|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
greg Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:07 pm GMT
Ouest : « Caesar's army was an extremely cosmopolitan entity. »
Ouest : tu te trompes de débat → on ne fait pas la sociologie de l'armée romaine mais l'approche linguistique du paléoroman.
_______________________
Your aproach is old fashioned and monotone: new science combine archelogy, history, linguistics, geography, biology etc. in order to make a consistent picture of what happened.
Joshqc Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:40 am GMT
And....lets just pretend that there were tonnes of Germanic soldiers in the army...hundreds of thousands even. Where is the documented proof of their influence on other people? Where is the letter written by one Roman general to another saying "my god the troops speak bad Latin, and its catching on!". Where is the documentation?
_______________________
First such document is the treaty of Verdun 830 AC. But already Roman sources say that in late Rome, Barbaric was at some places more frequently heard than Latin. In late Roman theatre plays that have come to us, Germanic slave speak with a bad (vulgar) Latin, an early form of Protoprotoromance
Ouest : « Your aproach is old fashioned and monotone: new science combine archelogy, history, linguistics, geography, biology etc. in order to make a consistent picture of what happened. »
C'est bien ce que je te disais : tu es fasciné par tout ce qui est extralinguistique. Grand bien te fasse ! Mais ne ramène pas ta fraise en matière de linguistique : tu confondais les règles de placement de l'adjectif épithète en français moderne (les enfants l'apprennent dès l'âge de 7 ans) et tu viendrais nous en conter au sujet de l'ancien français et du paléoroman ? Tes connaissances linguistiques sont voisines de zéro et ni l'archéologie (!) ni la biologie (!!!) ne pourront rien pour toi sur ce point.
Tu es enfermé dans ta petite bulle bicentriste tendance créoloïde. Tes élucubrations remontent tout au plus à l'Antiquité finissante et tu ignores complètement l'Antiquité classique et le bilinguisme élitaire grécolatin qui la caractérisait. Aucune de tes "analyses" ne prend en compte les structures "romanes" déjà présente en latin — il s'agit en fait de procédés syntaxiques partagés par toutes les langues indo-européennes, comme les prépositions par exemple, nullement incompatibles avec la déclinaison des substantifs et adjectifs.
Autre exemple : tu te sers d'autre ressemblances formelles (périphrases verbales du type auxiliaire <avoir> ou <être> + participe passé) pour affirmer que de telles constructions seraient d'origine germanique puis se seraient répandues dans la famille romane. Ce sont là des procédés faciles absolument dépassés, des méthodes infondées que leur grande banalité a depuis longtemps déconsidérées.
L'ennui que tu éprouves à l'égard de toute approche linguistique provient de ce que ton imagination a besoin d'autre chose pour rêver. C'est parfaitement légitime. Mais pour réveiller ton côté fantasque, je te conseillerais un jeu éducatif médiéval ou antiquisant — avec des petits soldats barbares et des figurines de patriciens gallo-romains —, plutôt que de te lancer dans une hypothétique reconstruction d'un "créole" latinogermanique...
Ouest : « First such document is the treaty of Verdun 830 AC. »
Tu retardes de quelques siècles, voire d'un millénaire. Le paléoroman est largement antérieur à l'ancien français archaïque.
Ouest : « But already Roman sources say that in late Rome, Barbaric was at some places more frequently heard than Latin. »
Mentionne tes sources et cite les passages originaux en cause : nous verrons bien si tu n'as pas commis de contresens.
Ouest : « In late Roman theatre plays that have come to us, Germanic slave speak with a bad (vulgar) Latin, an early form of Protoprotoromance ».
Une forme archaïque de "protoprotoroman" dans l'Antiquité tardive ?!... Fichtre ! c'est passionnant de nouveauté. Des détails ?
How about this statement:
Vulgar Latin developed differently in the various provinces of the Roman Empire, gradually giving rise to such languages as French, Catalan, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian and several dozen other languages.[3] Although the official language in these areas was Latin, Vulgar Latin was popularly spoken until the new localized forms diverged sufficiently from Latin, thus emerging as separate languages. However, despite the widening gulf between the spoken and written Latin, throughout the imperial era and until the 8th century CE, it was not significant enough as to make them mutually unintelligible. József Herman states:
"It seems certain that in the sixth century, and quite likely into the early parts of the seventh century, people in the main Romanized areas could still largely understand the biblical and liturgical texts and the commentaries (of greater or lesser simplicity) that formed part of the rites and of religious practice, and that even later, throughout the seventh century, saints' lives written in Latin could be read aloud to the congregations with an expectation that they would be understood. We can also deduce however, that in Gaul, from the central part of the eighth century onwards, many people, including several of the clerics, were not able to understand even the most straightforward religious texts."
József Herman is not anybody...
József Herman
"It seems certain that in the sixth century, and quite likely into the early parts of the seventh century, people in the main Romanized areas could still largely understand the biblical and liturgical texts and the commentaries (of greater or lesser simplicity) that formed part of the rites and of religious practice, and that even later, throughout the seventh century, saints' lives written in Latin could be read aloud to the congregations with an expectation that they would be understood. "
____________________________-
If this is true, transition from Latin to vulgar Latin took place between 400 and 800 and not before. Theories about vulgar Latin being a separate language spoken since antiquity by the masses and Latin being a language spoken only by a small elite are obsolete.
József Herman : « Nous autres romanisants, avec tout au plus les historiens de la langue latine, sommes à peu près les seuls à savoir qu’en ce qui concerne le processus même de transformation du latin en langue romane NOUS AVONS PLUS D'HYPOTHÈSES ET DE CONTROVERSES QUE DE CERTITUDES [...]. »
József Herman : « Faut-il rappeler les discussions interminables auxquelles se livrent de fort éminents linguistes au sujet de la dénomination dont il convient de revêtir l'ensemble des traits linguistiques qui annoncent et marquent l'infléchissement de la structure latine vers les futures structures romanes [...], si pour certains auteurs, surtout dans les manuels, on nous dit que le latin, en gros unitaire, commence à présenter des différences territoriales vers le IVe ou le Ve siècle pour se séparer en langues distinctes vers le VIIe siècle, CECI REPOSE DAVANTAGE SUR UN COMPROMIS DE BON SENS QUE SUR DES FAITS D'ORDRE VRAIMENT LINGUISTIQUE. »
in XVIIe Congrès de linguistique et philologie romanes — Aix-en-Provence
cité par Yves Cortez in « Le français ne vient pas du latin ! »
greg Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:01 am GMT
József Herman : « ... NOUS AVONS PLUS D'HYPOTHÈSES ET DE CONTROVERSES QUE DE CERTITUDES [...].
...CECI REPOSE DAVANTAGE SUR UN COMPROMIS DE BON SENS QUE SUR DES FAITS D'ORDRE VRAIMENT LINGUISTIQUE. »
This is very true, we do not have enough, or better, we do have NO texts written in early Romance language dating before the Oath of Strasbourg 842 AC. But isn´t the mere fact that "vulgar Latin" was never mentioned in any Latin text before the Concile of Tours (813 AC) a "FAIT D'ORDRE VRAIMENT LINGUISTIQUE"?
Non, l'absence de texte roman antérieur à 842 (à vérifier) n'est pas un fait linguistique mais une information sur l'état actuel de la recherche. Confondre les deux reviendrait à prendre un fait extralinguistique (la recherche de textes par les scientifiques contemporains) pour un fait de langue (que parlait les romanophones médiévaux ?).
Cette précision faite, József Herman admet sans détour que le latinocentrisme (le "latin vulgaire") est davantage une construction intellectuelle qu'un fait avéré. Inutile de te faire remarquer, Ouest, qu'il en va de même pour le bicentrisme latinogermanique (le "créole") puisque l'hypothèse "créole" n'est qu'un sous-produit de l'unicentrisme latin, encore plus invraisemblable que l'idéologie dont il est tiré.
La seule hypothèse que le scepticisme d'Herman ne remet pas en cause est le monocentrisme roman puisque celui-ci n'est même pas mentionné dans les propos cités.
This is very true, we do not have enough, or better, we do have NO texts written in early Romance language dating before the Oath of Strasbourg 842 AC.
Yes we have. Cartularios de Valpuesta are writen in Proto Spanish and the very oldest dates back from 804.
József Herman
"It seems certain that in the sixth century, and quite likely into the early parts of the seventh century, people in the main Romanized areas could still largely understand the biblical and liturgical texts and the commentaries (of greater or lesser simplicity) that formed part of the rites and of religious practice, and that even later, throughout the seventh century, saints' lives written in Latin could be read aloud to the congregations with an expectation that they would be understood. "
József Herman : « [...], si pour certains auteurs, surtout dans les manuels, on nous dit que le latin, en gros unitaire, commence à présenter des différences territoriales vers le IVe ou le Ve siècle pour se séparer en langues distinctes vers le VIIe siècle, CECI REPOSE DAVANTAGE SUR UN COMPROMIS DE BON SENS QUE SUR DES FAITS D'ORDRE VRAIMENT LINGUISTIQUE.
__________________
Please read carefully: József Herman does confirm here that the transition from Latin to Romance happened between 400 and 700 AC. His point is that the way this transition happened (evolution, creolization etc.) is not yet known by him or anybody.
He just didn´t had the opportunity to read antimoon, where all problems are resolved;-)
<<He just didn´t had the opportunity to read antimoon, where all problems are resolved;-) >>
Like I've told you before Ouest, Get it published! ;)
Ouest : « József Herman does confirm here that the transition from Latin to Romance happened between 400 and 700 AC. »
No he doesn't. He says that this is what «some authors, especially in textbooks» say, only to discredit their hypothesis by calling it a «common sense compromise» and not a «trully linguistic fact».
Ouest : « His point is that the way this transition happened (evolution, creolization etc.) is not yet known by him or anybody. »
No, he neither asks any questions nor mentions nor implies anything at all, at least in the quoted sentence, about any causes of a transition. Besides, it's not clear if he even believes in said transition (cf supra).
Only reading this sentence in the context of the speech from which Greg extracted it might clarify whether he does.
@Greg : je n'ai pas eu le temps de te remercier pour ta réponse — que j'ai cependant bien lue et appréciée — sur la théorie d'Yves Cortez concernant les ressemblances latin-roman dans les paradigmes verbaux (et pour avoir prolongé mes exemples). Voilà qui est réparé.
Invité d'honneur Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:41 pm GMT
Ouest : « József Herman does confirm here that the transition from Latin to Romance happened between 400 and 700 AC. »
No he doesn't. He says that this is what «some authors, especially in textbooks» say, only to discredit their hypothesis by calling it a «common sense compromise» and not a «trully linguistic fact».
_________________________________
When József Herman states:
"It seems certain that in the sixth century, and quite likely into the early parts of the seventh century, people in the main Romanized areas could still largely understand the biblical and liturgical texts and the commentaries (of greater or lesser simplicity) that formed part of the rites and of religious practice, and that even later, throughout the seventh century, saints' lives written in Latin could be read aloud to the congregations with an expectation that they would be understood. "
he implicitly says that the transition from Latin to Romance happened between 400 and 700 AC. Or do anybody think that the masses were bilingual Romance/Latin during a longer period before 400AC?
" he implicitly says that the transition from Latin to Romance happened between 400 and 700 AC. Or do anybody think that the masses were bilingual Romance/Latin during a longer period before 400AC? "
How does he explain that latin language did evoluate the same way to the romance language in every part of the roman empire, since it was supposed to have evoluated after the fall of the empire, in an ear where there wans't any unity?
<<Btw, don't forget to keep your eyes open for my book "The Hidden Truth About Romance Languages: The Untold Story">>
<<I wrote another book " The not hidden reality: Germanic languages like English are a cheap and barbarian copy of Romance languages". Don't forget to read it>>
I say we should have all have a proper Germanic/Latinate war just like the old days this seems to be what some of you want. What's the point of this thread? Europe is a relatively small place and many languages had influences, on syntax and grammer on many others. Any suggestion by any of you that any one society/race or culture was more culturally advanced, civilised or in some way better than the other is crap as none of you were there. What we know comes from history books, some archeological artifacts and things that havent been alive for a very very long time. Funnily enough these history books tended to be written by the conquerers, whoever that may have been at the time. French, Spanish, English, German, Dutch whatever are all mixed, mongrel languages not one of them "pure" and thats what makes them so brilliant and interesting. Now either stop whining about how much influence your particular language group may have had on another or get the bloody nuclear war heads out. hehehe
|