|
|
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
"Do you mean British English is akin to Classical Latin and American English is like Vulgar Latin?"
Pretty much, yeah. British English came before the American kind just like the versions of Latin.
<<It was vulgar latin, not the classical latin you'll find in texts. >>
Latin had two forms: a polished form (Classical), and a popular form for daily use (early Vulgar Latin), which had descended from a common source. It was this early Vulgar Latin that changed over time, when it came in contact with Celtic and Germanic languages, picking up features from them and also developing features of its own. In other words, it evolved, so much so that Early Vulgar Latin and Late Vulgar Latin (i.e. Early Proto-Romance) were very different from one another, in the same way that early Middle English is different from Late Middle English (and probably more so given the upheaval in Medieval Europe at the time). It is this Late Vulgar Latin that is a "creation" and mish-mash of all sorts of things, especially as it evolved into Proto-Romance.
<<I dont' think it's more difficult for Spanish speakers to learn Classical Latin than for English speakers to learn Old Norse. >>
Mortica, Old Norse is not in the direct line of English. What you state above would be akin to comparing Spanish to Umbrian. For English, the equivalent analogy would be English to Old English, English to Old West Germanic, or English to Proto-Germanic (since Classical Latin spans the equivalent amount of time between Proto Germanic and Old English)
It is this Late Vulgar Latin that is a "creation" and mish-mash of all sorts of things, especially as it evolved into Proto-Romance.
Vulgar Latin is not a mixture made up with Germanic or Celtic influences, it just evolved on its own and changed with respect to Classical Latin that remained petrified.
<<Vulgar Latin is not a mixture made up with Germanic or Celtic influences, it just evolved on its own and changed with respect to Classical Latin that remained petrified. >>
Obviously not~! since Romance is riddled with Germanic and Celtic words and grammatical features... try again
Obviously not~! since Romance is riddled with Germanic and Celtic words and grammatical features...
Still 70% of vocabulary of romance languages is Latin whereas 60% of English vocabulary derives from Latin or French. Vulgar latin became much simpler than Latin and lost nominal declensions before the Germanic tribes arrived to Southern Europe.
<<Still 70% of vocabulary of romance languages is Latin whereas 60% of English vocabulary derives from Latin or French. Vulgar latin became much simpler than Latin and lost nominal declensions before the Germanic tribes arrived to Southern Europe. >>
OH it's YOU again! oh brother...BYE~!
What I mean is yet Romance languages where influenced by other families of languages, the core remained unchanged. The biggest part of Spanish or French vocabulary derives from Latin. There wasn't a dramatic influence of Germanic or Celtic languages Also note that vocabulary is the most changing part of languages. If vocabulary still remains mostly Latin, grammar probably was much less altered. It just simply evolved, just like dinosaurs evolved into birds.
<<Also note that vocabulary is the most changing part of languages. >>
This is a true statement, but it also works backwards in the case of Romance languages: After the germanic migration period and continuing into the Modern era, Romance languages *reborrowed* most of their "Latin" vocabulary--either directly from Classical Latin, from one another (Romance <-> Romance), or from languages like English and German which have sizeable Latin inventories. <<If vocabulary still remains mostly Latin, grammar probably was much less altered. It just simply evolved, just like dinosaurs evolved into birds. >> You're using reasoning instead of facts here...you'll end up off-track. Vocabulary is the ONLY saving grace if you will that Romance languages have to lay claim to as descendents of Latin. The grammar is COMPLETELY different. <<It just simply evolved, just like dinosaurs evolved into birds. >> No, one cannot look *objectively* at the evidence and come to that conclusion.
<<Vocabulary is the ONLY saving grace if you will that Romance languages have to lay claim to as descendents of Latin>>
Completely absurd. What about verbal conjugations?
Everybody is speaking of "vulgar Latin" as if this language was not only a hypothesis but a fact. There is not one single text fragment written in vulgar Latin known! Anyhow, the term "vulgar Latin" is just another word for mish-mash, Creole, mixed language, pot purri of Germanic and Latin. When a great number of uneducated immigrants (Germanic "barbars") came to Rome as foederati, slaves, settlers, soldiers or conquerors, they probably just reached a level of Latin that was not even a slang of Latin but a pseudo-Latin language, intelligible perhaps for a native Latin speaker and easy enough to be learned by newcomer-barbars. It then spread during the migration period to become after 600 the standard language in Germanic ruled Europe.
<<Completely absurd. What about verbal conjugations? >>
No. Completely true. The majority of Latin inflections, including verbal conjugations, are NOT survived by the Romance languages. Those that do are in the minority, such as present indicative, perfect, etc.; and noun/adjective endings (-us>-o/-; -a>-a/-e, etc) which is partially aided by the loss of noun declension, but not wholly attributed to it.
<<Everybody is speaking of "vulgar Latin" as if this language was not only a hypothesis but a fact. There is not one single text fragment written in vulgar Latin known! Anyhow, the term "vulgar Latin" is just another word for mish-mash, Creole, mixed language, pot purri of Germanic and Latin. When a great number of uneducated immigrants (Germanic "barbars") came to Rome as foederati, slaves, settlers, soldiers or conquerors, they probably just reached a level of Latin that was not even a slang of Latin but a pseudo-Latin language, intelligible perhaps for a native Latin speaker and easy enough to be learned by newcomer-barbars. It then spread during the migration period to become after 600 the standard language in Germanic ruled Europe.>>
What the Germanic barbars have to do with vulgar latin?
<<The majority of Latin inflections, including verbal conjugations, are NOT survived by the Romance languages. Those that do are in the minority, such as present indicative, perfect, etc.; and noun/adjective endings (-us>-o/-; -a>-a/-e, etc) >>
Still absurd. Once again, Romance languages evolved with respect to Latin, but clearly Romance verbal conjugations denote their genetic closeness to Latin. You mention present indicative, and perfect(past?) . Well, also imperfect past is related to Latin, as the rest of tenses: Latin Romance amabam amaba amabas amabas amabat amaba amabamus amabamos amabatis amabais amabant amaban As you can see, verbal conjungations in Romance languages preserve the Latin ones almost perfectly many times. If Romance languages didn't derive from Latin, how come Romance people acquired these conjugations almost identical to Latin? Even more, since compared to the Germanic tongues the Romance conjugations are so complex, how come the Barbarian invaders learnt them and used them with such degree of fidelity? Clearly these didn't play a big role in the evolution of Romance languages, otherwise, verbal conjugations, the most complex aspect of Romance languages, would had been completely creolized and Italian or Spanish would have three verbal conjugations(like English) or five at most(like Germans) but they still have around 50. Just take Latin and change noun declensions by prepositions, the end result is Romance languages. English also lost most of noun declensions (only preserves nominative and genitive). There is not mistery about the transition from Latin to Romance languages.
Present subjunctive
Latin Romance amem ame ames ames amet ame amemus amemos ametis ameis ament amen And so on... |