|
|
The relationships between the neo-Latin languages
Tell me that the Galician and Portuguese speakers, on those samples, are not speaking the same language. Many linguists still consider them the same language.
It is obvious that Ricardo does not speak like them. He must speak with a thick spanish accent. In Galicia we call it castrapo.
The Catalan and Basque show more PRIDE in their language and take better care od it instead of making it sound like a spanish dialect.
<<Contrary of what preconcieved ideas that some posters here would want to believe, the influcence of germanic languages is not bigger in French than in Spanish. >>
Yes, I believe that is correct. French borrowed a few Frankish words here and there, but Spanish adopted many Gothic words as well. Spanish and Portuguese share a great deal of Arabic loan words, which French and Italian do not possess, because unlike the Iberians, they were never subjected to Arab rule and influence. Lexically, Italian is the most closely related to French. They share 89% of the same vocabulary. (This does not mean that 89% of their words are the exact same. For instance, French will omit a vowel at the ends of the Italian cognate, or will pronounce the word spelled the same differently, or French will flip a few letters around, or omit some, or add some, etc. Especially in spoken form, French words of the same origin as their Italian equivalents are barely recognizable by speakers of the opposite language because of the drastic differences in pronouncing or alterting the word which is virtually the same.) Italian - Formaggio molto buono Buongiorno amore amico Napoleone Buonaparte French- Fromage tres? bon Bonjour amour ami Napoleon Bonaparte (both names drop the final vowel sound) In spoken French, you have a profound nasalization of many sounds, an uvular 'r' as opposed to a rolled 'r', and numerous flat endings, and unpronounced consonants all of which makes French, in spoken form, sound very different from Italian. In spoken form, French sounds very "un-Latin" to most people, and they assume that it is the most distant, most "Germanic" of the Romance languages, when in reality, it is no more "Germanic" than Spanish, and in actuality, closely related to Italian. I believe all of this applies to the relationship shared between Spanish and Portuguese.
LAA : « French (...) do not possess, because unlike the Iberians, they were never subjected to Arab rule and influence. »
Absolument faux ! Une partie du futur royaume de France a été occupée par les Arabes et les Arabes ont énormément influencé les lettres & sciences d'Oc & d'Oïl. LAA : « In spoken French, you have a profound nasalization of many sounds (...) ». Non, le concept de "profonde" nasalisation ne veut rien dire. Ou c'est nasal, ou ça ne l'est pas. Il y a 4 voyelles nasales en français (c'est pas très "profond") et deux ou trois consonnes nasales (pas très "profond" non plus). LAA : « (...) an uvular 'r' as opposed to a rolled 'r' (...) ». Tu n'as rien compris encore une fois : le <r> uvulaire ne s'oppose pas au <r> roulé. Ce sont deux variantes non-phonémiques. En français, tu peux utiliser un <r> roulé à l'italienne ou bien prononcé à l'anglaise : ça n'a ***AUCUNE*** importance. LAA : « (...) and numerous flat endings (...) ». Au contraire, comme je te l'ai répété déjà 650 fois, l'accentuation de mot (très légère) porte la plupart du temps sur la ***DERNIÈRE*** syllabe :<aimé> [e'me], <parti> [paR'ti], <aperçu> [apER'sy] etc. LAA : « In spoken form, French sounds very "un-Latin" to most people(...) ». Oui, si tu parles des gens qui ***CONFONDENT*** latinité avec hispanité ou italianité. Le latin ne ressemblait ni à l'espagnol ni à l'italien (et ni au français bien sûr). Tu ne fais que superposer tes clichés perso de façon anachronique sur une réalité qui t'échappe complètement.
/In spoken French, you have a profound nasalization/
Didn't you want to say Portuguese ? If French has a profound nasalization Portuguese has a very profound nasalization.
"or will pronounce the word spelled the same differently"
LAA, You're forgetting the numerous times where basic (very common) french and italian words spell quite differently but are pronounced the same way: QUI - CHI TOUTES - TUTTE EST - E ES - E LES - LE etc. when their spanish equivalents are different both on spelling and pronounciation : QUIEN, TODAS, ESTA, ERES, LAS, etc. " French words of the same origin as their Italian equivalents are barely recognizable by speakers of the opposite language " How can you speak in the name of Italian speakers? you're not even one on them! " because of the drastic differences in pronouncing or alterting the word which is virtually the same.) " The exemple you gave are tipically the exemple of words that sound very similar more than spell alike ! Formaggio, molto (moult), buono, Buongiorno, amore, amico, Napoleone Buonaparte ... Are completly sounding alike in both languages, they sound like their french equivelents spoken with an italian accent. " In spoken French, you have a profound nasalization of many sounds " first, among romance laguages nasalization is not a french specificity, it is found also in portuguese (and mybe others). And secondly, the "nasal vowels" (In, On, En (and their derivations "ein, ain, un"), are not prononced "nazalized" in all french accents, the Quebec prononciation is very different and the southern accents pronounce lightely the "n" and not a nasalized "in/en/on". It is not a necessity to "nasalize" them, as a lot of francophnes doesn't. " an uvular 'r' as opposed to a rolled 'r' " Once again, "uvular r" is not a characteristic of French. French was spoken with a "rolled r" for centuries, and a lot of francophones continue today to roll their "r" (and ARE native french speakers !!) The quebec "r" is often rolled to, or prononced the american way by native french speakers. The French african accents tend to not pronounce their "r" at all. A lot of "r" pronouciations exist in real french, the "uvular r" is not at all an obligation, just a modern feature of "standard" European French. " In spoken form, French sounds very "un-Latin" to most people " LAA, your problem still the same; you continue to confuse "latin"(related to latin civilisation) with "hispanic"(centred around castillian language and civilisation). I don't blame you for that, since we all know that it is the way the modern medias try to brainwash all of us. This confusion has become complete in the mind of a lot of people, especially when those terms are applied on "racial" features (such as Antonio Banderas), as the unique reference of the "latin person. Castillian language is presented by most medias as the reference of "latiness". "latin" music shoud necessary be sang in spanish, etc. We should not forget that Spanish culture is only one branch of the latin family, and is not especially a branch with a central position (linguistically, nor geographically or historically).
<<LAA, your problem still the same; you continue to confuse "latin"(related to latin civilisation) with "hispanic"(centred around castillian language and civilisation).>>
No. As Greg would say, "Absolument Faux!" When I think of Latin culture and civilization, I think of southwestern Europe, and only secondly, do I think of Latin America. Hispanic-America is Latin in the sense that it is an offshoot of Latin European culture and civilization. How many times do I have to explain my view to you on this matter? <<We should not forget that Spanish culture is only one branch of the latin family, and is not especially a branch with a central position (linguistically, nor geographically or historically).>> So who has a "central position"? France? <<I don't blame you for that, since we all know that it is the way the modern medias try to brainwash all of us. This confusion has become complete in the mind of a lot of people, especially when those terms are applied on "racial" features>> Evidently you missed my post featuring several paragraphs on the idiocy of categorizing all of the people of Latin America into one racial classification called "Latino" based on the Mestizo or Hispanic look.
" No. As Greg would say, "Absolument Faux!" When I think of Latin culture and civilization, I think of southwestern Europe, and only secondly, do I think of Latin America. Hispanic-America is Latin in the sense that it is an offshoot of Latin European culture and civilization."
Yes, but due to your background (the place where you live in), your comments since a few months let clearly notice the idea that your reference of latinity was the "hispanic" stereotype. When I said "hispanic" I of course did not meant "Mexican or Hispanic-American", but the real meaning, "Hispanic" as "related to SPAIN and SPANISH language and culture". As many people you had let in old posts the idea that the Spanish (or more precisely the image you have of Spain, which seemed to be based mainly upon the Andalucian stereotype) was, conciently or inconciently, you reference point of the "latin" thing (maybe mixed with tipically latin-american things). I know that you changed your mind, but we had to had long and endless discussion. But I also tend to think that your "evolution" is not completly finished and you continue to think from a Hispanic point of view. From a spanislanguage-centred point of view, it could seem that french would seem "feel less latin" as you said, because in reality you inconciously though in your head that everything spanish is the most latin that one could imagine - and, compared to the Spanish (southern spanish) stereotype you have in mind France/French culture could seem less similar. The reality is if we place the center of reference of latinity in another point, it would be the spanish culture/people/language that would "feel less latin". " So who has a "central position"? France? " I personally don't think there should be a central position. In a family all members are part of the same family at the same level, with their common points and their differences. If we think in an historical point of view, Italy would have a more central role (even if Italy changed. Italy and Roman empire is not the same thing). If we place ourselves in a geographic point of view, the south of France is the "gravity center" of the "latin arch". In the formation of the concept of "latinity", France had a central role. It was also France who named the former Spanish, Portuguese and French colonies in America under the name "latin-America" in the 19th. " Evidently you missed my post featuring several paragraphs on the idiocy of categorizing all of the people of Latin America into one racial classification called "Latino" based on the Mestizo or Hispanic look. " I was not thinking about the "mestizo look", but the "black-haired-black-eyed-hot-blooded" stereotype (exemple of Antonio Banderas), based mainly upon the extreme south of Spain and Italy, which is inacurate in most of the rest of these countries.
"That's not exactly correct. The Italian equivalent of "vosotros" is "voi"."
Yes, and Italian "Voi" is identical with Romanian "Voi" and Italian "vostra" is a possessive adjective used in conjunction with a feminine noun. Same as Romanian "voastra"
<<As many people you had let in old posts the idea that the Spanish (or more precisely the image you have of Spain, which seemed to be based mainly upon the Andalucian stereotype) was, conciently or inconciently, you reference point of the "latin" thing (maybe mixed with tipically latin-american things). >>
Yes, and I was humble enough to admit that such a point of view was wrong. My main error in thinking was that "Latin" is synonymous with, and inextricably linked with the mediterranean (warm climate, passionate, gregarious, vivacious people (party, show emotions, affectionate), Catholic, stereotype of Spain and southern Italy. And as far as the "latininity" of various languages, I still at the present moment, can't help but associate Latin languages with the rolled 'r's and vowel-rich languages of Italian and Spanish. I still think that southern Italy is much more like Spain than France, while Northern Italy (Milan, Venice, etc) is more like France. And I thank you for correcting my error in thinking. Chalck it up to youthful exuberance if you wish. But, you yourself, must also correct your central point of view. You are from Nice. You live in the French riviera, literally right in the heart of the Mediterranean. You look around, and even if your not conscious of it, the people around you look mainly like mediterranean people, with higher rates of darker features. Your natural environment is reminiscent of nothing but the mediterranean. You live within close proximity to Italy, and the climate, local cuisine, and landscape are all mediterranean in nature. So, as a citizen from Nice, you can't possibly entertain the notion that France is anything but a southern European country. But to outsiders, we see France as a whole a bit differently. France's economic, political, cultural, and linguistic nucleus is Paris, and I believe Apam illustrated it beautfilly when he said something along the lines that France was positioned toward the north. France projects herself to the world through Paris. We see mainly northern France, with accents which are very nasal, and the 'r's are most definantly uvular. We see cuisine which features a lot of butter in place of the mediterranean diet of tomatos and olive oils. We see a stereotype of Frenchmen looking like brown hair, light brown eyes, and light skin. This would be the equivalent of a Galician or citizen of Asturias as being the standard for a stereotypical Spaniard. We see a culture of people who are aloof, as opposed to affectionate and passionate. So, with all of this, it is easy to see how one can come to associate France with the south less so than with Italy or Spain. France, has differences as well, and just as in Italy, where there are "two Italys", so France has its northern and southern half. You live in the extreme south, so that is your central point of reference. You have to learn to see France as most outsiders do.
Is that you LAA?
I agree with him that much of the outside's world perception of France is one city: Paris. I am unsure if France herself is to blame for this exported image, but he is quite right. French is then based upon that and to the outside, it really seems the uvular r is standard. There is the truth and there is the prevalent stereotype.
" But, you yourself, must also correct your central point of view. You are from Nice. You live in the French riviera, literally right in the heart of the Mediterranean "
I has been living a part of my life in Nice, but actually I live in Paris since 10 years. I've been living also in other cities suh as Montpellier (which is in the south too, but is very different from the "Cote d'azur"(Riviera)). " You look around, and even if your not conscious of it, the people around you look mainly like mediterranean people, with higher rates of darker features. " Actually, in Frence the people is very mixed, especially in big cities like Paris or Nice. I never noticed that the people was especially much "darker" in Nice than in Paris. " you can't possibly entertain the notion that France is anything but a southern European country " No, I don't think, at least geographically that northern France could be considered as southern European, while the south is clearly part of it. This was a long subject of a previous endless discussion. I personally consider the north of France to have a ambigous situation in Europe, being geographically, historically and climatically linked with northern European countries, but in the same time culturally linked with its southern part and with the other latin countries of southern Europe. Hello Tiffany, " I agree with him that much of the outside's world perception of France is one city: Paris. " Which is interesting about Paris (I consider it as "my city" since long time I live here, as well as Nice) , it is that it is in the same time a concentrate of all of rest of France - the country having been very centralized - and in the same time a city very different of the "provinces" (the rest of the country). I think it could be compared (with some differences) with the relation of NYC and the rest of the US (in the provinces there are often a sort of love-hate relation with Paris). But I don't think either that Paris could resume itself the whole country, aswell as it hasno't all the characteristics of the other cities of northern France, (except the climate and localisation). The same way Milano has attracted peoples from other Italian regions, Paris population is very cosmopolitan and not necessary tipical of northern France. For me, the true northern France regions are Normandy, Nord-pas-de-Calais or Alsace - when I go there I have a feeling of been abroad. On the other way the big southern cities have also recieved populations from the north of france, aswell as huge amounts of north-African french people who were rappatriated after the independance of Algeria.
<<I personally consider the north of France to have a ambigous situation in Europe, being geographically, historically and climatically linked with northern European countries, but in the same time culturally linked with its southern part and with the other latin countries of southern Europe.>>
And as so many outsiders see France through the lense of Paris, and northern France, this is exactly why some come to identify France with northern Europe. Even, as a young student in public school (government sponsored) our history and social science textbooks describe France as a northern European country. This is not an exact quote, but our books said something like this: "During this time period, Spanish and Portuguese power and influence began to dissipate, as did the formerly rich and influential Italian city-states, who at one point, possessed a monopoly over trade with the orient. Now, northern European countries like England, France, and the Netherlands began to take a leading role in European affairs, and became the dominant forces in colonial empire building around the globe." |