In Spanish RAE attempted to hispanify the foreign term whisky by spelling it as güisqui since many people pronounce w as gu , so I don't think that step is unnatural for a Romance speaker at all.
Yves Cortez
I believe that at the time of the w- intrusion, French lacked a stand-alone (at least initial) w-sound, like in English 'water' but it did still have a w-glide in some words, especially following a 'g', like in Latin 'agua' (agwa). So although an initial w- was foreign, a gw-sound would have been familiar to them.
<<Wallonie for example is still called Wallonie (<W> like in <water> or French <oui>) by the French speakers and nobody has difficulies... >>
The W- of Wallonie (pronounced V- as in 'wagon') and the simulated w- caused by 'ou' + stressed 'i' [ou-i'; ou-'est; etc.] happened much later.
Words imported from English carry an English w-sound ('le weekend')
The W- of Wallonie (pronounced V- as in 'wagon') and the simulated w- caused by 'ou' + stressed 'i' [ou-i'; ou-'est; etc.] happened much later.
Words imported from English carry an English w-sound ('le weekend')
Celtic substrate perhaps?
In Breton, "wine" is "gwin".
And French "voiture" (motor-car) is "gwetur"
In Breton, "wine" is "gwin".
And French "voiture" (motor-car) is "gwetur"
"One more basic question: the transition from <w...> to <gu...> in French is quite frequent, but what exactly was the reason for this big step? To my feeling the two sonds <w...> and <gu...> have absolutely nothing in common"
--- Il y a 2000 ans, les 'w' germaniques ne sonnaient sans doute pas comme aujourd'hui. Ils étaient précédés originellement d'une occlusive gutturale, restée à l'état de trace (y compris dans certaines graphies, exemple (de Etymonline):
"what
O.E. hwæt, from P.Gmc. *khwat (cf. O.S. hwat, O.N. hvat, Dan. hvad, O.Fris. hwet "
--- On comprend que le Dan. "hvad" correspond exactement au Lat. "quod", prononcé 'kwod'
--- Il y a 2000 ans, les 'w' germaniques ne sonnaient sans doute pas comme aujourd'hui. Ils étaient précédés originellement d'une occlusive gutturale, restée à l'état de trace (y compris dans certaines graphies, exemple (de Etymonline):
"what
O.E. hwæt, from P.Gmc. *khwat (cf. O.S. hwat, O.N. hvat, Dan. hvad, O.Fris. hwet "
--- On comprend que le Dan. "hvad" correspond exactement au Lat. "quod", prononcé 'kwod'
<<Celtic substrate perhaps?
In Breton, "wine" is "gwin".
And French "voiture" (motor-car) is "gwetur" >>
Remarkable, yet unlikely due to substrate, because Gaul was conquered by 52 BC, and the germanic invasions didn't occur until around the 3rd century, with the Franks finally taking control in the 5th. That's about 450 years of Latin being spoken in Gaul (a longer time period than the United States has been a nation), which is sufficient to remove any trace of a Celtic substrate, other than words already in the language, even in remote areas.
Considering only 200 some Celtic words survive in French, I highly doubt it, although the parallel is striking. It goes along other coincidental parallels seen in other Celtic tongues, like the 'oi' diphthong [Middle French] and '-ons' ending on the first person plural.
I find such claims by Celtophiles to be over-zealous at best.
In Breton, "wine" is "gwin".
And French "voiture" (motor-car) is "gwetur" >>
Remarkable, yet unlikely due to substrate, because Gaul was conquered by 52 BC, and the germanic invasions didn't occur until around the 3rd century, with the Franks finally taking control in the 5th. That's about 450 years of Latin being spoken in Gaul (a longer time period than the United States has been a nation), which is sufficient to remove any trace of a Celtic substrate, other than words already in the language, even in remote areas.
Considering only 200 some Celtic words survive in French, I highly doubt it, although the parallel is striking. It goes along other coincidental parallels seen in other Celtic tongues, like the 'oi' diphthong [Middle French] and '-ons' ending on the first person plural.
I find such claims by Celtophiles to be over-zealous at best.
<,--- Il y a 2000 ans, les 'w' germaniques ne sonnaient sans doute pas comme aujourd'hui. Ils étaient précédés originellement d'une occlusive gutturale, restée à l'état de trace (y compris dans certaines graphies, exemple (de Etymonline):
"what
O.E. hwæt, from P.Gmc. *khwat (cf. O.S. hwat, O.N. hvat, Dan. hvad, O.Fris. hwet "
--- On comprend que le Dan. "hvad" correspond exactement au Lat. "quod", prononcé 'kwod' >>
That's one possibility: 'hw-' and 'w-' merging into 'gu-'. I had never thought of that before.
"what
O.E. hwæt, from P.Gmc. *khwat (cf. O.S. hwat, O.N. hvat, Dan. hvad, O.Fris. hwet "
--- On comprend que le Dan. "hvad" correspond exactement au Lat. "quod", prononcé 'kwod' >>
That's one possibility: 'hw-' and 'w-' merging into 'gu-'. I had never thought of that before.
"Gaul was conquered by 52 BC, and the germanic invasions didn't occur until around the 3rd century, with the Franks finally taking control in the 5th. That's about 450 years of Latin being spoken in Gaul (a longer time period than the United States has been a nation), which is sufficient to remove any trace of a Celtic substrate, other than words already in the language, even in remote areas.
Considering only 200 some Celtic words survive in French, I highly doubt it, although the parallel is striking. It goes along other coincidental parallels seen in other Celtic tongues, like the 'oi' diphthong [Middle French] and '-ons' ending on the first person plural.
I find such claims by Celtophiles to be over-zealous at best."
--- In the 5th century, Latin poet Ausonius (from Gaul) wrote that his father preferred to speak Gaulish,
--- Bishop Grégoire de Tours mentions Gaulish being still spoken in the 6th century in Tours, a big town that wasn't a remore area at all,
--- in 565, under the Frankish kingdom, roman poet Venantius Fortunatus, while travelling in the South-West of France, reports that even noble people of the upper classes understood Gaulish,
--- there are evidences that Gaulish survived till the 7th century in some parts of Western Switzerland,
--- the latest evidences of Gaulish being used in France are dated back to the 10th in Poitou (Center-West).
--- Celtic never ceased to be spoken in Brittany, thanks to fresh supplies coming from English Cornwall.
At the time Old French began to materialize, Gaulish was omnipresent in France but had no visibility whatsoever. It was just peasant speak, no one paid attention.
Actually, until the late 18th century virtually no one in France realized that the Breton dialects were a language of its own.
Considering only 200 some Celtic words survive in French, I highly doubt it, although the parallel is striking. It goes along other coincidental parallels seen in other Celtic tongues, like the 'oi' diphthong [Middle French] and '-ons' ending on the first person plural.
I find such claims by Celtophiles to be over-zealous at best."
--- In the 5th century, Latin poet Ausonius (from Gaul) wrote that his father preferred to speak Gaulish,
--- Bishop Grégoire de Tours mentions Gaulish being still spoken in the 6th century in Tours, a big town that wasn't a remore area at all,
--- in 565, under the Frankish kingdom, roman poet Venantius Fortunatus, while travelling in the South-West of France, reports that even noble people of the upper classes understood Gaulish,
--- there are evidences that Gaulish survived till the 7th century in some parts of Western Switzerland,
--- the latest evidences of Gaulish being used in France are dated back to the 10th in Poitou (Center-West).
--- Celtic never ceased to be spoken in Brittany, thanks to fresh supplies coming from English Cornwall.
At the time Old French began to materialize, Gaulish was omnipresent in France but had no visibility whatsoever. It was just peasant speak, no one paid attention.
Actually, until the late 18th century virtually no one in France realized that the Breton dialects were a language of its own.
<<At the time Old French began to materialize, Gaulish was omnipresent in France but had no visibility whatsoever. It was just peasant speak, no one paid attention.
Actually, until the late 18th century virtually no one in France realized that the Breton dialects were a language of its own. >>
that's fascinating. perhaps then there is something to say about a Celtic substratum after all...
Actually, until the late 18th century virtually no one in France realized that the Breton dialects were a language of its own. >>
that's fascinating. perhaps then there is something to say about a Celtic substratum after all...
<<<<<<<<
--- In the 5th century, Latin poet Ausonius (from Gaul) wrote that his father preferred to speak Gaulish,
--- Bishop Grégoire de Tours mentions Gaulish being still spoken in the 6th century in Tours, a big town that wasn't a remore area at all,
--- in 565, under the Frankish kingdom, roman poet Venantius Fortunatus, while travelling in the South-West of France, reports that even noble people of the upper classes understood Gaulish,
--- there are evidences that Gaulish survived till the 7th century in some parts of Western Switzerland,
--- the latest evidences of Gaulish being used in France are dated back to the 10th in Poitou (Center-West).
--- Celtic never ceased to be spoken in Brittany, thanks to fresh supplies coming from English Cornwall.
>>>>>>>>>
From the 2nd century on Germanic texts have been written, e.g. 6500 runes in Futark-alphabet were found until today, Wulfila´s Bibletranslation in Roman-Gothic alphabet etc.). Did any texts in Gaulish came to us?
--- In the 5th century, Latin poet Ausonius (from Gaul) wrote that his father preferred to speak Gaulish,
--- Bishop Grégoire de Tours mentions Gaulish being still spoken in the 6th century in Tours, a big town that wasn't a remore area at all,
--- in 565, under the Frankish kingdom, roman poet Venantius Fortunatus, while travelling in the South-West of France, reports that even noble people of the upper classes understood Gaulish,
--- there are evidences that Gaulish survived till the 7th century in some parts of Western Switzerland,
--- the latest evidences of Gaulish being used in France are dated back to the 10th in Poitou (Center-West).
--- Celtic never ceased to be spoken in Brittany, thanks to fresh supplies coming from English Cornwall.
>>>>>>>>>
From the 2nd century on Germanic texts have been written, e.g. 6500 runes in Futark-alphabet were found until today, Wulfila´s Bibletranslation in Roman-Gothic alphabet etc.). Did any texts in Gaulish came to us?
"Did any texts in Gaulish came to us?"
— Peu. Les Druides se réservaient l'écriture comme une science secrète, ésotérique. C'est une des raisons de la fragilité intrinsèque des anciennes cultures celtiques, de leur rapide disparition devant l'expansion des parlers romans et germaniques — l'autre raison étant la relative proximité avec le latin pour la grammaire, et avec le germanique pour le vocabulaire: les Celtes antiques étaient prédestinés à être absorbés.
On a cependant trouvé assez d'inscriptions, calendriers, tablettes votives (contenant des invocations ou malédictions — toujours le rôle "magique" de l'écriture) pour reconstituer une grande part de la langue gauloise.
"Gaulish was omnipresent in France but had no visibility whatsoever."
— Le cas de minorités (ou de majorités) rurales "invisibles" n'est pas rare. Ainsi, les Slaves dans l'Est de l'Allemagne autrefois. L'écrivain Theodor Fontane, qui y a beaucoup voyagé, rapporte incidemment que les paysans de Poméranie ou ceux de la Marche de Brandebourg, tout près de Berlin, étaient encore souvent des Slaves en plein 19e siècle, alors que ces régions étaient supposées germanisées depuis le Moyen-Âge.
On note que leurs parlers slaves ont très peu contribué à la phonétique allemande, et que très rares sont les mots slaves repris en allemand.
L'évaporation des cultures celtiques en France et en Angleterre a dû être un processus similaire.
— Peu. Les Druides se réservaient l'écriture comme une science secrète, ésotérique. C'est une des raisons de la fragilité intrinsèque des anciennes cultures celtiques, de leur rapide disparition devant l'expansion des parlers romans et germaniques — l'autre raison étant la relative proximité avec le latin pour la grammaire, et avec le germanique pour le vocabulaire: les Celtes antiques étaient prédestinés à être absorbés.
On a cependant trouvé assez d'inscriptions, calendriers, tablettes votives (contenant des invocations ou malédictions — toujours le rôle "magique" de l'écriture) pour reconstituer une grande part de la langue gauloise.
"Gaulish was omnipresent in France but had no visibility whatsoever."
— Le cas de minorités (ou de majorités) rurales "invisibles" n'est pas rare. Ainsi, les Slaves dans l'Est de l'Allemagne autrefois. L'écrivain Theodor Fontane, qui y a beaucoup voyagé, rapporte incidemment que les paysans de Poméranie ou ceux de la Marche de Brandebourg, tout près de Berlin, étaient encore souvent des Slaves en plein 19e siècle, alors que ces régions étaient supposées germanisées depuis le Moyen-Âge.
On note que leurs parlers slaves ont très peu contribué à la phonétique allemande, et que très rares sont les mots slaves repris en allemand.
L'évaporation des cultures celtiques en France et en Angleterre a dû être un processus similaire.
Parisien:
<<<<<<<
"Did any texts in Gaulish came to us?"
— Peu. Les Druides se réservaient l'écriture comme une science secrète, ésotérique. C'est une des raisons de la fragilité intrinsèque des anciennes cultures celtiques, de leur rapide disparition devant l'expansion des parlers romans et germaniques — l'autre raison étant la relative proximité avec le latin pour la grammaire, et avec le germanique pour le vocabulaire: les Celtes antiques étaient prédestinés à être absorbés.
On a cependant trouvé assez d'inscriptions, calendriers, tablettes votives (contenant des invocations ou malédictions — toujours le rôle "magique" de l'écriture) pour reconstituer une grande part de la langue gauloise.
>>>>>>>
Wikipedia states in http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peuples_gaulois#Le_nom:
"On connait si mal la langue gauloise (quelques centaines de mots isolés), et rien de la grammaire et de la prononciation, qu'il est impossible de savoir quel est son apport réel par rapport aux langues latines et germaniques dans la constitution de la langue française... "
What is correct?
<<<<<<<
"Did any texts in Gaulish came to us?"
— Peu. Les Druides se réservaient l'écriture comme une science secrète, ésotérique. C'est une des raisons de la fragilité intrinsèque des anciennes cultures celtiques, de leur rapide disparition devant l'expansion des parlers romans et germaniques — l'autre raison étant la relative proximité avec le latin pour la grammaire, et avec le germanique pour le vocabulaire: les Celtes antiques étaient prédestinés à être absorbés.
On a cependant trouvé assez d'inscriptions, calendriers, tablettes votives (contenant des invocations ou malédictions — toujours le rôle "magique" de l'écriture) pour reconstituer une grande part de la langue gauloise.
>>>>>>>
Wikipedia states in http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peuples_gaulois#Le_nom:
"On connait si mal la langue gauloise (quelques centaines de mots isolés), et rien de la grammaire et de la prononciation, qu'il est impossible de savoir quel est son apport réel par rapport aux langues latines et germaniques dans la constitution de la langue française... "
What is correct?
"what O.E. hwæt, from P.Gmc. *khwat (cf. O.S. hwat, O.N. hvat, Dan. hvad, O.Fris. hwet "
in the 'what' we see this 'h' which reflects the old pronunciation, but in 'war' 'h' is absent, also is there a possibility that this 'occlusive gutturale' never existed in this word?
in the 'what' we see this 'h' which reflects the old pronunciation, but in 'war' 'h' is absent, also is there a possibility that this 'occlusive gutturale' never existed in this word?
<<in the 'what' we see this 'h' which reflects the old pronunciation>>
huh???
I still pronounce the 'h' (wh = hw), though I realize that many dialects and RP do not usually carry this, so to you it might be considered "old" [ouch].
<<but in 'war' 'h' is absent>>
You know how some English learners, and I'm going to use Slavic (Russian) as my example here, often confuse English 'w' and 'v', often substituting an English 'v' with a 'w' by mistake?(nerwous for nervous?) OR take German for example, where no 'w' sound exists, they confuse English 'v' with 'w' because in their language a 'w' typically converts to 'v' in English, so they automatically replace in all situations, even when it's not warranted?
It may be the same type of substitution here with Frankish 'w' going into Old French. The Gallo-Romans may have heard both 'hw-'/'khw-' and 'w-' and simply lumped them together as one phoneme: 'gw'. This is just a hypotheical proposal.
The only caveat I see in this theory is the paucity or absence of any Gmc words containing 'hw' in Old French. The only way therefore that this confusion between phonemes could have arisen (that I can think of) would have been from Gauls learning Frankish as a second language, and having greater trouble pronouncing 'hw-' therefore focusing more on trying to get that sound correct, inevitably elevating that sound above 'w-' and thereby confusing the two.
my 2 cents
huh???
I still pronounce the 'h' (wh = hw), though I realize that many dialects and RP do not usually carry this, so to you it might be considered "old" [ouch].
<<but in 'war' 'h' is absent>>
You know how some English learners, and I'm going to use Slavic (Russian) as my example here, often confuse English 'w' and 'v', often substituting an English 'v' with a 'w' by mistake?(nerwous for nervous?) OR take German for example, where no 'w' sound exists, they confuse English 'v' with 'w' because in their language a 'w' typically converts to 'v' in English, so they automatically replace in all situations, even when it's not warranted?
It may be the same type of substitution here with Frankish 'w' going into Old French. The Gallo-Romans may have heard both 'hw-'/'khw-' and 'w-' and simply lumped them together as one phoneme: 'gw'. This is just a hypotheical proposal.
The only caveat I see in this theory is the paucity or absence of any Gmc words containing 'hw' in Old French. The only way therefore that this confusion between phonemes could have arisen (that I can think of) would have been from Gauls learning Frankish as a second language, and having greater trouble pronouncing 'hw-' therefore focusing more on trying to get that sound correct, inevitably elevating that sound above 'w-' and thereby confusing the two.
my 2 cents
Tim : « Some important words (and grammar) are identical for all (guerre), some are different (si/oui)- what does it prove in the end? ».
Cela indique que la distribution entre étymons (signifiants) et concepts (signifiés) n'est pas structurée de façon unique pour toutes les (familles de) langues.
Supposons que tu veuilles étudier la distribution concept/étymon pour l'ensemble arbitraire des six langues romanes suivantes : castillan, corse, latin, ligure, roumain et wallon.
concept → {guerre = conflit armé}, étymons recensés :
castillan <guerra>
corse <guèrra>
latin <bellum>
ligure <guæra>
roumain <război>
wallon <guere> <guére> <guêre>.
Tu as alors 3 étymons pour 1 concept. Bien sûr le résultat serait différent si tu prenais six autres langues romanes, ou juste deux langues romanes ou encores toutes les langues romanes. Pareil avec le groupe germanique.
Mais tu peux aussi changer de concept.
concept → {guêpe = hyménoptère or et noir}, étymons recensés :
castillan <avispa> <vespa>
corse <vèspa>
latin <vespa>
ligure <vespa>
roumain <viespe>
wallon <wasse> <wèpse> <wèsse>.
Si on considère les étymons wallons comme étant romans, on a alors 1 étymon pour 1 concept, sinon 2 étymons pour un concept.
concept → {ja} (allemand) = {oui} (français) = {adverbe d'acceptation}
catalan <si>
corse <ié> <sì>
italien <sì>
occitan <oc>
saintongeais <gàu> <oall> <oéll> <voéll> <vàu>
wallon <ây> <åy> <ayi> <wèy>.
concept → {doch} (allemand) = {si} (français) = {adverbe de contradiction}
catalan <si>
corse <sì>
italien <sì>
occitan <si>
saintongeais <sia>
wallon <siya>.
Cela indique que la distribution entre étymons (signifiants) et concepts (signifiés) n'est pas structurée de façon unique pour toutes les (familles de) langues.
Supposons que tu veuilles étudier la distribution concept/étymon pour l'ensemble arbitraire des six langues romanes suivantes : castillan, corse, latin, ligure, roumain et wallon.
concept → {guerre = conflit armé}, étymons recensés :
castillan <guerra>
corse <guèrra>
latin <bellum>
ligure <guæra>
roumain <război>
wallon <guere> <guére> <guêre>.
Tu as alors 3 étymons pour 1 concept. Bien sûr le résultat serait différent si tu prenais six autres langues romanes, ou juste deux langues romanes ou encores toutes les langues romanes. Pareil avec le groupe germanique.
Mais tu peux aussi changer de concept.
concept → {guêpe = hyménoptère or et noir}, étymons recensés :
castillan <avispa> <vespa>
corse <vèspa>
latin <vespa>
ligure <vespa>
roumain <viespe>
wallon <wasse> <wèpse> <wèsse>.
Si on considère les étymons wallons comme étant romans, on a alors 1 étymon pour 1 concept, sinon 2 étymons pour un concept.
concept → {ja} (allemand) = {oui} (français) = {adverbe d'acceptation}
catalan <si>
corse <ié> <sì>
italien <sì>
occitan <oc>
saintongeais <gàu> <oall> <oéll> <voéll> <vàu>
wallon <ây> <åy> <ayi> <wèy>.
concept → {doch} (allemand) = {si} (français) = {adverbe de contradiction}
catalan <si>
corse <sì>
italien <sì>
occitan <si>
saintongeais <sia>
wallon <siya>.