Are there Romance languages descending from Classical Latin?
<<Classical latin married Celtic tongues you mean, because some of the Romance languages only possess 'petite' remnants of Germanic influence.
>>
Where does this underlying hostility and dislike of germanic come from???
What spirit is lurking behind this? (and don't say the Franco-Prussian War, or WWI; WWII! Those events pertain to Alemannic/Deutsch specifically, not germanic)
Jordi, do you not realize that the language in which you chose to write your post is germanic?
This attitude borders on hate...
In a way, this can be inferred as clear evidence to the truth--that germanic truly is the mainstream influence of modern Western Civilization in culture and speech, otherwise it would not be so fiercely opposed. Human nature is always geared to root for the underdog (in this case Celtic and Latin) while simultaneously attacking anything that hints at predominance.
"the truth--that germanic truly is the mainstream influence of modern Western Civilization in culture and speech"
— Exact.
La civilisation européenne telle que nous la connaissons doit beaucoup à l'antiquité hellénique et romaine, mais son vrai départ a été la réorganisation du continent à l'initiative des peuples germaniques. Le principe des Etats-nations, qui reste central dans le monde actuel, a été une invention (+/- sérendipique, fortuite, via la féodalité) des Francs, Lombards, Angles, Wisigoths, Burgondes etc. Le début du haut Moyen-Age marque à cet égard une césure radicale avec le monde antique qui ne connaissait qu'empire, cités-Etats, ou tribus. C'est le vrai début di monde moderne.
Je ne vois pas de haine dans le message de Jordi, juste une exagération de la place du latin. Que celui-ci soit resté vivant jusqu'au 6e puis ait brusquement muté, partout en même temps, pour donner en à peine 200 ans des langues romanes complètement différentes, c'est radicalement impossible.
Je tends de + en + à adhérer à la thèse de Yves Cortez, "Le Français ne vient pas du Latin". Allez voir son blog:
http://yvescortez.canalblog.com/
Oil, you're right. Jordi's post doesn't contain hate...
Jordi, I apologize.
The hate I refer to is the culmination of several posts by other bloggers, and the general attitude of Academia, especially English-speaking Academia worldwide.
: )
People don't often realize that events and traditions we enjoy today are really handed down to us by our germanic forefathers. Traditions like Christmas and Easter, even though these have been altered to display a Christian veneer, they are truly Teutonic holidays.
Our wedding ceremonials too are in germanic fashion. Brides are adorned and given away to a type of Feudal Lord--not at all the way wedding are celebrated in the old world where the groom is the focus of attention.
Most of the time, we don't see how "german" (no reference to Germany) we really are.
Isn't our judicial system modelled after the one founded by the Franks as well?
With trial by jury of peers etc?
That's what I heard a teacher once say
Our judicial system (USA) is modeled after Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which has its origins in Ancient Roman Law.
Salut OïL,
You have written an interesting comment!!!! I fully agree with it.
On the other hand, I wanted to share my point of view about Latin and Germanic.
I can't understand what is this childish pride of claiming the Romance languages to descent in the purest way from Classical or Vulgar Latin whatsoever. For me, Spanish has, as all other Romance languages, evidently descended from Latin, but this is an objective fact that doesn't put other languages (especially mentioned in this kind of discussion: the Germanic and Celtic ones) on an inferior place at all!!!... if there was (and there will keep being for sure) influence from other languages, what is the problem with that?..... Romance languages are not Germanic, but if they were.... if they were a hibrid... so what!!??... what I see is that a lot of people who don't have a single clue of what lexical influences or grammar influences are continue to hiss a flag of "we are Latin descendants" as if it was better than other languages.... what an ape-like behaviour!!!
Instead of extracting the constructive side of the rich linguistic world we live in, most people try to make a silly hierarchy based on nationalistic pride. How much more time, or information, or education will still be needed till we understand that we are a continously changing mixture of cultures, and that each generation is adding new material to this richness, and that each generation is bearing the accumulation of all the previous ones'??
Now, perhaps this is the wrong thread to say this, because it's going on mostly in a pacific way, and the title of it is a valid question, and not an intend of attacking any other culture, so I apologise for having 'exploded' here, but now I have written it.
<<Our judicial system (USA) is modeled after Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which has its origins in Ancient Roman Law. >>
Strange, Wikipedia states the opposite: citing that Roman influence was neither direct, nor as impacting in Anglo-Saxon law as it was on the continent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_law#Overview
« Guest » :
« let's keep it simple.
Classical Latin = Written form
Vulgar Latin = Spoken Form ».
Simple. Trop simple. Voire simpliste.
Latin classique parlé → orolatin classique
Latin classique écrit → scriptolatin classique
Latin vulgaire parlé → orolatin vulgaire
Latin vulgaire écrit → scriptolatin vulgaire
<<Our judicial system (USA) is modeled after Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which has its origins in Ancient Roman Law. >>
— No, no, no, completely wrong.
All European judicial systems (hence ANY judicial systems at all since they have been imitated worldwide) combine old Germanic principles with some Roman formalization, but the Roman element is less present in English-speaking countries than anywhere else.
English Common Law underwent an evolution of its own that kept it apart (not Scotland, which is more "continental" to that respect), basically because the strong power of the Crown and of the Parliament didn't make necessary a corpus of written laws and procedures.
On the other hand, Germany developed the less Germanic and most "Roman" written legal system, to some extent because the German/Austrian Reich claimed the legitimate legacy of the Roman empire, but first of all because the very feeble authority of this Empire requested the judicial system to be inherently powerful, based on logically incontrovertable texts.
France was a special case because most of the country used to be ruled by provincial parliaments who used unwritten customary laws which contradicted from a county to another, while the South used written Latin law. All in all it was a terrible mess that made impossible to efficiently run the country. The need to overcome that awesome confusion was the main spur to the French revolution.
Oui, le droit commun anglais actuel ou médiéval (après 1066) n'a plus grand chose de commun avec le système antérieur à 1066 : ce sont les francophones médiévaux qui ont transformé, voire aboli, le droit saxon sur les Îles britanniques. Ce nouveau droit c'est « la comune ley » qui de public (royal) deviendra privé (commun).
"Vulgar Latin" is the ancestor of Romance standard languages. Shouldn`t it be called "barbarian Latin" instead to make clear where it comes from?
<<"Vulgar Latin" is the ancestor of Romance standard languages. Shouldn`t it be called "barbarian Latin" instead to make clear where it comes from? >>
Yes. That is fitting. As is "Germano-Latin" or better yet "Germano-Romance".
But seriously, Proto-Romance is probably the best, as long as the understanding of what went into forming it is well understood.
Those other names, though accurate, would be met with "trop de résistance!" (Vive la France!)
Right greg?
No, barbarian Latin means a kind of Latin spoken by barbarians, like the old Germans, but for example, free citizens in Rome spoke vulgar Latin and it was not "barbarian Latin".