Why do Romance language speakers constantly mention Latin?

guest   Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:33 pm GMT
<<I see you are a German
>>

Nein, Ich bin Amerikaner, aber ich spreche Deutsch, und ich ehre die Deutsche Sprache

"olden times" is English, like "in the olden days"...it may be a hang-over from old declensions in Old English; it's a set phrase
Skippy   Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:09 pm GMT
The inferiority complex is linguistic, not cultural. Although there may have originally been a certain degree of a cultural inferiority complex, this has hardly been the case for the past 1200 years... Perhaps it affects English speakers more, but there is certainly an inferiority complex with regard to the Romance languages. I'm not saying it's justified at all, I think English is much more far along now than Latin ever was and that Old English is a far more fascinating language than Latin.
Guest   Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:13 pm GMT
Spain and France have more human development index than Germany and UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
PARISIEN   Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:47 pm GMT
<< The French speakers prefer to be told how much influenced by Old Germanic French was, no matter it is false. They are traitors to the Latinity and the venerable Latin language. >>
-- I don't remember any French contributor saying that BS.

<< It's just ONE idiot hispanic who spends too much time theorizing and stretching facts. That's all. He's a pain in everyone's @ss, isn't he? >>
-- yep, just this one.

Latin was great, but Latin is dead.
And since it's dead it offers an inexhaustible source for new scientific and technical concepts. You can create lots of latinate derivates without interfering with actual spoken use of that language.

Latin is great BECAUSE it's dead.
Guest   Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:37 pm GMT
Shut up frog.
JLK   Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:38 am GMT
<<Spain and France have more human development index than Germany and UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index>>

Of course they have a higher HDI. It's going to be a bit higher when you've got obnoxious socialism, 35 hour work weeks, 2 hour lunches and siestas in the case of France and Spain. However, both those nations have a lower GDP per capita than any Germanic nation. And those are the two best 'Latin' countries economically speaking. (I say that tentatively because many don't consider France a Latin nation.) One must look at the other Latin dialect speaking countries to get the whole picture. Italy is the sick man of Europe. Latin America is a bloody mess in every dimension and the same with French Africa. It seems to me that wherever a Germanic language is spoken there is prosperity, not so with Latin.
Guest   Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:45 am GMT
Um, English happens to be spoken in the following countries:

Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Bermuda
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
New Zealand
Trinidad and Tobago
Nigeria
Madagascar
Liberia
Kenya
India

Now those are not the msot prosperous countries! So your theory is garbage.
Guest   Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:50 am GMT
JLK, the Human development index does consider the GDP per capita among other parameters. In fact France has higher GDP per capita than Germany, but it's relative because higher GDP per capita means nothing if prices of food, houses, etc are also higher. HDI also takes into account the quality of medical attention people receive on average, the education system and so on to get the overal picture you can't obtain with just the GDP per capita. If GDP per capita was the only important factor Arabian Emirates would be the best countries in the world.
Guest   Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:59 am GMT
"It seems to me that wherever a Germanic language is spoken there is prosperity"

Zimbabwe for instance. LOL
French speaking Africa in better off than Anglophone Africa.

"35 hour work weeks"
Actual working time in longer in France than in UK.

"2 hour lunches and siestas in the case of France"
ROFL!

"obnoxious socialism"
Best example in Western Europe, the famous British NHS.

Your point?

Anyway, there is no relation between GDP per capita and languages.
But there is one with some unspeakable genetical factor that makes Nigeria and Haiti much poorer than Quebec and New Zealand... :)
Guest   Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:03 am GMT
It has to do more with weather rather than with the reason you suggest. If you live in a hot country people live more relaxed and work less which leads to less evolved societies.
Skippy   Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:05 am GMT
I agree with JLK to an agree, in that HDI will naturally be slightly skewed towards nations with large government programs and ignores factors such as economic freedom.

I know this sucks, but the HDI, Freedom House, PQLI (and maybe 5 or 6 other lesser known indeces) reflect more their creators' opinions with relatively arbitrary values in a formal model (mathematical equation) with relatively arbitrary weights... If you have the time and a statistical software package you could just make up your own index (I'll probably have to do this for my thesis).
JLK   Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:15 am GMT
It's a matter of regional relativism. Let's face it, some regions of the world are more backwards than others due to isolation, geography, culture,etc..

Now, I have no idea why you have New Zealand and Barbados up there because they are very wealthy nations. With the rest however...

Compare Anguila and Barbados with Haiti and Dominican Republic. Compare Kenya and South Africa with Democratic Republic of the Congo. Get my point? The former British colonies are almost always wealthier and more politically stable than the neighboring French or Spanish colonies.
Guest   Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:18 am GMT
<<I agree with JLK to an agree, in that HDI will naturally be slightly skewed towards nations with large government programs and ignores factors such as economic freedom. >>

HDI is quite favourable for US so I don't understand why you criticize it so much. In reality US is ranked above countries with better standard of living like Belgium, Austria or Denmark. It is subjective yes, but all indexes are as well. Still there must be some way to quantify the degree of development of countries rather than just measuring the GDP. It was created by recognized experts in Economics so I doubt everyone can invent their own indexes. Anyway GDP is still the factor that weights more, but evidently other parameters must also count because if GDP is high but poor people can't afford a heath transplant it's preferable a bit "poorer" country in terms of GDP where the less favoured people are more protected. There is also the Gini index that measures the level of inequality of income and US has as much inequality among rich and poor people as many African countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
JLK   Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:23 am GMT
<<In fact France has higher GDP per capita than Germany, but it's relative because higher GDP per capita means nothing if prices of food, houses, etc are also higher.>>

No, France has a lower GDP (PPP) per capita than Germany and a microscopically higher nominal GDP per capita. Not very impressive for France considering Germany has a much larger population and considerably lower taxes. You know what that means? The average German actually takes more money home each year than the average French men.
Guest   Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:24 am GMT
<<Compare Anguila and Barbados with Haiti and Dominican Republic. Compare Kenya and South Africa with Democratic Republic of the Congo. Get my point? The former British colonies are almost always wealthier and more politically stable than the neighboring French or Spanish colonies. >>

Or compare Belize (the only English speaking country in central America) with Costa Rica:

Costa Rica GDP PPP Per capita $12,000 (62nd)
Belize GDP PPP Per capita $8,400 (76th)

You are well taught that propaganda in schools in English speaking countries, but reality is more complex than that.