What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language

greg:
<<béarnais <arrat>
bergamasque <rat>
castillan <rata>
castillan <ratón> {souris}
catalan <rata>
français <rat>
galicien <rata>
gascon <arrat>
italien <ratto>
occitan <rat> <rata>
piedmontais <rat>
portugais <rato>
provençal <rato> {souris}
saintongeais <rat>

basque <arratoi>

breton <raz>
mannois <roddan>

latin <rattus>

frioulan <pantiane>

lombard <pàtega>

occitan <garri> {surmulot}
provençal <gàrri> {rat}

roumain <şobolan>

vénète <póntega>

vénète <sórxe> <sórzo> ?↔? polonais <szczur>
(on est plus à ça près : si l'ancien vieil-allemand a donné <rat> aux Basques via les Béarnais, autant penser que les Vénitiens ont emprunté <sórxe>/<sórzo> aux Polonais) >>


greg,you forget something:

Icelandic-rotta
Swedish-råtor
Nynorsk-rotte
Norwegian Bokmål-rotter
Danish-rotte
Icelandic-rotta
West frisian-rôt
Old english-ræt
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=r&p=2

" greg,you forget something:

Icelandic-rotta
Swedish-råtor
Nynorsk-rotte
Norwegian Bokmål-rotter
Danish-rotte
Icelandic-rotta
West frisian-rôt
Old english-ræt "


Wy do you think romance languages, such as french, would have borrowded "rater" from Germanic (rotta, rotte, rotter, rot, etc...) since rattus already exist. And, while germanic words use mainly "rot-" root, the romance ones used "rat-" ones, like latin "rattus" !
Anyway this doesn't even concerns directly the word we speak about, which is "rater" (means about "to mistake"), and evolved form "raptus", meaning to put-off, in reference to the writting mistake (rature, etc.). It is a complete latin word.

But yes latin and germanic language (as does slavic, etc) have similar indo-European etymologies, you say nothing more.

<<,That is a typical example of what happened: Germanic constructions were translated 1 to 1 into what was thought to be "Latin". Other examples are "une fois" = "einmal", "bien venu" = "willkommen/welcome", "endormir" = "einschlafen". Latin construction "endormare" never existed... >>


plupart, bonheur, malheur, ainsi, peut-être, au-jour-d'hui are all like this

<<Anyway, even in a world where those exemples were with germanic origin>>

They are :)

====

The problem here is that greg and guest guest take the approach of linguistics from a Now-perspective backwards, where the others of us begin from the origin and move forward in time.

greg, you again play the same old hand which is feable at being able to convince the learned skeptic, only the inexperieced youngster--Latin 'rattus' is an emprunt from Germanic, proven by accepted methodology of sound transition from Proto-Indo-European *red- "to gnaw", which gives rise to Latin 'rodere' from whence we get "rodent". RODENT is the true Italic form of the word. The same PIE root gives rise to Germanic *ratt-, where Vulgar Latin picks it up as 'rattus'. Please, do some research before spouting off. guest guest, you too.

English <rat>
Old English <ræt>
Old Saxon <ratta>
MLG <rotte>
Dutch <rat>
OHG <rato, ratta>
Germanc <Ratte, Ratze>
Danish <rotte>
Swedish <råtta, råtor>
French <rat>

Irish & Gaelic <radan>
Armor. <raz>

"Weekley thinks this is of Gmc. origin, "the animal having come from the East with the race-migrations" and the word passing thence to the Romanic languages. American Heritage and Tucker connect O.E. ræt to L. rodere and thus PIE *red- "to scrape, scratch, gnaw," source of rodent (q.v.). Barnhart writes, "the relationship to each other of the Germanic, Romance, and Celtic words for rat is uncertain." OED says "probable that the rat word spread from Germanic to Romance"

Given the fact that the word shows the correct alteration in form of the PIE root in that the 'd' > 't' (red- > rat), and given the above passage, who wants to continue to contest? So Latin has 2 forms of the same PIE root, one with no change (i.e. "rodere") and one with? ("rattus")? Can you please explain why this is so, greg or guest guest?

By the way, guest guest, "prendre un rat" was an old French phrase as in "ce pistolet a pris un rat" = "the pistol misfired, missing fire", that gave rise to the verb 'rater'. I cannot believe that a foreigner has to explain this to you, a Frenchman/-woman. Please, learn something about your language before you come here and smugly lecture in baseless defense of it.

Maybe this is where our disconnect lies. I actually expect you to already understnad these things without me having to spoon-feed them to you as an infant. I'm not a baby-sitter. I will have none of it.

<<" "Observer : « "mépris" contains the germanic prefix "mé-, més-" (English mis-) »
Oui c'est bien connu : le préfixe français <mé#> n'a rien de roman. Itou pour <mesconéisser> en occitan. " "
Yes, and "menospreciar" (mépriser in Spanish), has nothing to see with menos (lat. minus/fr. més-)+ preciar... ;) >>

Again you display your lack of training, or perhaps your intentional attempt to frustrate. Let me teach you something: Forget the occurrences of this "assumed" prefix in other Romance languages. We are talking about French 'mé-, més-' from Olf French 'mes-, mis- [in Carolingian documents]' only (start with the source and work towards the present).

1). Latin 'minus' ("less") was not used as a prefix. -us is a masculine nominative inflection. Were it a prefix, it would show as 'minu-', no terminatins -s. But it was not a prefix so this doesn't matter.

2). Old French 'mes-' means "badly, wrongly" (cf OFr mesfaire = do badly, do wrongly); Latin 'minus' means "less, small" (mesfaire != do less, do small). No semantical relation.

In Old French, 'mes-, mis-' both in form, meaning and utilization align it closer to the Frankish prefix *mis-. (cf OE mis-, OS missi-, OHG missi-, ON mis-, etc)

Now, LATER, attempts have been made to link it to a fantasist Latin assumed prefix minus- and this has given rise to later forms which use this neo-prefix (prov mens-, Spanish menos-), forms you show above. Those forms have nothing to do with Old French mes- which is what gives rise to French mé-, més-. But I see they have succeeded in deceiving the simpletons ;)

<<Observer : « You do say garbe in French [...] ».
Inconnu au bataillon, désolé. >>

This word was listed in guest guest's list above:
"* derivatives of "blé, vois, fange, ***garbe***, haie,"

Please learn the history of French...we are trying to discuss development over time. Without this, you only cause confusion and again, frustration. If you cannot get the simple things right, how can we trust anything you say?

Vous argumentez pour des menus détails, pour prouver quoi au fait, que le français est la résultante d'une espèce de langue hybride construite à partir du germanique.

Ouest Wed May 20, 2009 5:06 pm GMT
''I repeat: not the vocabulary was altered by the vain efforts of Germanic settlers to learn convenient Latin, but the core of Latin language, it´s structure, syntax, grammar, morphology etc.''

Ensuite, Leasnam et les autres, vous vous attardez sur l'étymologie de quelques mots ou de certaines locutions (ce qui devient contradictoire avec ce que dit Ouest) , allez-vous continuer comme ça à gruger (tiens! voilà un des quelques mots d'origine néerlandaise, c'est admis) l'identité du français pour tenter de réécrire nos livres d'histoire des langues. On va finir par s'en moquer. Il faut chercher dans la nuit des temps certaines ressemblances des langues indo-européennes que ce soit ''rat'' ou un autre mot, c'est de la ''ratatouille'' pour les linguistes.

guest guest must be greg's boyfrend LOL

I don't see Ouest and Leasnam contradicting. Leasnam is just taking a minute out to clarify a point on the side.

<<guest guest must be greg's boyfrend LOL >>

Sí, su amante amoroso HEHEHE

<<1. what we call "latin" is only the litterary written version of the roman language. Vulgar latin would have been the oral one that had its own characteritics and evoluted its own way.

2. what we call "latin" was the official language of roman empire, but there was another close language: "paleo-roman" that was the most spread oral language, and fed itself with words taken into latin.

3. what we call "latin" was the original language that did evoluated to romance (but still existed later in parralel) under other influences in core of the roman empire itself long time before the great invasions. (the idea that it evoluated in each area independently after the invasions is very unprobale because of the great uniformity of romance languages, especially compared to latin and compared to the diversity of germanic languages)
>>



Yeah we get it. Thanks. We are on page 8 and you're still trying to explicate page 2 (like we needed it).

We GOT IT already. :)




Maybe you should just take a minute and Listen, and LEARN

rep : « you forget something: Icelandic-rotta [...] ».

Non, je n'oublie rien. Au cas où tu ne l'aurais pas remarqué, la discussion sur l'étymon <rat> était précisément basée sur une assertion non démontrée : emprunt roman au germanique. L'élément nouveau que j'apportais visait à illustrer que l'ensemble roman se rassemblait majoritairement autour de l'étymon <rat>, ce qui suffit à établir une forte présomption d'origine endogène. Que l'ensemble germanique manifeste une polarisation analogue en son sein (avec comme étymon fédérateur <rat> , <glouglou> ou <ksiksi> → on s'en fout), ou au contraire affiche une grande dispersion autour de plusieurs vocables, c'est une question certes passionnante mais totalement hors-sujet en romanologie. Je te rassure : ce n'était donc pas un oubli mais un choix délibéré de laisser de côté ce qui est inutile.

En revanche il était utile de montrer que des représentants de la famille celtique présentaient des étymons semblables aux étymons roman et germanique. L'objectif étant de dégermanocentrer un débat biaisé dès le départ.





Leasnam : « The problem here is that greg and guest guest take the approach of linguistics from a Now-perspective backwards, where the others of us begin from the origin and move forward in time. »

C'est la meilleure de l'année ! Notre démarche consiste au contraire à partir de plus loin que ne le font les sempiternelles divagations barbaro-mérovingiennes pour nous intéresser à la sociolinguistique de la Rome républicaine & impériale. Tes "affirmations" sont au mieux le sous-produit frelaté d'analyses datant du XIXe siècle au sujet d'hypothétiques langues remontant tout au plus au Moyen-Âge... Les "origines" dont tu parles ne valent pas tripette : c'est pas avec de faux étymons "reconstitués" et commodément attribués à "l'ancien bas-francique" que tu peux prétendre "remonter le temps" pour "redescendre" dans l'autre sens...

À tout prendre, je préfère partir de bases solides (ancien français, ancien castillan, ancien toscan, ancien occitan, ancien catalan etc) et de leurs avatars modernes, plutôt que me baser sur des "étymons" germaniques qui n'existent que dans le cerveau de ceux qui les ont inventés.

Et puisque tu sembles être très satisfait de ta "méthodologie", j'attends avec impatience tes analyses comparatives sur un corpus de ton choix dans les paléolangues de ton choix : ancien français, ancien occitan, vieil-allemand, vieil-anglais etc.





Leasnam : « greg, you again play the same old hand which is feable at being able to convince the learned skeptic, only the inexperieced youngster--Latin 'rattus' is an emprunt from Germanic, proven by accepted methodology of sound transition from Proto-Indo-European *red- "to gnaw", which gives rise to Latin 'rodere' from whence we get "rodent". RODENT is the true Italic form of the word. The same PIE root gives rise to Germanic *ratt-, where Vulgar Latin picks it up as 'rattus'. Please, do some research before spouting off. »

Tu es bien aimable mais je suis déjà au courant de tout ça. Et parfaitement conscient des partis pris épistémologiques qui sous-tendent ces analyses et leurs conclusions : latinocentrisme + germanopériphérisme. D'autre part La <rodere> est sans doute indirectement lié à AF <rugier> → Fr <ronger>, mais tous les rongeurs ne sont pas des rats, loin s'en faut. C'est l'évidence : il ne saurait y avoir une forme "italique unique" pour faire référence à deux réalités extralinguistiques distinctes. C'est pour cette raison qu'on trouve la paire (et plus) dans les langues romanes :

castillan <rata> {rat} <ratón> {souris} — <roedor>
catalan <rata> — <rosegador>
français <rat> — <rongeur>
galicien <rata> {rat} <rato> {souris} — <roedor>
italien <ratto> — <roditore>
normand <rat> — <grugeux>
occitan <rat> <rata> — <rosegaire>
portugais <rato> — <roedor>
wallon <rate> — <rawiant>.

Retour à la case départ : ton "raisonnement" ne tient pas.





Leasnam : « Given the fact that the word shows the correct alteration in form of the PIE root in that the 'd' > 't' (red- > rat), and given the above passage, who wants to continue to contest? So Latin has 2 forms of the same PIE root, one with no change (i.e. "rodere") and one with? ("rattus")? Can you please explain why this is so, greg or guest guest? »

C'est sans doute que l'hypothèse de départ était fausse sur ce point : il se peut que <roedor>/<roditore> et <rata>/<ratto> ne relèvent pas d'une seule "racine" mais de deux ; ou encore qu'une même "racine" ait pu conduire à deux formes dont une a été écartée en raison de sa non-conformité avec le dogme filiatique latin→roman. D'autre part il est illusoire de baser l'origine d'un étymon roman ***attesté*** sur une pseudoracine ***reconstruite*** d'une langue "primordiale" dont nous ignorons à peu près tout.

Quant à savoir pourquoi le latin aurait deux formes plutôt qu'une, ce n'est pertinent pour le sujet qui nous occupe (romanologie) qu'à condition qu'on ait établi que le roman aurait emprunté les formes anciennes correspondant à <roedor>/<roditore> et <rata>/<ratto> au latin, plutôt que l'hypothèse contraire, et plutôt que la tierce hypothèse d'un héritage provenant d'une langue italique dont le roman et le latin seraient issus.

Mais je ne vois toujours pas ce qui te pousse à germanocentrer une question essentiellement italo-italique — jusqu'à preuve du contraire.





Leasnam (Etymonline) : « "Weekley thinks this is of Gmc. origin, "the animal having come from the East with the race-migrations" and the word passing thence to the Romanic languages. »

Ridicule.

Puisque tu fais des copier-collers d'Etymonline, n'oublie pas de tout rapporter : « [...] connection is uncertain and origin unknown [...] Klein says there is no connection and suggests a possible cognate in Gk. rhine "file, rasp." [...] OED says "probable" the rat word spread from Germanic to Romance, but takes no position on ultimate origin [...] M.E. common form was ratton, from augmented O.Fr. form raton [...] ».





Leasnam : « In Old French, 'mes-, mis-' both in form, meaning and utilization align it closer to the Frankish prefix *mis-. (cf OE mis-, OS missi-, OHG missi-, ON mis-, etc) ».

Ce n'est donc pas une preuve puisque tu parles d'un "étymon" "francique" dont on aimerait non seulement avoir des attestations, mais aussi constater comment cet "étymon" a été emprunté. Et, pour finir, quel est le rapport avec l'ancien occitan ?





Leasnam : « Please learn the history of French... »

Apprends le français — tout court. Apprends l'ancien français, l'ancien occitan, l'ancien castillan etc. Après ça tu pourras apprendre des rudiments de linguistique au lieu de nous infliger des copier-collers d'Etymonline...

Pour en revenir à l'histoire du français, sache qu'elle n'est pas encore totalement écrite : nous ne savons rien de ce que fut notre langue avant la période de l'ancien français archaïque. Il ne s'agit donc pas tant de l'apprendre que de la découvrir.

greg has a bullshit answer for everything doesn't he?

always good for a laugh haha

Is there any thing wrong with making citations from sources on this forum? I thought that was a good way to prove a point?

"Puisque tu fais des copier-collers d'Etymonline, n'oublie pas de tout rapporter : « [...] connection is uncertain and origin unknown [...] Klein says there is no connection and suggests a possible cognate in Gk. rhine "file, rasp." [...] OED says "probable" the rat word spread from Germanic to Romance, but takes no position on ultimate origin [...] M.E. common form was ratton, from augmented O.Fr. form raton [...] ». "

_________________________________________________
Je te rassure : ce n'était donc pas un oubli mais un choix délibéré de laisser de côté ce qui est inutile. <=Peut-être c'est la raison.

<<C'est sans doute que l'hypothèse de départ était fausse sur ce point : il se peut que <roedor>/<roditore> et <rata>/<ratto> ne relèvent pas d'une seule "racine" mais de deux ; ou encore qu'une même "racine" ait pu conduire à deux formes dont une a été écartée en raison de sa non-conformité avec le dogme filiatique latin→roman. >>

Où est la preuve ? Tellement maintenant vous changez votre air quand il te convient faire ainsi. Vous êtes une feinte et un charlatan.

" plupart, bonheur, malheur, ainsi, peut-être, au-jour-d'hui are all like this
<<Anyway, even in a world where those exemples were with germanic origin>>
They are :) "

hehehehehe !!! I didn't know you were a funny man (or woman i don't know!)
if "bien", "heur", "venue", "mal", "au", "jour", "de"; "hui" are germanic words, then I agree with you french is germanic language !! :) !! very funny Leasman!




" Please, do some research before spouting off. guest guest, you too. "

hahahahah !!!! you definitly VERY funny tonight !!!

You could apply you wished to yourself before on others it would be nice for the quality of the discussion
I remind some of your recent claims ;
" (<--"garbage"=French germanic word) ".... hahahahaha, very well informed Leasnam!
I reminded me the time when you claimed that french adjectives went before the nouns, as a proof that french had a germanic syntax, while it was just the inverse!! hahaha !...


" Given the fact that the word shows the correct alteration in form of the PIE root in that the 'd' > 't' (red- > rat), and given the above passage, who wants to continue to contest? So Latin has 2 forms of the same PIE root, one with no change (i.e. "rodere") and one with? ("rattus")? Can you please explain why this is so, greg or guest guest? "

I won't lost my time on this point, which is insignificant, greg did it in another post.
You don't need to spend time dealing with such pointless controversy. You had better to interest yourself to the analysis you asked yourself: I remind you said:
"The only way to tell is to take a several samples of French, conversational or literary--whichever you choose to focus on--and analyse them."
Ok, I posted two samples of french a few pages ago... what are you expecting to give your analyse concerning the importance of words of germanic origins in french?? I'm waiting your conclusions of great linguist....





" By the way, guest guest, "prendre un rat" was an old French phrase as in "ce pistolet a pris un rat" = "the pistol misfired, missing fire", that gave rise to the verb 'rater'. I cannot believe that a foreigner has to explain this to you, a Frenchman/-woman. Please, learn something about your language before you come here and smugly lecture in baseless defense of it. "
You are pathetic. I'm sorry but I'm not a native old french speaker... And thank you but I'm also able to past-copy, I could do it in all english... And please I don't need this kind of comments from someone who don't understand french.




" Maybe this is where our disconnect lies. I actually expect you to already understnad these things without me having to spoon-feed them to you as an infant. I'm not a baby-sitter. I will have none of it. "

No comment. I thought you were funny tonight. I'm afraid you coming mad, Sorry.



" <<" "Observer : « "mépris" contains the germanic prefix "mé-, més-" (English mis-) »
Oui c'est bien connu : le préfixe français <mé#> n'a rien de roman. Itou pour <mesconéisser> en occitan. " "
Yes, and "menospreciar" (mépriser in Spanish), has nothing to see with menos (lat. minus/fr. més-)+ preciar... ;) >>
Again you display your lack of training, or perhaps your intentional attempt to frustrate. Let me teach you something: Forget the occurrences of this "assumed" prefix in other Romance languages. We are talking about French 'mé-, més-' from Olf French 'mes-, mis- [in Carolingian documents]' only (start with the source and work towards the present). "

Same than above. why don't you come the analysis of the whole text... not just discussing endlessly over 2 words...

And if you consider, like "observer", that there are not enough, you have the right to make the same exercice I did with this two samples with a whole book of Emile Zola if you want... since it seems you have time to loose... You'll give me the results of your research, I'm sure they would be intereting.



" <<Observer : « You do say garbe in French [...] ».
Inconnu au bataillon, désolé. >>
This word was listed in guest guest's list above:
"* derivatives of "blé, vois, fange, ***garbe***, haie,"

The objective of this list was precisely made to make you concious that a lot of there words are actually not used...
And that true "garbe" is for us "inconnu au bataillon", but is part of the 400 "attested" words with germanic root...








If you want more information of the subject this a the list of these words. Those with (?) are contested among linguits

French words of original germanic origins : about 400 words:
If we group them in three groups: 1. Not used, very rarely known / 2. Rarely used / 3. Current french

1. Not used, and not understood by today french speakers (I personally never have heard them): about 120 words:
alise, alleu, arroi, baboue, bau, bedeau, béton (lait), bief, bière (caisse), bondon, bongeau, bot, brachet, brai (piège), braise, brand, brandon, brème, buire, buron, chambellan, chaton (de bague), chétron, ciron, clenche, coche (bateau), cote (cabane), crafe, cramail (?), crape, drageon, écale, échauguette, échevin, échiffre, écofier, écot, élingue, empan, épeiche, éperlan, époule, espringale, estrif, éteuf, étoc, faude, feurre, fouarre, frette, freux, gaude, gaule (?), gerfaut, glouteron, gonfalon, gruau, gruyer, guède, guerdon, guiche, guimpe, haire, hait, hallier, hampe, hanap, haubert, haussière, haveron, havet, hétoudeau, hourd, houseau, laîche, lippe, litre (fem), losse (?), marc (poids), martre, mégis (?), rochet, taquet, targe, tassette, tette, touaille, troène, varenne, baud, blet, dehait, échif, galand, lige, madré, sur (acide), bâtir (coudre), baudir, brouir, éclisser, émeutir (fienter), étricher, étriver, fauder, flatir, fourbir, gauchir, grigner, grommeler, guiper, mâchurer, marrir, oudrir (?), rouir, sérancer, super, bélitre, flasque (madrie), foudre(tonneau), halecret, lansquenet.
2. Words that are actually used in specific speech (words that we generally know but that are not part of current vocabulary); about 60 words
affre, aigrette, aune, ban, baudrier, beffroi, brelan, bride, brouée, brouet, bru, cane (?), charivari (?), chopine, clapier, cotte (vêtement), crampon, échanson, échine, échoppe (boutique), épar, éperon, épieu, esclame, faîte, fanon, fourreau, frimas, garenne, grès, guise, harde (troupe), hâte, havre, heaume, héraut (?), héron, houe, huche, hulotte (?), if (?), lisse (palissade), marche (frontière), marsouin, maton, mésange (?), mitaine, mite, morille,
mulot, sénéchal, tourbe (charbon), trumeau (?), adouber, bramer, buer, aurochs, élan (cerf),
3. Words of current french vocabulary, that an average native speaker should know (about 225 words)
agace, anche, babine, balafre, balle, banc, bande (d'étoffe), bannière, bar, beignet, bille (boule), bloc, bois (?), borde, botte, (assemblage d'objets), bouc, bourg, brèche, brique, brosse, bûche (?), butin, caille, canif, carcan, chamois, chouette, clapet, coiffe, crabe (crustacé), crapaud (?), crèche, cresson, croupe, cruche, dard, duvet (?), écaille, écharpe,échasse, échelle (escadron), écran, écrevisse, écume, émail, émoi, épervier, esturgeon, étal, étalon, étau, étoffe, étrier, falaise, fauteuil, feutre, fief, flan, flot, frais, gage, gant, garou (loup-), gâteau (?), gaufre, gazon, gêne, gerbe, gifle (?), giron, grappe, griffe, groseille, guerre, guet, hache, haie, halle, hameau, hanche, hanneton, hareng, harpe, héberge, honte, hotte, housse, houx, jardin, latte, leurre, loge, loquet, lot, malle, marais, mare, maréchal, mât, meurtre, mitraille, moufle (gant), mousse, nord, orgueil, ouest, parc (?), patte (?), poche (?), quille (à jouer), rang, rat (?), regain, roseau, salle, sud, tache, taisson, tanière, tas (?), taudis (?), tique, tonne, touffe, toupet, toupie (?), trappe, trêve, trompe, troupe (?), tuyau, blafard, blanc, bleu, brun, esclame, fauve, fluet, frais, franc, gaillard (?), gris, laid, morne, riche, sale, avachir, bannir, bouter, broder (?), brouter, broyer, choisir, chopper (?), choquer (?), clapper, cracher, danser, déchirer, déguerpir, dérober, éblouir, éclater (?), effrayer, enhardir, épanouir, épargner, épeler, epier, estamper, farder (?), flatter, fournir, fourrer, gâcher, gagner, galoper (?), garder, garnir, glapir, glisser, gratter, graver, grimper, grincer, gripper, guérir, guider, haïr, haler, happer, hâter, heurter, honnir, lamper, laper, lécher, marquer, nantir, navrer, radoter, ramper, râper, regretter, rider, river, rôtir, saisir, souper, taper (frapper), taper (boucher), tapir (?), tarir, tirer, tomber, toucher, trébucher, trépigner, tricher (?), guère, trop (?), .blocus, boulevard, cric, dalle,


To those we can add the french words of more recent germanic origins, from 15th century, about 105 words:

1. Not used, and not understood by today french speakers (I personally never have heard them): about 55 words:
bondrée, brinde, bismuth, canapsa, carrousse, castine, éclanche, gulpe, hase, reître, rosse, trôler, crancelin, cromorne, dréger, étraque, havresac, vaguemestre, velte, banse, bérubleau, blende, bocambre, bocard, cran (raifort), drille (trépan), embérize, estrigue, feldspath, flinquer, gland (tenaille), gneiss, halde, heiduque, kirsch-wasser, lagre, losse, prame, quartier-mestre, sabretache, spalt, spath, velche, vermout, vidrecome; bichof, coprose, cuffat,
dolman, druse, guelte, schabraque, schlague, schlich

(Probably you cou teach me a lot about what those french words mean, because of your good knowledge of old french, and your native germanic language, I'm waiting)

2. Words that are actually used in specific speech (words that we generally know but that are not part of current vocabulary); about 14 words
arquebuse, coche (voiture), fifre, huguenot, potasse, hulot (hublot), traban, glaçure, loustic, vasistas, bock, mastoc, thalweg, tungstène

3. Words of current french vocabulary, that an average native speaker should know (about 35 words)
bière (boisson), bique (fam.), blottir, bogue (de châtaigne), burin, cale, clapet, espiègle, gueuse, halte, hutte, trinquer, bivouac, blinder, calèche, chenapan,
cible, estomper, gangue, gibelot, obus, sabre, valse, zigzag, zinc, cobalt, hamster, nouille, vampire, blague, blockhaus, bogue (anneau), chope, choucroute, gamin, képi




Well, to sum up and have a more precise idea of the importance of this vocabulary with germanic origins we could add the totals
- 260 french words of germanic origins are used and known by most of the native french speakers, in various frequencies.
- 74 french words of germanic origins are still used, but in much rescticted cases
- 175 words are completly unknown to most of the modern native french speakers.

when we think that english, has not enought of hundreds of thousands of attested latinates words to be considered a latin-germanic mixed language... french with about 400 words of "attested" germanic origins is quite far, no?

Il y a bien plus de 400 mots germaniques en français, et si on incluait le vocabulaire des métiers (particulièrement ceux liés à la menuiserie, à la marine et à la chasse etc. on en trouverait facilement des milliers, sans compter les dérivés.

Les listes ci-dessus sont pleines de lacunes (me viennent immédiatement à l'esprit par ex. ruban, paquet, gazon, hanter, mannequin, démarrer etc.), et la plupart des mots cités sont connus de tout francophone même très moyennement cultivé. Par ex., "clenche" et ses dérivés (déclencher, enclencher). Sans parler de tout un vocabulaire familier : bouquin, reluquer


<< Oui c'est bien connu : le préfixe français <mé#> n'a rien de roman. Itou pour <mesconéisser> en occitan. " "
Yes, and "menospreciar" (mépriser in Spanish), has nothing to see with menos (lat. minus/fr. més-)+ preciar... ;) >>

-- Eh bien oui, le préfixe "mé(s)" est germanique, il faut être de mauvaise foi pour le rattacher à "moins". 'Médisant', ce n'est pas 'moins-disant'.
Ce préfixe existe en occitan mais moins souvent. En italien il est rare mais a bien conservé sa morphologie originelle : "misconoscere", "misleale', 'miscredente' .

Il est bon de rabattre le caquet de certains maniaques, mais il ne faut pas non plus déconner !