The franks live in south Germany, and in France the french. This argument want to make all the people in a country to be exactly the same, and also to be their ''name''. I don't understand the necessity for it. Other countries' names aren't representing the race of the people I think, (or are representing those who lived before).
Does France deserve its name?
Pauline, the name "France" has stuck. The name has been around for hundreds of years. Why tamper with something that's working?
<<fab, what I was trying to say was that since Paris is the governmental, cultural, linguistic, economic capital of France, its northern position in France gives the nation of France a more northern leaning. >>
Yep.
Fab,
You still don't get it.
Yep.
Fab,
You still don't get it.
Pauline,
The point is, "French" is the same word as "Frank", only it is a derivative of the Latin word for "Frank" or "Frankreich". "Frankrijk" was changed to "Francia" in Latin, and because the Gallo-Romans spoke a Latin language, their derivative of "Francia" was "France". So, if somebody is a citizen of "Francia" or "France", that would be the equivalent of being a citizen of "Frankrijk", or simply, a "Frank". Fab admits that they are etymolgically linked, but he won't acknowledge that they retain the same meaning. It's no different than "English" and "Anglais", or "Angland" (old name of England, after the Angles) and "England". The pronounciation of the word and the modern spelling has just changed. Do you understand what I am trying to say now?
The point is, "French" is the same word as "Frank", only it is a derivative of the Latin word for "Frank" or "Frankreich". "Frankrijk" was changed to "Francia" in Latin, and because the Gallo-Romans spoke a Latin language, their derivative of "Francia" was "France". So, if somebody is a citizen of "Francia" or "France", that would be the equivalent of being a citizen of "Frankrijk", or simply, a "Frank". Fab admits that they are etymolgically linked, but he won't acknowledge that they retain the same meaning. It's no different than "English" and "Anglais", or "Angland" (old name of England, after the Angles) and "England". The pronounciation of the word and the modern spelling has just changed. Do you understand what I am trying to say now?
Well, in Germany most people don't actually consider the French as the "modern Franks" just because of the etymology of their name! We still see them as "gallic" or celtic people. So, although the german name for France is "Frankreich", nowadays it doesn't refer to those ancient people giving France her name. Maybe it's because of the fact that in Germany today, there are people called "die Franken" (engl.: the Franks), there are "frankish regions" in Bavaria, Thuringia and Baden-Württemberg, places like Frankfurt (2x), Fränkische Alb, Frankenwald (engl.: forest of the Franks), Frankenthal, frankish dialects, plenty of surnames like "Franke/ Frank/Franck".
Of course, I know that the ancient Franks played a significant role in France (and also in other european countries), I still view the French as a celtic nation with more or less Latin and Germanic influences.
By the way, the german word for "French" is "Franzose", resembling the french "Francais".
Of course, I know that the ancient Franks played a significant role in France (and also in other european countries), I still view the French as a celtic nation with more or less Latin and Germanic influences.
By the way, the german word for "French" is "Franzose", resembling the french "Francais".
a.p.a.m you've written :
''Pauline, the name "France" has stuck. The name has been around for hundreds of years. Why tamper with something that's working? ''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
But why write this to me???? I think as well that the name's fine and why to change it. Probably you didn't understood my message:(
____________________________________________________
LAA,
Thanks for explaining me it, but no, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry! I don't know about this subject, but I have written because I consider it is ridiculous to say France isn't the correct name. What you wish to call it then?
''Pauline, the name "France" has stuck. The name has been around for hundreds of years. Why tamper with something that's working? ''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
But why write this to me???? I think as well that the name's fine and why to change it. Probably you didn't understood my message:(
____________________________________________________
LAA,
Thanks for explaining me it, but no, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry! I don't know about this subject, but I have written because I consider it is ridiculous to say France isn't the correct name. What you wish to call it then?
<<Well, in Germany most people don't actually consider the French as the "modern Franks" just because of the etymology of their name! We still see them as "gallic" or celtic people. >>
PRECISELY!!! Everyone should correctly see the French as Gallic people of Gallic culture. Just to clarify, in English "Gallic", when used to refer to the people of France after the Romanization of Gaul, is synonymous with "French". In other words, in this instance, "Gallic" means "Gallo-Romance" or the special Latin culture and people of Gaul/France.
The French are not ethnically Frankish (Germanic). They don't speak a Germanic language, or a language derived from that of the Franks. And they are not a Germanic culture, but a Latin one (Gallic). So, the naming them after the Franks does not sound reasonable to me, anymore than naming the Italians "Ostrogoths" or the Spanish after the "Visigoths". They were called "Gauls" all the way up to the time of 800s-900s AD. So, why change their name from Gauls to French, when "French" is a derivative of the word "Franks", to which the "French" do not belong. The linguistic, cultural, and ethnic barrier along the Roman frontier that existed between Gaul and Germany is stil in existence today. So, why confusingly name the people of Gaul after Germans (Franks)?
PRECISELY!!! Everyone should correctly see the French as Gallic people of Gallic culture. Just to clarify, in English "Gallic", when used to refer to the people of France after the Romanization of Gaul, is synonymous with "French". In other words, in this instance, "Gallic" means "Gallo-Romance" or the special Latin culture and people of Gaul/France.
The French are not ethnically Frankish (Germanic). They don't speak a Germanic language, or a language derived from that of the Franks. And they are not a Germanic culture, but a Latin one (Gallic). So, the naming them after the Franks does not sound reasonable to me, anymore than naming the Italians "Ostrogoths" or the Spanish after the "Visigoths". They were called "Gauls" all the way up to the time of 800s-900s AD. So, why change their name from Gauls to French, when "French" is a derivative of the word "Franks", to which the "French" do not belong. The linguistic, cultural, and ethnic barrier along the Roman frontier that existed between Gaul and Germany is stil in existence today. So, why confusingly name the people of Gaul after Germans (Franks)?
LAA : « The French are not ethnically Frankish (Germanic). They don't speak a Germanic language, or a language derived from that of the Franks. And they are not a Germanic culture, but a Latin one (Gallic). So, the naming them after the Franks does not sound reasonable to me (...) »
Ça va être dur de lui déciller les yeux !
C'est normal que ça ne te semble pas "raisonnable" puisque la France est une construction ***POLITIQUE*** par excellence. La France a existé avant que le français ne s'impose comme langue dominante ou officielle du pays. La France médiévale a toujours regroupé des peuples de cultures très différentes (y compris la Flandre) : un peu comme l'Union européenne aujourd'hui.
La raison pour laquelle le terme <France> est tout à fait judicieux est qu'il correspond à l'affirmation d'un pouvoir politique grandissant¹ et demeure néanmoins étroitement lié à l'ancienne géopolitique².
¹C'est Philippe-Auguste qui prend le titre de «roi de France» (rex Franciæ) au lieu de «roi des Francs» (rex Francorum) — bien que «roi de France» ait été utilisé avant lui
²Duché de France — royaume de Francie (occidentale)
Ça va être dur de lui déciller les yeux !
C'est normal que ça ne te semble pas "raisonnable" puisque la France est une construction ***POLITIQUE*** par excellence. La France a existé avant que le français ne s'impose comme langue dominante ou officielle du pays. La France médiévale a toujours regroupé des peuples de cultures très différentes (y compris la Flandre) : un peu comme l'Union européenne aujourd'hui.
La raison pour laquelle le terme <France> est tout à fait judicieux est qu'il correspond à l'affirmation d'un pouvoir politique grandissant¹ et demeure néanmoins étroitement lié à l'ancienne géopolitique².
¹C'est Philippe-Auguste qui prend le titre de «roi de France» (rex Franciæ) au lieu de «roi des Francs» (rex Francorum) — bien que «roi de France» ait été utilisé avant lui
²Duché de France — royaume de Francie (occidentale)
If you still don't buy what I'm saying, consider this. When describing things related to the French, most people use the word "Franco", which is Latin for "Frank", because "Franco" is to "French", as "Anglo" is to "English". They mean the same thing, because they come from the same word. You hear "Francophones", which is just like "Anglophones". You hear of the "Franco-Prussian" war, of the "Franco-German" alliance in the EU, and so on. So, yes. "French" is an alternative way of saying "Franks", and yes, the modern French people are named after the "Franks", which is a group to which they do not belong, nor identifity with in linguistic terms, cultural terms, or in their heritage.
LAA : « The French are not ethnically Frankish (Germanic). They don't speak a Germanic language, or a language derived from that of the Franks. And they are not a Germanic culture, but a Latin one (Gallic). So, the naming them after the Franks does not sound reasonable to me (...) »
Good remark. I also think America does not sound reasonable to me.Not as the neme of a country or the name of a continent. Italians are a small minority,italian is not an official language and the lands were not discovered by Americo.
The land should be renamed COLOMBA after Colombo. And the inhabitants Colombos.
Good remark. I also think America does not sound reasonable to me.Not as the neme of a country or the name of a continent. Italians are a small minority,italian is not an official language and the lands were not discovered by Americo.
The land should be renamed COLOMBA after Colombo. And the inhabitants Colombos.
" the modern French people are named after the "Franks", which is a group to which they do not belong, nor identifity with in linguistic terms, cultural terms, or in their heritage. "
So let's call us Romans !
And let's change the name of Catalans too, because they are not ethnically goths and don't share the goth culture.
Let's change the name of Lombards too, because they are not Germanic.
Let's change the name of Colombia, because all colombians are not descending from cristobal Colombus !...
Let's change the name of Venezuela, because its inhabitants are not of venetian background, etc...
So let's call us Romans !
And let's change the name of Catalans too, because they are not ethnically goths and don't share the goth culture.
Let's change the name of Lombards too, because they are not Germanic.
Let's change the name of Colombia, because all colombians are not descending from cristobal Colombus !...
Let's change the name of Venezuela, because its inhabitants are not of venetian background, etc...
No one is going to change their name, so this is pointless. I just think that the Gauls should never have adopted the name of the Franks. It creates confusion among people. And you seem to hate the Gauls. I guarantee you, in the 800s A.D., the people of Gaul were not called Romans, but Gauls. After Romanization, "Gauls" and "Gallic" has nothing to do with Celtic culture and civilization. So, you shouldn't hide from that term. Calling your culture "Gallic" does not make you any less "Roman", just as calling Spain's culture "Hispanic" does not make them any less "Latin". Or were the Spaniards not Spaniards anymore? Were they just "Romans"? Where did all the Spaniards go? Did they float away to oblivion? Oh wait, that's right. They didn't go anywhere. To this day we still call them Spaniards, and refer to their culture as Hispanic. They're not called Romans anymore, because the Roman Empire has been dead and buried for 1500 years!
We can see what this has degenerated into. And the lesson is - leave well enough alone.
LAA, why do you feel the fervent need to classify the entire planet by using "ethnic" country names? What is the importance of this little exercise and what do you hope to prove?
You are arguing quite passionately, so you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that this is only a bit of fun for you, because if it is, you are taking it quite seriously - too seriously.
LAA, why do you feel the fervent need to classify the entire planet by using "ethnic" country names? What is the importance of this little exercise and what do you hope to prove?
You are arguing quite passionately, so you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that this is only a bit of fun for you, because if it is, you are taking it quite seriously - too seriously.
LAA : « The French are not ethnically Frankish (Germanic). They don't speak a Germanic language, or a language derived from that of the Franks. And they are not a Germanic culture, but a Latin one (Gallic). So, the naming them after the Franks does not sound reasonable to me (...) »
Do you have proofs for your statement, that French are not ethnically German? I have never found a concrete number like the one you mentioned (1:20?) of the proportion of people with Romanic and Germanic in the Gauls.
To my findings, at least the northern and Eastern Parts of the Gauls have probably an analogue history of civilization and population like the USA:
North American continent = the Gauls + Belgium
Indians = Celtic (gallic) population
English = Roman
English language = Latin
German settlers coming to te US = Germanic settlers and conquerors before and after the fall of the limes (Franks, Burgundii, Goths)
US English = French (vulgar Latin)
USA = France
In a year 2000 Census, Americans were able to state their ancestry. The most frequently stated European ancestries were German (19.2%), Irish (10.8%), English (7.7%), Italian (5.6%) and Scandinavian (3.7%).
Many rivers, cities, Mountains etc in the USA have indian names like many river, cities and Mountains in France have celtic names - but like the USA are far from being of indian language, culture and heritage, France is far from being gallic. The nation building concept of a gallic heritage stems from 19th century nationalism and Asterix. It would be amusing if it would not have caused so many wars in Europe...
Do you have proofs for your statement, that French are not ethnically German? I have never found a concrete number like the one you mentioned (1:20?) of the proportion of people with Romanic and Germanic in the Gauls.
To my findings, at least the northern and Eastern Parts of the Gauls have probably an analogue history of civilization and population like the USA:
North American continent = the Gauls + Belgium
Indians = Celtic (gallic) population
English = Roman
English language = Latin
German settlers coming to te US = Germanic settlers and conquerors before and after the fall of the limes (Franks, Burgundii, Goths)
US English = French (vulgar Latin)
USA = France
In a year 2000 Census, Americans were able to state their ancestry. The most frequently stated European ancestries were German (19.2%), Irish (10.8%), English (7.7%), Italian (5.6%) and Scandinavian (3.7%).
Many rivers, cities, Mountains etc in the USA have indian names like many river, cities and Mountains in France have celtic names - but like the USA are far from being of indian language, culture and heritage, France is far from being gallic. The nation building concept of a gallic heritage stems from 19th century nationalism and Asterix. It would be amusing if it would not have caused so many wars in Europe...