If the Latin verb stare was not used in the same sense as Spanish does nowadays , why did Spanish take stare to mean non permanent qualities and Italian did similarly as well? Spanish should have used "egon" if that Basque substratum is true.
gaining grammatical complexities
<<If the Latin verb stare was not used in the same sense as Spanish does nowadays , why did Spanish take stare to mean non permanent qualities and Italian did similarly as well? Spanish should have used "egon" if that Basque substratum is true. >>
May I ask you a serious question?
Are you on medication? Or do you take antidepressants?
You have a one track mind. Nothing ever gets through to you does it? Is it on purpose that you annoy people this way? You deflect any explanation to come back with your same empty statement over and over again...like a mindless robot.
okay, I will answer your initial question one last time, and then I am done with you.
<<why did Spanish take stare to mean non permanent qualities and Italian did similarly as well>>
Because Spanish *IS* Italian and vice versa. There dude! I gave you what you wanted.
Dude, you are soooo Italian. You're HOT. Everyone wants to be you! You have all my respect as an Italian who speaks Iberian Italian.
Cheers Mate
I'm out.
May I ask you a serious question?
Are you on medication? Or do you take antidepressants?
You have a one track mind. Nothing ever gets through to you does it? Is it on purpose that you annoy people this way? You deflect any explanation to come back with your same empty statement over and over again...like a mindless robot.
okay, I will answer your initial question one last time, and then I am done with you.
<<why did Spanish take stare to mean non permanent qualities and Italian did similarly as well>>
Because Spanish *IS* Italian and vice versa. There dude! I gave you what you wanted.
Dude, you are soooo Italian. You're HOT. Everyone wants to be you! You have all my respect as an Italian who speaks Iberian Italian.
Cheers Mate
I'm out.
Guest:
__________________________________________________________
<<"articles in romance first appeared after the germanic invasions "
Didn´t proto-Italian or vulgar/vernacular Latin had articles? >>
I don't know about that.
What I do know is that in the Oaths of Strassbourg (which contains one of the first examples of a romance language distinct from latin), definite articles were clearly *not* used (Gallo-Romance) where romance would later come to employ them, indicating that they were either not yet present, or that they were considered too base to use.
I also know that Visigoths and other germanic invaders who had acquired the latin language were speaking it in such a way as to fit their own speech habits (calquing it), making "unorthodox" word-for-word translations of butchered latin from germanic. It was at this time that germanic languages were acquiring or had already acquired definite article use from their demonstratives.
So to answer your question, probably not.
_________________________________________________________
Thank you. This seems to be the most probable scenario, indeed!
__________________________________________________________
<<"articles in romance first appeared after the germanic invasions "
Didn´t proto-Italian or vulgar/vernacular Latin had articles? >>
I don't know about that.
What I do know is that in the Oaths of Strassbourg (which contains one of the first examples of a romance language distinct from latin), definite articles were clearly *not* used (Gallo-Romance) where romance would later come to employ them, indicating that they were either not yet present, or that they were considered too base to use.
I also know that Visigoths and other germanic invaders who had acquired the latin language were speaking it in such a way as to fit their own speech habits (calquing it), making "unorthodox" word-for-word translations of butchered latin from germanic. It was at this time that germanic languages were acquiring or had already acquired definite article use from their demonstratives.
So to answer your question, probably not.
_________________________________________________________
Thank you. This seems to be the most probable scenario, indeed!
"May I ask you a serious question?
Are you on medication? Or do you take antidepressants?
"
Ask them if you want. I will not answer because I'm here to discuss about linguistics not about my personal life. Since you use ad hominem attacks I must deduce that you have no more arguments to hold your point of view.
Are you on medication? Or do you take antidepressants?
"
Ask them if you want. I will not answer because I'm here to discuss about linguistics not about my personal life. Since you use ad hominem attacks I must deduce that you have no more arguments to hold your point of view.
I think we could find an answer of this controversial subject if we analyse the use of two verbs for 'be' in some others Romance which couldn't have a Basque substratum: Old French, Portuguese. After this discussion we'll have time to come back to the 'gaining grammatical complexities'. Shall we?
Portuguese and Catalan have also two forms for the verb to be in order to distinguish between permanent and temporary , it's not that strange in Romance Languages. In fact it's only French that uses just one verb like in English (être and to be)
Yes, that is strange about French! Stop reading my thoughts! I was thinking about that today.
'guest' : « French être<ester; merging with 'esse' - to be ».
Les verbes <être> et <ester> n'ont pas fusionné puisque les deux coexistent encore à l'heure actuelle. L'analogie possible entre certaines formes conjuguées de AF <estre> <iestre> et AF <ester> <estier> reste quand même limitée.
Par exemple, le participe présent de AF <estre> pourrait indiquer une réfection par analogie avec celui de AF <ester> : AF <estre> → <estant> & AF <ester> → <estant> <estisant>. Mais le participe passé de AF <estre> est <esté> alors que celui de AF <ester> est <esteü> <estu>.
Pour le reste, il n'y a guère que l'indicatif imparfait qui **pourrait** faire songer à un transfert morphologique de AF <ester> vers AF <estre>. Et encore, il faut bien garder à l'esprit que l'ancien français possédait deux jeux d'imparfait pour le verbe <estre> :
{j'étais} → jeu 1 : <ere> <iere> — jeu 2 : <esteie> <estoie> <estois>
{tu étais} → jeu 1 : <eres> <iere> — jeu 2 : <esteies> <estois>
{il était} → jeu 1 : <ert> <iert> — jeu 2 : <esteiet> <esteit> <estoit>
{nous étions} → jeu 1 : <eriens> <erions> — jeu 2 : <estiens> <estions>
{vous étiez} → jeu 1 : <eriez> — jeu 2 : <estiez>
{ils étaient} → jeu 1 : <erent> <ierent> — jeu 2 : <esteient>
À comparer avec l'indicatif imparfait de AF <ester> :
{j'estais} → <estisoi>
{tu estais} → <esteives>
{il estait} → <estisoit>
{nous estions} → ?
{nous estiez} → ?
{ils estaient} → <estisoient>
'Guest' : « In fact it's only French that uses just one verb like in English (être and to be) ».
Oui, mais ce n'était pas le cas de l'ancien français : <estre> <iestre> ≠ <ester> <estier>. Et d'autre part il faudrait vérifier avec l'ensembles des langues romanes. Voici un aperçu (à vérifier) :
aranais : Ø vs <estar> <èster>
auvergnat : <èsser> <èstre> vs Ø
catalan : <ésser> <ser> vs <estar>
espagnol : <ser> vs <estar>
ancien français : <estre> <iestre> vs <ester> <estier> (origine de l'anglais <stay>)
français : <être> vs Ø
gascon : Ø vs <estar> <èster>
italien : <essere> vs <stare>
languedocien : <èsser> vs Ø
limousin : <èsser> vs Ø
ancien occitan : <èsser> <èstre> vs <estar>
occitan : <èsser> <èstre> vs Ø
piedmontais : <esse> vs <sté> <isté>
poitevin : <étre> vs Ø
portugais : <ser> vs <estar>
provençal : <èsser> <èstre> vs Ø
romanche : Ø vs <star>
sicilien : <siri> vs <stari>
wallon : <èsse> vs Ø (?)
Les verbes <être> et <ester> n'ont pas fusionné puisque les deux coexistent encore à l'heure actuelle. L'analogie possible entre certaines formes conjuguées de AF <estre> <iestre> et AF <ester> <estier> reste quand même limitée.
Par exemple, le participe présent de AF <estre> pourrait indiquer une réfection par analogie avec celui de AF <ester> : AF <estre> → <estant> & AF <ester> → <estant> <estisant>. Mais le participe passé de AF <estre> est <esté> alors que celui de AF <ester> est <esteü> <estu>.
Pour le reste, il n'y a guère que l'indicatif imparfait qui **pourrait** faire songer à un transfert morphologique de AF <ester> vers AF <estre>. Et encore, il faut bien garder à l'esprit que l'ancien français possédait deux jeux d'imparfait pour le verbe <estre> :
{j'étais} → jeu 1 : <ere> <iere> — jeu 2 : <esteie> <estoie> <estois>
{tu étais} → jeu 1 : <eres> <iere> — jeu 2 : <esteies> <estois>
{il était} → jeu 1 : <ert> <iert> — jeu 2 : <esteiet> <esteit> <estoit>
{nous étions} → jeu 1 : <eriens> <erions> — jeu 2 : <estiens> <estions>
{vous étiez} → jeu 1 : <eriez> — jeu 2 : <estiez>
{ils étaient} → jeu 1 : <erent> <ierent> — jeu 2 : <esteient>
À comparer avec l'indicatif imparfait de AF <ester> :
{j'estais} → <estisoi>
{tu estais} → <esteives>
{il estait} → <estisoit>
{nous estions} → ?
{nous estiez} → ?
{ils estaient} → <estisoient>
'Guest' : « In fact it's only French that uses just one verb like in English (être and to be) ».
Oui, mais ce n'était pas le cas de l'ancien français : <estre> <iestre> ≠ <ester> <estier>. Et d'autre part il faudrait vérifier avec l'ensembles des langues romanes. Voici un aperçu (à vérifier) :
aranais : Ø vs <estar> <èster>
auvergnat : <èsser> <èstre> vs Ø
catalan : <ésser> <ser> vs <estar>
espagnol : <ser> vs <estar>
ancien français : <estre> <iestre> vs <ester> <estier> (origine de l'anglais <stay>)
français : <être> vs Ø
gascon : Ø vs <estar> <èster>
italien : <essere> vs <stare>
languedocien : <èsser> vs Ø
limousin : <èsser> vs Ø
ancien occitan : <èsser> <èstre> vs <estar>
occitan : <èsser> <èstre> vs Ø
piedmontais : <esse> vs <sté> <isté>
poitevin : <étre> vs Ø
portugais : <ser> vs <estar>
provençal : <èsser> <èstre> vs Ø
romanche : Ø vs <star>
sicilien : <siri> vs <stari>
wallon : <èsse> vs Ø (?)
"I also know that Visigoths and other germanic invaders who had acquired the latin language were speaking it in such a way as to fit their own speech habits (calquing it), making "unorthodox" word-for-word translations of butchered latin from germanic. "
What sources can be found for this statement?
What sources can be found for this statement?
<<What sources can be found for this statement? >>
"Spanish Words of Germanic Origin" by Eugen H. Mueller and Bernard M. Dulsey
Here is an excerpt--
The Gothic invaders were less cruel than any of their barbarian predecessors who had penetrated the once great Roman empire. They had already been converted to Christianity and had been in what is now Italy. So they were not strangers to the laws and language of the Romans. Their own Gothic tongue never appeared in written form in Spain.
It is not generally realized by most students and teachers of Spanish that the Gothic invaders were responsible, in part at least, for three major innovations in the syntax of the Latin they found in use in fifth-century Spain. Every foreigner who learns Spanish should feel grateful to the Goths for what they did to the old Latin declensions which still persisted in the Iberian peninsula when the Goths entered in 411 A.D. As Ticknor says (p. 371), the Goths forced 'ille' to serve as their definite article and 'unus' as the indefinite article from which Spanish derives its 'el', 'la', 'un(o)' and 'una' respectively. Then with the use of prepositions and the newly formed articles the Goths ultimately did away with the old Latin declensions.
The Goths wrought two principal changes with the Latin verb: the use of the present perfect tense conjugated with the Latin verb 'habere' as auxilliary, and the use of a true passive voice conjugated with the auxilliary 'esse'. As a result, the Goths said 'habeo victus', instead of 'vici' and 'sum amatus' for the old Latin present passive 'amor' (Ticknor, p. 372)...
"Spanish Words of Germanic Origin" by Eugen H. Mueller and Bernard M. Dulsey
Here is an excerpt--
The Gothic invaders were less cruel than any of their barbarian predecessors who had penetrated the once great Roman empire. They had already been converted to Christianity and had been in what is now Italy. So they were not strangers to the laws and language of the Romans. Their own Gothic tongue never appeared in written form in Spain.
It is not generally realized by most students and teachers of Spanish that the Gothic invaders were responsible, in part at least, for three major innovations in the syntax of the Latin they found in use in fifth-century Spain. Every foreigner who learns Spanish should feel grateful to the Goths for what they did to the old Latin declensions which still persisted in the Iberian peninsula when the Goths entered in 411 A.D. As Ticknor says (p. 371), the Goths forced 'ille' to serve as their definite article and 'unus' as the indefinite article from which Spanish derives its 'el', 'la', 'un(o)' and 'una' respectively. Then with the use of prepositions and the newly formed articles the Goths ultimately did away with the old Latin declensions.
The Goths wrought two principal changes with the Latin verb: the use of the present perfect tense conjugated with the Latin verb 'habere' as auxilliary, and the use of a true passive voice conjugated with the auxilliary 'esse'. As a result, the Goths said 'habeo victus', instead of 'vici' and 'sum amatus' for the old Latin present passive 'amor' (Ticknor, p. 372)...
But these innovations are present in French, Italian and Romanian as well. How come the barbaric invaders produced the same changes in the Latin spoken in France and Italy? Why none of them (Franks, Ostrogoths , Lombards) just learned normal Latin instead of altering the Latin syntax? Also Romania was not affected by the Germanic invaders and still its syntax is not much different from French, Spanish or Italian.
<<But these innovations are present in French, Italian and Romanian as well. How come the barbaric invaders produced the same changes in the Latin spoken in France and Italy? Why none of them (Franks, Ostrogoths , Lombards) just learned normal Latin instead of altering the Latin syntax? Also Romania was not affected by the Germanic invaders and still its syntax is not much different from French, Spanish or Italian. >>
Because of cross-influence. Romance languages are so similar, not just because they share common origin, but because they mimmick one another, borrow from one another, and influence one another. Spanish, Italian, Rumanian, soforth are not isolated languages without contact with one another.
This is sorta the topic in another thread regarding the word "guerra"/"guerre".
<How come the barbaric invaders produced the same changes in the Latin spoken in France and Italy?>
Because germanic languages are byand large similar to one another--the same things were occurring in those areas too. Use of 'habban' as an auxilliary verb, and 'habban + past participle' for perfect tense is common to all germanic languages. And at the time, so too was the development of articles.
<Why none of them (Franks, Ostrogoths , Lombards) just learned normal Latin instead of altering the Latin syntax?>
They did...or at least they did to their best ability. Give them credit for that. Otherwise, you might be a native Gothic speaker : ) This is unfortunately a natural occurrence when many speakers of one language embark on learning another language as a group--old features of the former language that are easily understood by the other members who are also learning the new language get passed on to the new language and become fixed.
Because of cross-influence. Romance languages are so similar, not just because they share common origin, but because they mimmick one another, borrow from one another, and influence one another. Spanish, Italian, Rumanian, soforth are not isolated languages without contact with one another.
This is sorta the topic in another thread regarding the word "guerra"/"guerre".
<How come the barbaric invaders produced the same changes in the Latin spoken in France and Italy?>
Because germanic languages are byand large similar to one another--the same things were occurring in those areas too. Use of 'habban' as an auxilliary verb, and 'habban + past participle' for perfect tense is common to all germanic languages. And at the time, so too was the development of articles.
<Why none of them (Franks, Ostrogoths , Lombards) just learned normal Latin instead of altering the Latin syntax?>
They did...or at least they did to their best ability. Give them credit for that. Otherwise, you might be a native Gothic speaker : ) This is unfortunately a natural occurrence when many speakers of one language embark on learning another language as a group--old features of the former language that are easily understood by the other members who are also learning the new language get passed on to the new language and become fixed.
Why do you think there is so much similarity between Romance languages and Germanic languages like English? This is due to Romance languages being so germanised from their inception. If Latin were allowed to have developed into Romance languages independent of these Germanic contributions, the whole of the Romance languages today would be as dissimilar to English as say Irish or Russian.
Why didn't the Germanic invaders get rid of the Spanish conjugations? I would like Spanish had only three verbal tenses like English.
<,Why didn't the Germanic invaders get rid of the Spanish conjugations? I would like Spanish had only three verbal tenses like English.>.
Well, verbal conjugations are something that Old Germanic--like Gothic, and Latin had in common.
It is the Anglo-Frisian subgroup of West Germanic that is the odd-ball out here. Early in Proto-Old English verbal conjugation for the plural forms simplified and coalesced into one form: that of the third person plural. This feature is shared with Old English, Frisian and Low German (Plattdeutsch). This later paved the way for further reduction arriving untimately at Modern English -s only (third person singular)
Gothic, on the other hand, had eitht disctinct forms for verbs (including 2 for dual person):
--singlular--
-a
-is
-ith
--dual--
-os
-ats
--plural--
-am
-ith
-and
and the forms were very similar to Latin forms. An easy transition for any Goth.
Well, verbal conjugations are something that Old Germanic--like Gothic, and Latin had in common.
It is the Anglo-Frisian subgroup of West Germanic that is the odd-ball out here. Early in Proto-Old English verbal conjugation for the plural forms simplified and coalesced into one form: that of the third person plural. This feature is shared with Old English, Frisian and Low German (Plattdeutsch). This later paved the way for further reduction arriving untimately at Modern English -s only (third person singular)
Gothic, on the other hand, had eitht disctinct forms for verbs (including 2 for dual person):
--singlular--
-a
-is
-ith
--dual--
-os
-ats
--plural--
-am
-ith
-and
and the forms were very similar to Latin forms. An easy transition for any Goth.