians agree he was born around Liège, like his father, but some say he was born in or around Aachen. At that time, this was an area of great linguistic diversity. If we take Liège (around 750) as the centre, we find Low Franconian in the north and northwest, Gallo-Romance (the ancestor of Old French) in the south and southwest and various Old High German dialects in the east. If Gallo-Romance is excluded, that means he either spoke Old Low Franconian or an Old High German dialect, probably with a strong Frankish influence.
Apart from his native language he also spoke some Latin and understood a bit of Greek.
The area of Charlemagne's birth does not make determination his native language easier. Most historians agree he was born around Liège, like his father, but some say he was born in or around Aachen. At that time, this was an area of great linguistic diversity. If we take Liège (around 750) as the centre, we find Low Franconian in the north and northwest, Gallo-Romance (the ancestor of Old French) in the south and southwest and various Old High German dialects in the east. If Gallo-Romance is excluded, that means he either spoke Old Low Franconian or an Old High German dialect, probably with a strong Frankish influence.
Apart from his native language he also spoke some Latin and understood a bit of Greek.
Charlemagne did not speak French. When Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800 A.D.. the French Language did not yet develop. The French Language did not develop until around the time of the Capetian Dynasty circa 1000 A.D. Even then, it wasn't a polished language (the French of today). Most Romance Languages didn't fully develop until about the Late Middle Ages (1300 to 1500 A.D.).
This is a list comprising the (rough) dates when the first written accounts of a language were found. This does not mean, in any way, that the language in question is of the same age.
It is important to remember that this list only names the dates from when a language is recognised as the same language. For example: French was derived from Latin, yet written accounts of what we now call "Old French" do not appear until 1300 AD. The same rules apply to, for example, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian in their relation to Old Norse.
Egyptian - ca. 3200 BC
Greek - ca. 1500 BC
Aramaic - ca. 1000 BC
Chinese - ca. 900 BC
Lydian - ca. 700 BC
Persian - ca. 525 BC
Latin - ca. 500 BC
Ge'ez - ca. 500 BC
Sanskrit - ca. 250 BC
Tamil - ca. 200 BC
Dutch - ca. 500
Tibetan - ca. 600
English - ca. 660
German - ca. 700
Malayalam - ca. 800
Italian - ca. 960-963
Danish - ca. 1100
Swedish - ca. 1100
French - ca. 1300
Kashmiri - ca. 1350
Romanian - 1521
Esperanto - 1887
Papuan languages - ca. 1900
Austronesian languages - ca. 1900
Lingala - 1903
(This list is incomplete.You can help by expanding it!)
It is important to remember that this list only names the dates from when a language is recognised as the same language. For example: French was derived from Latin, yet written accounts of what we now call "Old French" do not appear until 1300 AD. The same rules apply to, for example, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian in their relation to Old Norse.
Egyptian - ca. 3200 BC
Greek - ca. 1500 BC
Aramaic - ca. 1000 BC
Chinese - ca. 900 BC
Lydian - ca. 700 BC
Persian - ca. 525 BC
Latin - ca. 500 BC
Ge'ez - ca. 500 BC
Sanskrit - ca. 250 BC
Tamil - ca. 200 BC
Dutch - ca. 500
Tibetan - ca. 600
English - ca. 660
German - ca. 700
Malayalam - ca. 800
Italian - ca. 960-963
Danish - ca. 1100
Swedish - ca. 1100
French - ca. 1300
Kashmiri - ca. 1350
Romanian - 1521
Esperanto - 1887
Papuan languages - ca. 1900
Austronesian languages - ca. 1900
Lingala - 1903
(This list is incomplete.You can help by expanding it!)
" We all like Charlemagne, don't we?
But what was the mother tongue of this father of Europe? "
I don't especially like Charlemagne, I see him as an emperor fo a kingdom which wasn't really democratic.
I don't see realy why do you call him "the father of Europe" ? Because he had spread his power on a lot of different European regions ? Greeks, and Romans did that long time before, and Louis 14, Charles Quint or Napoleon did the same long time after. these autocrats are "the fathers of Europe ?".
For me the fathers of the European union are Monnet and Schumann.
But what was the mother tongue of this father of Europe? "
I don't especially like Charlemagne, I see him as an emperor fo a kingdom which wasn't really democratic.
I don't see realy why do you call him "the father of Europe" ? Because he had spread his power on a lot of different European regions ? Greeks, and Romans did that long time before, and Louis 14, Charles Quint or Napoleon did the same long time after. these autocrats are "the fathers of Europe ?".
For me the fathers of the European union are Monnet and Schumann.
" But what was the mother tongue of this father of Europe? "
His mother tongue should be a kind of Frankish.
His mother tongue should be a kind of Frankish.
Was any medieval kingdom democratic?
Sure, the Romans conquered a lot of Western Europe, but it was Charlemagne and the Franks who actually brought about the synthesis of Greco-Roman, Germanic and Christian culture that became one of the pillars of Western European culture.
Unlike Louis 14. and Charles 5., Charlemagne had a pan-european impact, as he restored the Roman Empire and gave it a new, Christian content.
Napoleon also had a pan-european impact, but in his case it is a bit difficult to separate his influence from that of the French Revolution. In many ways he was just the agent of the Revolution.
Sure, the Romans conquered a lot of Western Europe, but it was Charlemagne and the Franks who actually brought about the synthesis of Greco-Roman, Germanic and Christian culture that became one of the pillars of Western European culture.
Unlike Louis 14. and Charles 5., Charlemagne had a pan-european impact, as he restored the Roman Empire and gave it a new, Christian content.
Napoleon also had a pan-european impact, but in his case it is a bit difficult to separate his influence from that of the French Revolution. In many ways he was just the agent of the Revolution.
" Was any medieval kingdom democratic? "
No, you're right the medieval times was a long period of regression the whole of Europe. We don't have to forget that our democracy can be fragile and we could know some periods of regression if we don't take care.
" Sure, the Romans conquered a lot of Western Europe, but it was Charlemagne and the Franks who actually brought about the synthesis of Greco-Roman, Germanic and Christian culture that became one of the pillars of Western European culture. "
?! This is a very strange conception... Actually I understand that you may say charlemagne as the one who brouht christianity in the lands that were not previously part of the roman empire ?
In that sense, maybe Charlemagn had is seen as having a greater impact from a northern European point of view.
Actually, I don't see really what you mean by "western European culture", for me western European is more a geopolitical/economical concept from cold war period.
Culturally what does it mean to be western European ?
" Unlike Louis 14. and Charles 5., Charlemagne had a pan-european impact, as he restored the Roman Empire and gave it a new, Christian content. "
Restored the roman emire ? hmm... he may have used the name "Roman", but his empire was still mainly a frankish one, quite far to be the continuation of the Roman empire In my opinion. At the same time the continuation of the Roman empire was existing in the eastern mediterranean.
I don't agree charles Quint had also a strong European impact, an empire in different regions and cultures of Europe too, and also the domination of most of America.
" Napoleon also had a pan-european impact, but in his case it is a bit difficult to separate his influence from that of the French Revolution. In many ways he was just the agent of the Revolution. "
You're right to say that Napoleon is linked to the french relovution ideals, That the reason why I could more easlily see Napoleon as a father of the European Union than Charlemagne, even if he was also an autocrat. At least the ideals that were supposed to be spread to all Europe were the ones of the democracy and enlightment, even he paradoxally Napoleon perverted this ideal making wars and conquests.
No, you're right the medieval times was a long period of regression the whole of Europe. We don't have to forget that our democracy can be fragile and we could know some periods of regression if we don't take care.
" Sure, the Romans conquered a lot of Western Europe, but it was Charlemagne and the Franks who actually brought about the synthesis of Greco-Roman, Germanic and Christian culture that became one of the pillars of Western European culture. "
?! This is a very strange conception... Actually I understand that you may say charlemagne as the one who brouht christianity in the lands that were not previously part of the roman empire ?
In that sense, maybe Charlemagn had is seen as having a greater impact from a northern European point of view.
Actually, I don't see really what you mean by "western European culture", for me western European is more a geopolitical/economical concept from cold war period.
Culturally what does it mean to be western European ?
" Unlike Louis 14. and Charles 5., Charlemagne had a pan-european impact, as he restored the Roman Empire and gave it a new, Christian content. "
Restored the roman emire ? hmm... he may have used the name "Roman", but his empire was still mainly a frankish one, quite far to be the continuation of the Roman empire In my opinion. At the same time the continuation of the Roman empire was existing in the eastern mediterranean.
I don't agree charles Quint had also a strong European impact, an empire in different regions and cultures of Europe too, and also the domination of most of America.
" Napoleon also had a pan-european impact, but in his case it is a bit difficult to separate his influence from that of the French Revolution. In many ways he was just the agent of the Revolution. "
You're right to say that Napoleon is linked to the french relovution ideals, That the reason why I could more easlily see Napoleon as a father of the European Union than Charlemagne, even if he was also an autocrat. At least the ideals that were supposed to be spread to all Europe were the ones of the democracy and enlightment, even he paradoxally Napoleon perverted this ideal making wars and conquests.
I understand the term "father of Europe" not as meaning a man who created an ideal Europe with a fully established democracy and human rights, but as meaning a man who laid the foundation for European unity, that all Europeans saw themselves as members of the same civilization.
To be a Western European means (apart from the geographical notions) to be a member of a civilization that has a long history of relatively small, competing political units where constitutional democracy and inventions could develop.
Historians point out that the representative democracy that we know today is not a direct descendant of the democracies of the Antique, but of the Medieval estate assemblies. Although they were very developed and refined, the democracies of the Antique lacked the concept of representation; that a delegate could represent something more than himself, e.g. an estate, a province or a city.
Although the Antique democracies were an important ideological contributor to the democratic movement, the practical roots of modern representative parliaments can be found in the estate assemblies. The prime example is the British Houses of Parliament.
Charlemagne did not restore the Roman Empire to its former boundaries, but by elevating his Franconian kingdom to the successor of the Roman Empire, he permanently linked Western Europe to the Classical and Christian culture.
Of course this was not such an overwhelming move in southwestern Europe, which had an unbroken Greco-Roman culture, but for areas like Germany it had a deep impact. But it also had consequences for south-western Europe, as it laid the fundament for the fight agains the Moors.
What was the contribution of Charles 5.? Instead of renewing the Holy Roman Empire (which was a possibility for this extremely powerful monarch), he managed to split Western Europe into two fighting camps: Catholics and Protestants!
To be a Western European means (apart from the geographical notions) to be a member of a civilization that has a long history of relatively small, competing political units where constitutional democracy and inventions could develop.
Historians point out that the representative democracy that we know today is not a direct descendant of the democracies of the Antique, but of the Medieval estate assemblies. Although they were very developed and refined, the democracies of the Antique lacked the concept of representation; that a delegate could represent something more than himself, e.g. an estate, a province or a city.
Although the Antique democracies were an important ideological contributor to the democratic movement, the practical roots of modern representative parliaments can be found in the estate assemblies. The prime example is the British Houses of Parliament.
Charlemagne did not restore the Roman Empire to its former boundaries, but by elevating his Franconian kingdom to the successor of the Roman Empire, he permanently linked Western Europe to the Classical and Christian culture.
Of course this was not such an overwhelming move in southwestern Europe, which had an unbroken Greco-Roman culture, but for areas like Germany it had a deep impact. But it also had consequences for south-western Europe, as it laid the fundament for the fight agains the Moors.
What was the contribution of Charles 5.? Instead of renewing the Holy Roman Empire (which was a possibility for this extremely powerful monarch), he managed to split Western Europe into two fighting camps: Catholics and Protestants!
" I understand the term "father of Europe" not as meaning a man who created an ideal Europe with a fully established democracy and human rights, but as meaning a man who laid the foundation for European unity, that all Europeans saw themselves as members of the same civilization. "
Ok, but I still don't undestand in what sense Charlemagne was that; He didn't unified the Europeans in one culture in wich everyone could recognise itself, he just conquierd and politically rules lands of diverse culture - I personally don't think that the people of central Italy at this time saw themselves part of the same culture than people of Northen Germany.
The fact that Europe may be a united civilisation, why not - but we rapidly realise how difficult it is to find what is the common point of Europeaness. Is it geographical ? Not really Europe is not a continent with clear limits. I ask myself, Is it religious ? So Albania or Bosnia would be not European, I ask myself...
Is it white people ? races are not a scientific concept and Europeans can have very strong physical differences.
Is it linguistic ? not all European speak indo-european language and Iran, India, etc. etc are not considered European.
Defining a European civilisation appear to be hard, I personally think that whole Europe is defined by the fact that it made with culturally diverse lands, polically unified in a quite recent political and democratic construction.
Culturally greco-roman culture ? Western Europe had greco-roman herency, but estaern Europe too (and during a longer time trough byzantine empire). And Arabo-muslism civilisation could also have the right to cliam this herency, the greek influence was huge in the formation of the way of thinking of islamic philosphers and scientifics. All this would be part of the mediterreanean cvilisations in the large meaning
" To be a Western European means (apart from the geographical notions) to be a member of a civilization that has a long history of relatively small, competing political units where constitutional democracy and inventions could develop. "
I agree this could be a definition of Europe as a whole, even if it I don't think that democracy and inventions are a European speciality.
But as a definition of western Europe only !?... excluding eastern Europe from democracy and appart of the "greco-roman" herency seem meaningless and pretty much "racist" I think. Supposing that because of recent non-democratic history and economic difficulties, eastern Europe is of a complete different civilisation than western Europe... Not so long time ago some part of western Europe were dictatures: Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy.
I don't understanding would be making Western Europe as a culturally unified civilisation, And what makes eastern Europe culturally appart ?
Religion ? Is it because Eastern Europe is mainly Orthodox? Well Greece is orthodox and in eastern Europe, but everybody consider it as a western european country. in western Europe lands are of catholic herency and other are protestant one. Outside of economico-political considerations, I personally feel culturally closer to Poland than to Sweden, and would not feel culturally closer to norway than to Russia for exemple.
Ok, but I still don't undestand in what sense Charlemagne was that; He didn't unified the Europeans in one culture in wich everyone could recognise itself, he just conquierd and politically rules lands of diverse culture - I personally don't think that the people of central Italy at this time saw themselves part of the same culture than people of Northen Germany.
The fact that Europe may be a united civilisation, why not - but we rapidly realise how difficult it is to find what is the common point of Europeaness. Is it geographical ? Not really Europe is not a continent with clear limits. I ask myself, Is it religious ? So Albania or Bosnia would be not European, I ask myself...
Is it white people ? races are not a scientific concept and Europeans can have very strong physical differences.
Is it linguistic ? not all European speak indo-european language and Iran, India, etc. etc are not considered European.
Defining a European civilisation appear to be hard, I personally think that whole Europe is defined by the fact that it made with culturally diverse lands, polically unified in a quite recent political and democratic construction.
Culturally greco-roman culture ? Western Europe had greco-roman herency, but estaern Europe too (and during a longer time trough byzantine empire). And Arabo-muslism civilisation could also have the right to cliam this herency, the greek influence was huge in the formation of the way of thinking of islamic philosphers and scientifics. All this would be part of the mediterreanean cvilisations in the large meaning
" To be a Western European means (apart from the geographical notions) to be a member of a civilization that has a long history of relatively small, competing political units where constitutional democracy and inventions could develop. "
I agree this could be a definition of Europe as a whole, even if it I don't think that democracy and inventions are a European speciality.
But as a definition of western Europe only !?... excluding eastern Europe from democracy and appart of the "greco-roman" herency seem meaningless and pretty much "racist" I think. Supposing that because of recent non-democratic history and economic difficulties, eastern Europe is of a complete different civilisation than western Europe... Not so long time ago some part of western Europe were dictatures: Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy.
I don't understanding would be making Western Europe as a culturally unified civilisation, And what makes eastern Europe culturally appart ?
Religion ? Is it because Eastern Europe is mainly Orthodox? Well Greece is orthodox and in eastern Europe, but everybody consider it as a western european country. in western Europe lands are of catholic herency and other are protestant one. Outside of economico-political considerations, I personally feel culturally closer to Poland than to Sweden, and would not feel culturally closer to norway than to Russia for exemple.
Of course no feeling of European unity was achieved during Charlemagne's lifetime. But I think that by spreading Christianity and giving an example of the fusion of Greco-Roman, Christian and Germanic culture his predecessors, he and his successors laid the foundation for that unity that came to be known as Christendom = the influence sphere of the Pope in Rome = the heir of the Western Roman Empire.
Although also the Orthodox people in Eastern Europe were Christians, they were seen as a separate world / unity after the Great Schism in the 11th century.
And autocratic, Orthodox Tsarist Russia was quite different from the constitutional, small Catholic nations in the West: From Iceland in the North to the Kingdom of Naples in the South, from Czechia in the East to Ireland in the West.
Here I want to stress that the old division line is not the Iron Curtain, but between Catholic and Orthodox nations. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia all belonged to the same cultural sphere as other Catholic countries in the Middle Ages. While Greece was undoubtedly a part of the Oriental, Muslim, Osmanic world until the independence movement in the 19th century.
Nobody denies that also Orthodox countries had a Greco-Roman heritage. But the point is that they combined it with Christianity and Slavic culture, while western Europe combined it with Christian and Germanic culture. That is for instance why you don't have feudalism (in the Western European sense) in Orthodox countries. And estate assemblies were an integral part of feudalism and from it developed parlamentarian democracy in the Western European fashion.
I presume you are French, fab? Then it is just logical that you would feel culturally closer to Poland than to Sweden. Apart from a few years as a member of the East Bloc, Poland has always been a part of Western European Civilisation. But when you say you don't feel closer to Norway than to Russia I suspect you of never having been to Norway.
Although also the Orthodox people in Eastern Europe were Christians, they were seen as a separate world / unity after the Great Schism in the 11th century.
And autocratic, Orthodox Tsarist Russia was quite different from the constitutional, small Catholic nations in the West: From Iceland in the North to the Kingdom of Naples in the South, from Czechia in the East to Ireland in the West.
Here I want to stress that the old division line is not the Iron Curtain, but between Catholic and Orthodox nations. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia all belonged to the same cultural sphere as other Catholic countries in the Middle Ages. While Greece was undoubtedly a part of the Oriental, Muslim, Osmanic world until the independence movement in the 19th century.
Nobody denies that also Orthodox countries had a Greco-Roman heritage. But the point is that they combined it with Christianity and Slavic culture, while western Europe combined it with Christian and Germanic culture. That is for instance why you don't have feudalism (in the Western European sense) in Orthodox countries. And estate assemblies were an integral part of feudalism and from it developed parlamentarian democracy in the Western European fashion.
I presume you are French, fab? Then it is just logical that you would feel culturally closer to Poland than to Sweden. Apart from a few years as a member of the East Bloc, Poland has always been a part of Western European Civilisation. But when you say you don't feel closer to Norway than to Russia I suspect you of never having been to Norway.