But Gothic had noun declensions as well. Why did the Gothic speakers learnt the Latin conjugations and not the noun declensions ?
gaining grammatical complexities
<<But Gothic had noun declensions as well. Why did the Gothic speakers learnt the Latin conjugations and not the noun declensions ? >.
I don't know. Perhaps the noun declensions were significantly different enough from Latin's; perhaps the noun declensions in Gothic were themselves already in process of decay, who knows?
I do know that Gothic contributed one noun declension to Old Spanish--an -n declension (germanic weak declension) before final termination of all noun declensions in Spanish. It survives in words like 'Froilán', 'guardián', etc.
I don't know. Perhaps the noun declensions were significantly different enough from Latin's; perhaps the noun declensions in Gothic were themselves already in process of decay, who knows?
I do know that Gothic contributed one noun declension to Old Spanish--an -n declension (germanic weak declension) before final termination of all noun declensions in Spanish. It survives in words like 'Froilán', 'guardián', etc.
<< I would like Spanish had only three verbal tenses like English. >>
I thought English had only two "real" tenses. The other tense-like affairs being artificially constructed (i.e. phony).
I thought English had only two "real" tenses. The other tense-like affairs being artificially constructed (i.e. phony).
'guest' : « 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. »
L'ouvrage de Ticknor (1791-1871) remonte au XIXe siècle, non ? Un peu daté... D'autant que, comme 'Guest' le disait : « 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? [...] Also Romania was not affected by the Germanic invaders and still its syntax is not much different from French, Spanish or Italian. »
L'objection de 'guest' ne tient pas : « 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 ». Les langues ne se singent pas les unes les autres : il n'y aucune raison pour qu'un wallonophone du moyen-âge se dise « Tiens ! Je vais me construire un article défini comme en galicien et en castillan ».
Il est vraisemblable que l'article ait été présent dès la constitution des langues romanes médiévales par différenciation de la langue-mère.
'guest' : « 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". »
Oui, mais peut-être pas dans le sens où tu l'envisages : il est possible que les articles (définis et indéfinis) et les étymons <guerra>/<guerre>/<werre> proviennent de la langue dont sont issues les langues romanes. Dans ce cas, pas besoin de transmission de proche en proche (emprunts à répétition).
L'ouvrage de Ticknor (1791-1871) remonte au XIXe siècle, non ? Un peu daté... D'autant que, comme 'Guest' le disait : « 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? [...] Also Romania was not affected by the Germanic invaders and still its syntax is not much different from French, Spanish or Italian. »
L'objection de 'guest' ne tient pas : « 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 ». Les langues ne se singent pas les unes les autres : il n'y aucune raison pour qu'un wallonophone du moyen-âge se dise « Tiens ! Je vais me construire un article défini comme en galicien et en castillan ».
Il est vraisemblable que l'article ait été présent dès la constitution des langues romanes médiévales par différenciation de la langue-mère.
'guest' : « 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". »
Oui, mais peut-être pas dans le sens où tu l'envisages : il est possible que les articles (définis et indéfinis) et les étymons <guerra>/<guerre>/<werre> proviennent de la langue dont sont issues les langues romanes. Dans ce cas, pas besoin de transmission de proche en proche (emprunts à répétition).
>>I thought English had only two "real" tenses. The other tense-like affairs being artificially constructed (i.e. phony)<<
Strictly speaking yes, as only two are grammatically marked (simple present and simple past I believe). I think things like the future and progessive 'tenses' are actually aspects in English as they are formed using auxilliary verbs. However just because that is the case does not make them any easier to use, as the combination of these adds up to a large numbe of possible constructions in English from which the speaker has to choose. Both English and German only have two actual tenses, but the combination of tense and aspect is much more complicated in English. And as such this is also a case of a language becoming more complicated in one area, even if it has become dramatically simplified in many others.
Strictly speaking yes, as only two are grammatically marked (simple present and simple past I believe). I think things like the future and progessive 'tenses' are actually aspects in English as they are formed using auxilliary verbs. However just because that is the case does not make them any easier to use, as the combination of these adds up to a large numbe of possible constructions in English from which the speaker has to choose. Both English and German only have two actual tenses, but the combination of tense and aspect is much more complicated in English. And as such this is also a case of a language becoming more complicated in one area, even if it has become dramatically simplified in many others.
<<,« Tiens ! Je vais me construire un article défini comme en galicien et en castillan ». >>
From one extreme end to another, No. But a Walloon may immitate a French article usage, which in turn may gradiate into a Occitan, then into a Castilian>Galician (you get it right?)
From one extreme end to another, No. But a Walloon may immitate a French article usage, which in turn may gradiate into a Occitan, then into a Castilian>Galician (you get it right?)
<<I thought English had only two "real" tenses. The other tense-like affairs being artificially constructed (i.e. phony)>>
English has only two distinct *tense formations* of the verb: present and past.
English has all possible tenses--they just do not have distinct verbal formations. Future tense exists in English; to say it doesn't is inaccurate. It's only that the future tense has to be expressed using auxilliaries (usu. will, shall, going to, etc).
Let's not get ourselves into the mode of thinking that if the case/tense formation is not distinct, that it therefore does not exist.
English has only two distinct *tense formations* of the verb: present and past.
English has all possible tenses--they just do not have distinct verbal formations. Future tense exists in English; to say it doesn't is inaccurate. It's only that the future tense has to be expressed using auxilliaries (usu. will, shall, going to, etc).
Let's not get ourselves into the mode of thinking that if the case/tense formation is not distinct, that it therefore does not exist.
<<,L'ouvrage de Ticknor (1791-1871) remonte au XIXe siècle, non ? Un peu daté...>>
In the context of distant past historical events, where all boats have docked (so to speak), and no new light is available to shed further insight, the time of his work is therefore irrelevant. (He published his claims several centuries AFTER Spanish had developed from Latin. That's enough time for a final analysis. Spanish is no longer progressing from Vul. Latin into Old Spanish.)
In the context of distant past historical events, where all boats have docked (so to speak), and no new light is available to shed further insight, the time of his work is therefore irrelevant. (He published his claims several centuries AFTER Spanish had developed from Latin. That's enough time for a final analysis. Spanish is no longer progressing from Vul. Latin into Old Spanish.)
''I always here how languages lose grammatical features, like cases, dual number etc, but I never hear about them gaining them. Is there a reason for this or am I mistaken? Why do languages seem to become less complex grammatically over time?''
Both Macedonian (compared to other Slavic languages) and Brazilian Portuguese (compared to Continental Portuguese) have simplified their grammars, especially phonetics and morphology, but the syntax became more complex and word order became more strict. So, inversion is more restricted in Macedonian and in Brazilian Portuguese, while it is possible with intransitive verbs:
Chegou Maria? or Maria chegou? (1); Quando chegou Maria? or Quando Maria chegar? (2)
Maria arrived; (1) When did Mari arrive? (2)
but only: Maria viu você(s)? (SVO) ''Did Maria see you?'' with transitive verbs, no possible inversion in Brazilian Portuguese.
Both Macedonian (compared to other Slavic languages) and Brazilian Portuguese (compared to Continental Portuguese) have simplified their grammars, especially phonetics and morphology, but the syntax became more complex and word order became more strict. So, inversion is more restricted in Macedonian and in Brazilian Portuguese, while it is possible with intransitive verbs:
Chegou Maria? or Maria chegou? (1); Quando chegou Maria? or Quando Maria chegar? (2)
Maria arrived; (1) When did Mari arrive? (2)
but only: Maria viu você(s)? (SVO) ''Did Maria see you?'' with transitive verbs, no possible inversion in Brazilian Portuguese.
'Guest' : « From one extreme end to another, No. But a Walloon may immitate a French article usage, which in turn may gradiate into a Occitan, then into a Castilian>Galician (you get it right?) ».
Oui, je pige. Mais la propagation graduelle d'un emprunt "germanique" (ou d'une "germanisation" grammaticale du "latin") sur l'intégralité d'un immense territoire allant de l'Atlantique à la Sicile et de la mer du Nord à Gibraltar est infiniment moins plausible que la transmission d'un étymon (ou d'un fait grammatical) de la langue-mère ("italien ancien", ororoman, protoroman, roman primitif etc) à ses langues-filles (ancien français, ancien occitan, toscan médiéval, castillan médiéval, ancien catalan etc). À mon avis en tout cas.
Oui, je pige. Mais la propagation graduelle d'un emprunt "germanique" (ou d'une "germanisation" grammaticale du "latin") sur l'intégralité d'un immense territoire allant de l'Atlantique à la Sicile et de la mer du Nord à Gibraltar est infiniment moins plausible que la transmission d'un étymon (ou d'un fait grammatical) de la langue-mère ("italien ancien", ororoman, protoroman, roman primitif etc) à ses langues-filles (ancien français, ancien occitan, toscan médiéval, castillan médiéval, ancien catalan etc). À mon avis en tout cas.
'Guest' : « <<,L'ouvrage de Ticknor (1791-1871) remonte au XIXe siècle, non ? Un peu daté...>>
In the context of distant past historical events, where all boats have docked (so to speak), and no new light is available to shed further insight, the time of his work is therefore irrelevant. (He published his claims several centuries AFTER Spanish had developed from Latin. That's enough time for a final analysis. Spanish is no longer progressing from Vul. Latin into Old Spanish.) »
C'est pas à ça que je pensais. Je voulais dire qu'au XIXe siècle la "mode" était d'attribuer au "germanique" tout ce qui ne s'expliquait ni par le latin ni par le grec. La théorie de Cortez vient justement faire voler en éclats cette mode assez démodée... Reste à savoir si l'hypothèse cortézienne est juste.
In the context of distant past historical events, where all boats have docked (so to speak), and no new light is available to shed further insight, the time of his work is therefore irrelevant. (He published his claims several centuries AFTER Spanish had developed from Latin. That's enough time for a final analysis. Spanish is no longer progressing from Vul. Latin into Old Spanish.) »
C'est pas à ça que je pensais. Je voulais dire qu'au XIXe siècle la "mode" était d'attribuer au "germanique" tout ce qui ne s'expliquait ni par le latin ni par le grec. La théorie de Cortez vient justement faire voler en éclats cette mode assez démodée... Reste à savoir si l'hypothèse cortézienne est juste.
However,
if a germanic element becomes fixed in one highly influential language or dialect, as was Old French, then its spread into other closely related dialects/languages like Romanian, Old Spanish, Old Italian, etc. is basically guaranteed. It only takes one leader to affect an army.
Such is the case in my opinion
if a germanic element becomes fixed in one highly influential language or dialect, as was Old French, then its spread into other closely related dialects/languages like Romanian, Old Spanish, Old Italian, etc. is basically guaranteed. It only takes one leader to affect an army.
Such is the case in my opinion
One of the innovations in Brazilian Portuguese is using ''estar com'' (to be having, to have at the moment of speaking) in opposition to ''have'' (to have, always), similar to that of ''estar'' (to be, right now) vc ''ser'' (to be, always).
Eu estou com fome. = I am hungry (now)
Eu tenho fome. = I am (always) hungry.
Eu estou com medo dessa cobra = I'm scared of that snake.
Eu tenho medo de cobra. = I'm scared of snakes.
That's why it sounds a bit odd to a Brazilian ear to hear Portuguese speakers using only TER here. So many dictionaries tend to simplify it, indicating: to be hungry: estar com fome (Brazil), ter fome (Portugal);
but this simplification is not true, as seen above.
Eu estou com fome. = I am hungry (now)
Eu tenho fome. = I am (always) hungry.
Eu estou com medo dessa cobra = I'm scared of that snake.
Eu tenho medo de cobra. = I'm scared of snakes.
That's why it sounds a bit odd to a Brazilian ear to hear Portuguese speakers using only TER here. So many dictionaries tend to simplify it, indicating: to be hungry: estar com fome (Brazil), ter fome (Portugal);
but this simplification is not true, as seen above.
That is nothing special. In Spanish you can also say Estoy hambriento (=Tengo hambre) > I'm hungry.