Does France deserve its name?

Sergio   Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:32 pm GMT
Tiffany,
The above post was mine. I forgot to sign it.
Sergio   Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:43 pm GMT
Hi LAA,

>Was it incredibly easy for you guys to learn Italian after already speaking Spanish?
You have to take into account that my mother tongue is Spanish. So my perspective of Italian is for sure very different than Tiffany's, and your's as well, being Spanish your mother tongue either, although you are near fluent in Spanish, as you said.
I have reached an advanced level in a relative short time, let's say, 4 months, but then I stop studying it and practising, so nowadays I wouldn't dare to say that I have this advanced level anymore.

But as Tiffany said, being fluent in Sp or being it your mother tongue is still dangerous because it creates a false "security" feeling, and then you have to concentrate in the differences. I think, the more alike a language is to your mother tongue, the more difficult is to achieve a good level, without making mistakes or using words assuming that they exist in both languages.


>And, how practical have you found it to be, outside of Italy?
In my case it was just for pleasure, and I have barely used it actively since I learnt it. I still read and listend a lot of Italian though.
The problem is that I started to learn Italian, French, Portuguese and Catalan simultaneosly, just as a hobby, and after a couple of weeks, I concentrated more in Italian and French, because of a healtier distance from Sp. Pt and Catalan became very difficult for me because they ressemble Spanish so much.
Guest   Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:49 pm GMT
Hi Uriel,

>that Spanish doesn't make much distinction between "South" and "southern" the way English often does
No, Spanish makes exactly the same distinction between both words.
South (Adverb).- Sur (el sur)
Southern/ South-something.- Sud-something (Sudamérica)/ alternative in Spanish for this case: ".... del sur" (América del Sur).

>But if I understand Sergio's explanation correctly, "America del Sur" is more analogous to the way an English-speaker would think of Southern Europe -- just as the lower part of a larger continent.
Exactly Uriel.

Note.- not willing to extend this discussion, I insist to leave it here. Not meaning be rude either, of course.
Sergio   Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:51 pm GMT
The post above was also mine... I forgot to sign it again....
KGH   Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:02 pm GMT
>>Does France deserve its name?<<

If one tried to answer this question objectively and thereby leaving all the crap on culture and supposed geneology behind (You failed LAA) ... it could be interesting.

The first think you need to do is find out what exactly "France" means. Well, "France" derives from an Old French words, which itself was based on Middle Latin "Francia" its original meaning was "(Realm) of the Franks". This applied to the entire Frankish realm, comparable to nearly entire Western Europe minus the British Isles and adding Italy and the western half of central Europe.

This empire was divided in three parts of which only West Francia and East Francia proved viable.

East Francia was eventually transformed into the Holy Roman Empire, and concequently West Francia dropped the adjective "West" forming what we now know as France.

In its original meaning it meant Realm of the Franks, as in area controlled by Franks. Which proved to be true until the French revolution, afterall the Romans were kicked out and replaced by Frankish warlords who later turned into nobles. Of these nobles the most powerful lived in a region known as Île-de-France, this region also gave birth to the name "French".

So yes, France deserves its name.
LAA - Juaquin en la caja!   Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:22 pm GMT
"If one tried to answer this question objectively and thereby leaving all the crap on culture and supposed geneology behind (You failed LAA) ... it could be interesting. "

Why? You act as if these are completely irrelevant to a country. Language, culture, and geneology are the cornerstones of a nation.

I am very well acquainted with the history behind France's name. There were also many Gallo-Roman landowners which helped comprise the French aristocracy. And nearly all of the Clergy class, which was the second estate, and major landowner of France, were almost always Gallo-Romans.

So if by that logic, France deserves its name, does that mean that Spain should be named after the Visigoths, when after all, it was the "realm/kingdom of the Visigoths"? The kingdom of the Franks also extended to the low countries, and in fact, the majority of Franks lived in the modern day north half of Belgium and the Netherlands. But, these lands, the true land of the Franks, are not called "France".

The point is that the name is misleading. By that name, people who are unaware of the history of France, will assume that the people of France are Franks, or descendants of Franks. While this is partially true, it would be more accurate to say that the Flemings and Dutch are the descendants of the Franks.
Uriel   Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:43 am GMT
<<Hi Uriel,

>that Spanish doesn't make much distinction between "South" and "southern" the way English often does
No, Spanish makes exactly the same distinction between both words.
South (Adverb).- Sur (el sur)
Southern/ South-something.- Sud-something (Sudamérica)/ alternative in Spanish for this case: ".... del sur" (América del Sur). >>

Ah! Thank you, Sergio.
Aldvs   Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:49 am GMT
Spanish, also 'uses' -sud- (south)
greg   Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:00 am GMT
LAA - Juaquin en la caja! : « So if by that logic, France deserves its name, does that mean that Spain should be named after the Visigoths, when after all, it was the "realm/kingdom of the Visigoths"? »
Vraiment, tu manies le sophisme trollistique avec infiniment plus de dextérité que l'échange d'informations...
Ce n'est pas parce que le nom de la France s'est avéré être <France> qu'il faille en tirer une quelconque conclusion au sujet de l'Espagne.
C'est un peu comme si tu disais : « Si je te suis, est-ce que Paul doit se coiffer d'un chapeau bleu puisque Pierre porte des chaussettes bleues ? ».



LAA - Juaquin en la caja! : « I am very well acquainted with the history behind France's name. »
Tant mieux ! C'est une très bonne nouvelle qui nous réjouit tous.



LAA - Juaquin en la caja! : « The kingdom of the Franks also extended to the low countries, and in fact, the majority of Franks lived in the modern day north half of Belgium and the Netherlands. But, these lands, the true land of the Franks, are not called "France". »
Puisque tu es un spécialiste chevronné de l'onomastique hexagonale, nul ignare ici présent n'osera douter que ton érudition englobe également l'histoire bimillénaire des Gaules-devenues-la-France.
Personne, j'en suis sûr, n'aura l'outrecuidance de te faire remarquer que la Flandre a fait partie du royaume de ***France*** pendant de longs siècles...
http://www.cr-npdc.fr/reperes/France/Histoire/04/04-01.htm
http://www.cr-npdc.fr/reperes/France/Histoire/04/04-03.htm
Il va sans dire que les ancêtres de nos amis belges et néerlandais n'ont jamais été incorporés dans la France napoléonienne.
http://francegenweb.org/~napmargenweb/mapempire.php
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Dep-fr.jpg



LAA - Juaquin en la caja! : « The point is that the name is misleading. By that name, people who are unaware of the history of France [et dieu sait s'ils sont nombreux...], will assume that the people of France are Franks, or descendants of Franks. While this is partially true, it would be more accurate to say that the Flemings and Dutch are the descendants of the Franks. »
Oui, si ces gens ont pour cadre de référence le schéma traditionnel suivant : {nom *DU* peuple} = {nom du pays}. La spécificité de la France est de n'avoir pas suivi ce schéma classique. D'abord parce que plusieurs peuples coexistaient sur le territoire en question (qui à l'époque se définissait de deux façons : duché ou royaume de France) et ensuite parce que le pouvoir a changé de mains, ce qui donne le schéma suivant : {nom du peuple *AU POUVOIR*} = {nom du pays}. La France est réellement une construction politique — son nom et son histoire en témoignent.
a.p.a.m.   Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:29 pm GMT
Why should France be named after a bunch of primitive tree worshiping bellicose half-savages who bleached their hair with lime and shaped it into spikes? They were politically and organizationally ignorant. They were not advanced. The Gauls were to France what the Native Americans were to the USA. Since the Native Americans were the original inhabitants of The United States, should we name our country The United States of Mohawk? Or, how about The Nation of the Navajo. Or Cherokeea. Or, Seminolia? Totally absurd. The Europeans who first settled these shores were responsible for creating our nation for what it is today. They introduced Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which is derived from Roman Law. They introduced the Christian religion, and they introduced advanced farming techniques not to mention something that was totally alien to the American Natives. Industry. The Europeans who first settled this continent were far more advanced in medial technology, and wore better clothes. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't even think the Natives even had the wheel. The Europeans had far superior weaponry as well. You can make a clear parallel between the Native Americans of The Western Hemisphere and the Celtic Gauls of Ancient FRANCE. They were both very primitive compared to their conquerors. They were both conquered by a far more advanced people.
Sander   Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:17 pm GMT
You can say about the Gauls what you like, but one most remember that the Gauls as a whole were far more advanced compared to the Germanic tribes who conquered them.
greg   Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:32 pm GMT
a.p.a.m. : « They [LES GAULOIS] were politically and organizationally ignorant. »

Non, c'est faux. Les Gaulois étaient *DIVISÉS*, ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'ils étaient ingorants. Bien au contraire : certaines tribus avaient une politique extérieure extrêmement bien pensée et un réseau d'alliances hors du commun. Simplement, ces outils diplomatiques étaient au service exclusif de leur tribu et éventuellement de leurs alliés (gaulois, grecs, romains ou autres), mais certainement pas conçus pour bénéficier à une hypothétique "nation gauloise" qui n'a d'ailleurs jamais existé.


a.p.a.m. : « They [LES GAULOIS] were not advanced. »
Faux, encore. Les Gaulois possédaient une civilisation brillante, une industrie prospère et une force militaire respectée, même (et surtout) par Rome.


a.p.a.m. : « The Gauls were to France what the Native Americans were to the USA. »
Non, malheureusement pour les Amérindiens. Je dis ça parce qui si les Amérindiens avaient connu le même sort que les Gaulois, Sitting Bull aurait été président des États-Unis et Géronimo secrétaire général de l'ONU.


a.p.a.m. : « You can make a clear parallel between the Native Americans of The Western Hemisphere and the Celtic Gauls of Ancient FRANCE. »
Oh que non ! Une observation, et une seule, suffira à ruiner ton petit échaffaudage : les Gaulois ***CONNAISSAIENT*** tous les peuples de l'Antiquité (y compris les Romains, bien sûr). Les Gaulois parlaient grec à Marseille, Agde et Nice mais aussi en Asie mineure où ils étaient conus sous le nom de Γαλάται (Galataï = Galates). Les Gaulois maîtrisaient les alphabets latin, grec et étrusque — preuve de leur relations avec toutes ces civilisations.
Je ne suis pas certain que les Améridiens utlisaient les alphabets latin et cyrillique avant l'arrivée de Christophe Colomb...


a.p.a.m. : « They were both very primitive compared to their conquerors. They were both conquered by a far more advanced people. »
En fait, et ceci clora le débat de façon définitve, les Gaulois ont conquis Rome en 390 av J.-C. Brennus — oui, B-r-e-n-n-u-s — était le nom de leur chef et tu ferais bien de (re)lire son histoire car elle mérite d'être connue. Les Romains avaient une ***PEUR BLEUE*** des Gaulois, non l'inverse. L'histoire a également montré que la rancune de Rome était tenace... Mais on ne leur en veut pas !
Que je sache, Cochise et Mangas Coloradas n'ont pas attaqué et conquis New-York, si ?
Nightingale   Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:12 pm GMT
I haven't read the above posts, but responding to the topic question...

I think it's inconsequential whether France should be named after the Franks. It's no more use arguing over the name "France" than it is arguing whether England should be named "Saxonland" or "Celtland", or whether China should more aptly be "Hania" (after the Han people) or "Middle County" (after its Chinese name).

Countries' names evolved randomly. The Qin dynasty only ruled China for 15 years, but hey, it lent its name to our country in most European languages! We Chinese call our country "The Middle Country", but in this day and age, everyone knows that China isn't at the world's centre.

The Angles were one of many races that settled in England, and they weren't the most civilised either, but the country's now called England and the name is here to stay.

Face it: countries' names don't make sense. They never have =p
a.p.a.m.   Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:05 pm GMT
Anybody who studies Gallic history knows that the Gauls weren't sophisticated enough to create a unified nation out of the vast country (France) that they occupied. The Franks did a better job as administrators. The Franks advanced Roman laws, language, culture and civilization. The Gauls accepted Romanization after they were brutally conquered. And by the way, pre-Roman Gaul was not all Gallic. Much of southern Gaul was inhabited by Basques, Iberians, and Ligurians. The Gauls interbred with these people. In the northeast and eastern fringes of pre-Roman Gaul, the Gauls intermingled with the numerous Germanic people living there. So for any one to say that France should be named after its original inhabitants is silly. And furthermore, and more importantly, The Gauls were not the original inhabitants of France. France was originally populated by a non-Indo-European people called the "Ligurians". The Ligurians far outdated any other people in what is now France. Should we call France "Liguria"? No, Liguria is a region of Northwestern Italy. Both the Iberians and the Basques pre-dated the Gauls as well. The Gauls were newcomers in French history.
Tiffany   Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:43 pm GMT
<<Si, grazie. Dovevo avverlo immaginato, datoché in italiano pratticamente tutte le parole finiscono in vocale. Nello spagnolo si dice anche "foro".>>

La maggior parte degli italiani usano "forum" su internet ed a volte nella vita vera per significare una discussione. La parola "foro" è usato per significare una piazza. Almeno nella mia esperienza...