What makes a language Romance or Germanic?

<<What I funny is that with English being a language so Germanic that I can't understand when spoken hardly any Dutch, German, Swedish, or any other of the Germanic languages.>>

Whether English is like, similar or aehnlich to other Germanic languages makes no nevermind. The definition of 'Germanic' is not "intelligible with German, Dutch and Swedish". Icelandic is in no way mutually intelligible with German--is it therefore not a Germanic language? Ridiculous as wonted.


Proto Germanic was a very rich language, and was extremely rife in samenames (synonyms).

To byspel: *'karo' was a word meaning "care, anxiety, sorrow". 'Karo' is attested in Gothic as 'kara', in Old High German as 'chara', and Old English as 'cearu', and it belives (survives) in English as 'care' and as 'chary'.

Proto Germanic had a close samename for 'karo': 'surgo'.
'Surgo' is attested in Gothic as 'saurga', Old High German as 'soraga', ON as 'sorg', Old Saxon as 'sorga' and Old English as 'sorg'.

So for Old English we have: 'cearu' and 'sorg'
And for OHG (Old High German) we have: 'chara' and 'soraga'


Now, in the forthlead (process) of time, English 'cearu' becomes 'care' and 'sorg' becomes 'sorrow'. But our primary word for "care" is 'care'.

Also, in the forthgong (process) of time, OHG 'soraga' becomes 'Sorge' and 'chara' is lost.

Many other Germanic languages also wind up using their version of *'surgo'.

Now, does this make English less Germanic for-sake its word for "care" is unlike its brethren? A resounding NO. Infact, English is more Germanic in this one instance because it has kept both words, wheras the others have lost one.


The same can be said with the word for Proto Germanic *understandanan (understand). At one time, Frisian used 'onderstanda', Dutch 'onderstaan' and Danish 'understande'; but today Dutch and Danish use the alternate word, from *furstandanan as "understand" (cf German 'verstehen'). Only East Frisian and English maintain 'undertand' and 'understunda' for the concept of "understnd". In the other languages it means something else ("to stand under, be subordinate")

English is still just as Germanic, even though it is set asunder. English is a Sundergermanic language.

<<Most monolingual English speakers that I know especially in the U.S can't understand spoken forms. Even written forms are difficult to decipher. How come a language so Germanic in origin can be so distant in pronunciation.>>

Again, this has nothing to do with English being Germanic.


<<If Leasnam tries to claim that we can understand them he has lost the battle with me because the proof is in the hearing of the language. >>

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were at war... :\
Perhaps a nice hobby might suit you better :)



<<Also, please Leasnam stop using those weird obscure Germanic converted English words that will never come back into style. Those words are not obvious to anybody and they look weird anyways. >>

no.

<<<<Also, please Leasnam stop using those weird obscure Germanic converted English words that will never come back into style. Those words are not obvious to anybody and they look weird anyways. >>

no. >>

awww, okay...Will do

NOT

<<the proof is in the hearing of the language.>>

Concerning why English speakers may not think they can understand Continental Germanic languages may be due to more than just lack of exposure on the Anglophones' parts. It may have something to do with how Anglo-Frisian languages bear away from the laif (rest) of the Germanic group.

Concerning clipol ("vowel") sounds, Anglo-Frisian is highly radical. Compare the outfolding of these following PGmc clipolas ("vowels") and clipolgefegs ("diphthongs")

PGmc au
ON au
OHG ou/o:
OS o:

OFrs ea
OE ea (=> ModEng as i:)




PGmc ai
ON ei
OHG ei
OS e:/ei

Ofrs a:/e:
OE a: (=> ModEng as o:)

Coupled with the palatisation of Old Frisian and Old English "k" => "ch" (English 'church', NFrisian 'scherk', Dutch 'kerk') and "gg" => /dz/ (English bridge, Dutch brug, German Bruecke), and "g" => /j/ (English yard, Dutch gaard, German Garten), it's no wonder why we can't understand them verbally.

Spanish and Italian leed ("people") cannot understand the French. But French is a Romance language. If it's all in the hearing (which I do not believe it is), how do you betale ("account") for this?

Spanish and Italian leed ("people") cannot understand the French

Italians can understand some French,particularly when it is spoken slowly!

>>Infact, English is more Germanic in this one instance because it has kept both words, wheras the others have lost one.<<

Lol !!
Let us count all Germanic words English has lost, which the other Germanic languages have kept - then compare

Leasnam, what is the point of explaining the meaning of every word you use, just because they are more Anglo than the latinates English uses avidly? Just drop them and leave people ignore your unintelligible messages.

<<Italians can understand some French,particularly when it is spoken slowly! >>

Do hand signals and gestures help too?
HAHAHAHA

<<Let us count all Germanic words English has lost, which the other Germanic languages have kept - then compare >>

And what is the exact number, sir?
Do you know it? Or are you merely promulgating an assumption without researching the basis?

It's comparable to the number of Romance and Latin words English has lost during its history, including those Latin words borrowed into Old English.

Eah, the French are just jealous because English is more germanic than their language

If the French were jealous they would artifically Germanize their language like the English speakers did and still do trying to assimilate English to the Romance family.

<<English speakers did and still do trying to assimilate English to the Romance family. >>

Hehehe I know. The anglophones are stupid, sont pas ils? They already has the best langage and they doesn't cherisshes it

Ooohhh I wish my maternell langage was english

<<sont pas ils>> <======??

<<If the French were jealous they would artifically Germanize their language like the English speakers did and still do trying to assimilate English to the Romance family. >>

Why wouldn't they just speak English? And why didn't the English just speak French? For wis they had ample opportunity to do so, no?

It's not because French is Romance that English in days gone by borrowed from it, it was because French was a lingua franca in Europe at the time. Similar to how English is today. English words are everywhere: German, French, Spanish, esp Spanish and Italian. Even Japanese.

Does this mean everyone wants to be Germanic? I don't think so. It means English is a widely used tongue.

Well the same is true for English--it was not because of Romance, or Latin, or any such unsense. English would have borrowed French words even if French were Pygmy language.

It had nothing to do with Romance languageocity.

It was in spite of that fact.

I think that a Germanic language is primarily a tool of people to communicate and to express their feelings and thoughts in a simple and intuitive manner. On the other hand, a Romance language like French is used in a more or less brilliant manner in order define the status of the speaker and to hide the real thoughts and feelings. I don´t know whether this tendency is present also in Italian, Portugese or Spanish?

In English, both ways to use this beautyful and versatile language are present.

A Germanic language is one that has evolved from Proto-Germanic, and is characterized by the use of modal verbs, the division of weak vs. strong verbs and adjectives, and a common sound shift from Proto-Indo-European known as "Grimm's Law", among other things. English is Germanic because it exhibits all of these features, except for weak vs. strong adjectives, since it no longer declines adjectives. Its diverse vocabulary has nothing to do with its classification, especially considering that Germanic grammatical rules and sound changes have been applied to this vocabulary.

Romance languages are a bit more difficult to characterize, other than to say that they have all descended from Latin (through Vulgar Latin). Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no one grammatical or phonetic feature that unifies all of them, since there is always an exception (usually French or Romanian). Still, their verb systems are very similar, easily recognizable and can be traced back to Latin / Vulgar Latin. French is not even remotely Germanic - it doesn't have any of the characteristics that I mentioned above.

Someone who knows more about linguistics can hopefully expand on this. There haven't been a lot of grammatical examples in this discussion so far.