The most contrasting Latin languages?

JLK   Sat May 10, 2008 3:15 am GMT
<<What are you all talking about? England? WWII? Victory? What does England have to do with WWII victory? Ok, they helped, which is appreciated, but they don't hold the credit. Mother Russia laughs sadly at such ignorace.>>

Did the laugh occur before or after the Nazis killed 20 million Russians?
greg   Sat May 10, 2008 11:56 am GMT
'Guest' : « Germany defeated France in just 0 seconds during the WWII. You know, the French heroes who claim that they won the WWII but had no guts to fight against Hitler. »

Juste une petite rectif : en six semaines de combats, la France a perdu 100.000 hommes face à l'Allemagne nazie, avant que le fasciste défaitiste Pétain n'ordonne la cessation des combats. La bataille de France a été l'une des plus violentes de la guerre de 39-45. En revanche, les pleurnicheries sur le nombre de soldats états-uniens morts en Iraq font sourire à côté de la bataille de France : 4.000 en 5 ans — une misère ! Quant à la vigueur de l'engagement des soldats états-unien au Vietnam, là aussi c'est très relatif : 58.000 hommés tombés au combat en 14 ans...



Au passage, chacun aura noté la valeur ajoutée linguistique de l'intrusion grand-guignolesque de JLK.
Ouest   Sat May 10, 2008 12:23 pm GMT
<<<"One of these observations is the fact that French and German language have much in common, while French is very different from Latin."


ahhahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!! so funny!!
>>>

A German can learn to speak fluently French within about 2 years, a French needs about 3 years to learn German. But a French will need intensive training of at least 5 years to learn to speak Latin fluently. So the statement is valid, isn´t it?


<<<I can't understand the point of these non-french people taht want at all price that French be like Germans or other germanic peoples.
What the point? >>>

We search for the origins of Romance languages.
Ouest   Sat May 10, 2008 12:29 pm GMT
greg Fri May 09, 2008 9:32 pm GMT
Ouest : « What do you think happened to these populations, what was their fate if only a few percent survived and settled in Western Europe? ».

Franchement, tu passes du coq à l'âne en évitant soigneusement toute confrontation strictement linguistique. Je comprends que tu tiennes à éviter d'avancer tes arguments (si tu en as) sur la genèse et/ou les origines du français, mais force est de constater que tu t'éloignes du sujet sur lequel tu prétends informer. On peut parler des vases Ming ou de la reproduction des gastéropodes si ça te chante, mais je doute de ton efficacité sur le "créole romanogermanique".
______________


I had the feeling that you and Parisien exclude a Romano-Germanic Creole as the starting point of Romance (and French) because of the idea, that German conquerors of the Roman empire were just a small number ("squadron"), quickly absorbed by the native Gaulois who had adopted the Latin language and civilization to become GALLO-romans.

Quoth: "Il faut se souvenir de ce qu'était dans les temps anciens une invasion réussie (ou non). C'était un clan de guerriers qui s'arrangeaient pour faire boule de neige autour d'eux. " (PARISIEN)

But if you have another view about the matter, feel free to correct me.
Guest   Sat May 10, 2008 12:37 pm GMT
PARISIEN Sat May 10, 2008 12:30 am GMT
<< Julius Caesar conquered Galia in just five years. So they were not as many or they were utterly coward. >>
-- In 1066 it took just five hours (from 2 to 7 PM) pn Senlac Hill near Hastings to conqueer England (you know, the Anglo-Saxons heroes, the ones who claim that dropping their guns and fleeing to Dunkirk is a big victory...).
____________


How could English vocabulary be enriched by so many French words within only 5 hours? To conquer a realm it takes the invasors more than a victorious battle - the interesting point is what happened after the battle? Were the native Anglo-Saxons left in freedom and peace, or were they enslaved, killed, suppressed etc.? Did the French-Normans intermix with them?
Ouest   Sat May 10, 2008 12:45 pm GMT
PARISIEN:
"
Quand on voit les conséquences phénoménales de la victoire de Hastings, il est probable que les Lombards d'Italie et les Wisigoths d'Espagne n'étaient que quelques milliers, voire quelques centaines de Germains
"


An why were the places where the Lombards and the Goths settled before the migration period deserted after their departure? What happened to the rest of these peoples if only some hundredth of Lombards and Wisigoths entered and conquered Italy and Spain?
Adolfo   Sat May 10, 2008 12:59 pm GMT
"if only some hundredth of Lombards and Wisigoths entered and conquered Italy and Spain"

They were a few more. Around 200 000 barbarians crossed the Pyrenees. This includes not only goths but suebi and vandals. Take into account that the Spanish population was not very high by then ,thence the demographic impact of the invaders was not insignificant. Also it is remarkable that they represented the Roman authority since they were confederates of the Roman empire, so the native population used to obey the Roman rulers , didn't see them as invaders but to the contrary, as people who came to put some order in a collapsing Roman empire.
Earle   Sat May 10, 2008 2:29 pm GMT
This discussion puts me in mind of Dürrenmatt's comedic play, "Romulus der Grosse." The play opens with Romulus, last emperor of the western empire, tending his chickens in the imperial palace, when a soldier, Spurius Titus Mamma, bursts in telling him that the Germans are coming. Romulus shrugs and says "They've been coming for centuries." The basis of the humor is, of course, that, by now, the barbarians are more civilized than the Romans. I don't know if it's available other than in German...