Certo Civis romanus sum, uguale non è, ma molto vicina.
Spanish and Italian are much closer than Italian and French
Civis Romanus Sum : personne ne conteste les chiffres de Pei. Ce qui est contestable c'est que tu omettes de préciser ce à quoi ils correspondent : l'évolution des voyelles toniques.
Et, stp, ne me fais pas dire ce que je n'ai pas dit, car en l'espèce ce que je discute ce n'est pas le phonétisme du français, mais bien ta manière de te saisir de chiffres que tu ne comprends pas pour en tirer des conclusions grotesques.
Permets-moi de citer à nouveau le passage litigieux in extenso :
« If you further analize Spanish and Italian with respect to Latin you will find that they are with Sardianian the closest languages to Latin but Italian and Sardinian are the closest. I read that lexicon divergence from Latin is (numbers very common on the internet):
8% sard
12% it
20% sp
(40% fr, per tutti i francofili che credono il francese essere li primo discendente dal latino....) »
Tu parles de ***DIVERGENCE LEXICALE*** (!!!) là où l'étude de Pei analyse le ***PHONÉTISME DES VOYELLES TONIQUES***.
Tes seules références se limitent à « numbers very common on the internet » (je rêve !!!) alors que tu ne connais même pas l'objet de l'étude...
Qui déclenche l'hilarité générale ?
Et, stp, ne me fais pas dire ce que je n'ai pas dit, car en l'espèce ce que je discute ce n'est pas le phonétisme du français, mais bien ta manière de te saisir de chiffres que tu ne comprends pas pour en tirer des conclusions grotesques.
Permets-moi de citer à nouveau le passage litigieux in extenso :
« If you further analize Spanish and Italian with respect to Latin you will find that they are with Sardianian the closest languages to Latin but Italian and Sardinian are the closest. I read that lexicon divergence from Latin is (numbers very common on the internet):
8% sard
12% it
20% sp
(40% fr, per tutti i francofili che credono il francese essere li primo discendente dal latino....) »
Tu parles de ***DIVERGENCE LEXICALE*** (!!!) là où l'étude de Pei analyse le ***PHONÉTISME DES VOYELLES TONIQUES***.
Tes seules références se limitent à « numbers very common on the internet » (je rêve !!!) alors que tu ne connais même pas l'objet de l'étude...
Qui déclenche l'hilarité générale ?
Greg:
Just to correctly focus the matter, because I feel some troubles in your words: I was disputing only the fact that French has gone far away from latin more than other Romance languages, but this has NO implication in assuming something particular about cultural prestige of French, that is undoubtly at least as high as Italian, Spanish etc.. I've said that in previous posts.
I mentioned the numbers without having the links, using only what I remebered. You mentioned that post. Anyway saying "lexicon divergence" I meant that the same word with same latin root has gone far away more in French that in Italian, even maintaining the same roots. In this definition, personal definition I admit, I implied also phonetic part of the analysis.
But, truly, I don't understand your anxiety in misunderstanding: it has pointed out that those numbers refer to a phonetic-like analysis. Maybe would you say that those number are not considerable in measuring distance from latin because they come from a phonetic analysis? I feel that in your pesky posts and THIS is ridicolous: for that reason I asked you, a bit astonished, whether you knew what are tonic vowels and phonetic analysis.
After all, I can understand that it is simpler for you to do personal attacks without knowing what actually I know on the matter.
Just to correctly focus the matter, because I feel some troubles in your words: I was disputing only the fact that French has gone far away from latin more than other Romance languages, but this has NO implication in assuming something particular about cultural prestige of French, that is undoubtly at least as high as Italian, Spanish etc.. I've said that in previous posts.
I mentioned the numbers without having the links, using only what I remebered. You mentioned that post. Anyway saying "lexicon divergence" I meant that the same word with same latin root has gone far away more in French that in Italian, even maintaining the same roots. In this definition, personal definition I admit, I implied also phonetic part of the analysis.
But, truly, I don't understand your anxiety in misunderstanding: it has pointed out that those numbers refer to a phonetic-like analysis. Maybe would you say that those number are not considerable in measuring distance from latin because they come from a phonetic analysis? I feel that in your pesky posts and THIS is ridicolous: for that reason I asked you, a bit astonished, whether you knew what are tonic vowels and phonetic analysis.
After all, I can understand that it is simpler for you to do personal attacks without knowing what actually I know on the matter.
Civis Romanus Sum has got point.
Phonetic evolution implies that a language os more evolved than latin.
Hipotetically a Roman soldier would understand better italian than french thanks to its different phonology
Phonetic evolution implies that a language os more evolved than latin.
Hipotetically a Roman soldier would understand better italian than french thanks to its different phonology
i think that italians are closer to puetoricans because they look the same i am spanish and there are a lot of italians that look spanish!
Civis Romanus Sum : je vois — non sans plaisir — que tu opères un revirement bien inspiré : tu mets de l'eau dans ton vin. Encore une fois — et au risque de me répéter — ce qui me gêne ce n'est pas l'analyse comparative des phonétismes français, italien, espagnol et latin. Ce qui m'embête c'est l'utilisation abusive de chiffres sortis de leur contexte pour leur faire dire ce qu'ils n'ont jamais voulu dire. Tu n'es pas le premier, Civis Romanus Sum : j'ai déjà opposé la même objection à une vingtaine de personnes sur ce site. Et s'il faut le faire 100 fois, je le ferai 100 fois. Je me répète : je suis prête à discuter de phonétique historique comparative avec toi — il n'y aucun problème. En revanche n'attends pas de moi que je cautionne le piratage de chiffres quelle que soit la véracité de la thèse que tu défends ou exposes. C'est une question d'honnêteté intellectuelle : impossible de transiger là-dessus.
S.P.Q.R : « Hipotetically a Roman soldier would understand better italian than french thanks to its different phonology »
Sincèrement, est-ce que tu penses une seule seconde que cette affirmation ait un quelconque intérêt ou fond de vérité ? Cette affirmation est si peu pertinente qu'il aurait été plus logique que tu exprimes ta pensée sur le registre de l'opinion personnelle. Exemple : « mon sentiment est qu'un soldat romain comprendrait mieux l'italien que le français ». Bien sûr, cette affirmation serait tout aussi absurde que « Hipotetically a Roman soldier would understand better italian than french thanks to its different phonology ». Mais, au moins, tu te serais épargné le ridicule d'une affirmation péremptoire et erronée;
PS : intuile de préciser que 1/ le « soldat romain » pouvait vivre en 500 av JC, en 200 av JC, en 200 ap JC ou en 400 ap JC — 2/ l'accentuation italienne et l'accentuation latines sont fondalement différentes — 3/ idem pour la syntaxe — 4/ idem pour le vocabulaire — 5/ etc etc etc.
S.P.Q.R : « Hipotetically a Roman soldier would understand better italian than french thanks to its different phonology »
Sincèrement, est-ce que tu penses une seule seconde que cette affirmation ait un quelconque intérêt ou fond de vérité ? Cette affirmation est si peu pertinente qu'il aurait été plus logique que tu exprimes ta pensée sur le registre de l'opinion personnelle. Exemple : « mon sentiment est qu'un soldat romain comprendrait mieux l'italien que le français ». Bien sûr, cette affirmation serait tout aussi absurde que « Hipotetically a Roman soldier would understand better italian than french thanks to its different phonology ». Mais, au moins, tu te serais épargné le ridicule d'une affirmation péremptoire et erronée;
PS : intuile de préciser que 1/ le « soldat romain » pouvait vivre en 500 av JC, en 200 av JC, en 200 ap JC ou en 400 ap JC — 2/ l'accentuation italienne et l'accentuation latines sont fondalement différentes — 3/ idem pour la syntaxe — 4/ idem pour le vocabulaire — 5/ etc etc etc.
Obvioulsy i got misunderstoood.
A latin soldier would never understand nor french or italian.
I was only trying to say that the italian phonology was a bit closer to the latin one.
A latin soldier would never understand nor french or italian.
I was only trying to say that the italian phonology was a bit closer to the latin one.
In an earlier post I translated, LA PEZ, as THE LIVE FISH in SPAN. LA PEZ is,in fact, THE PITCH or THE TAR. EL PEZ means THE LIVE FISH.
Sorry for having confused the gender of the word.
Sorry for having confused the gender of the word.
Greg:
I am not sure I have understood all: I can understand written French, but not so deeply. Therefore I maintain moderate tones, because there is place for misunderstanding. Let me remember that persisting in writing in French appears as a symptom of great arrogance.
It would be ridiculous if I wrote in Italian every time. This is an open forum. And doesn't matter if you do not agree with language policies in the forum.
I made no reviews: I only better explained what I always meant and mean: Italian is closer to Latin on the whole with respect to French, precising, if you want, that those numbers refer to phonetic-like analysis and that those languages are strong "relatives".
You continuously avoid the matter: why phonetic divergence of French does not appear so important for you?
Why, and you have demonstrated it also with SPQR, do you continuously fall in particularistic analyses avoiding the specific, simple, matter that is present in a question?
Say that French is more distant from Latin than Italian and the problem will be over. You can say that: It is straightforward, there is no need of particularism. And it does not imply anything else on italian or french. Then, for academic taste, we will discuss on phonoloy, morphology, syntax, etc..(hypotetically, I'm not interested in discussing with you, without offense of course).
Why it simpler for a non-educated Italian to read the Divina commedia than for a non educated French to read the Chanson de Roland? In relation with the matter obviously.
Be careful: do not fall in particularism and do not avoid questions.
I am not sure I have understood all: I can understand written French, but not so deeply. Therefore I maintain moderate tones, because there is place for misunderstanding. Let me remember that persisting in writing in French appears as a symptom of great arrogance.
It would be ridiculous if I wrote in Italian every time. This is an open forum. And doesn't matter if you do not agree with language policies in the forum.
I made no reviews: I only better explained what I always meant and mean: Italian is closer to Latin on the whole with respect to French, precising, if you want, that those numbers refer to phonetic-like analysis and that those languages are strong "relatives".
You continuously avoid the matter: why phonetic divergence of French does not appear so important for you?
Why, and you have demonstrated it also with SPQR, do you continuously fall in particularistic analyses avoiding the specific, simple, matter that is present in a question?
Say that French is more distant from Latin than Italian and the problem will be over. You can say that: It is straightforward, there is no need of particularism. And it does not imply anything else on italian or french. Then, for academic taste, we will discuss on phonoloy, morphology, syntax, etc..(hypotetically, I'm not interested in discussing with you, without offense of course).
Why it simpler for a non-educated Italian to read the Divina commedia than for a non educated French to read the Chanson de Roland? In relation with the matter obviously.
Be careful: do not fall in particularism and do not avoid questions.
Civis Romanus sum
D'accordissimo al 100% con quello che dici.
Greg:
Consider these points, italian remained a litterary language till 1860 so it has strongly latinized structure would you analize a pass of Afieri Vittorio? ''Qui freno al corso, a cui tua man mi ha spinto,
onnipossente Iddio, tu vuoi ch'io ponga?
Io qui starò. -Di Gelboè son questi
i monti, or campo ad Israèl, che a fronte
sta dell'empia Filiste.''
Good luck greg
D'accordissimo al 100% con quello che dici.
Greg:
Consider these points, italian remained a litterary language till 1860 so it has strongly latinized structure would you analize a pass of Afieri Vittorio? ''Qui freno al corso, a cui tua man mi ha spinto,
onnipossente Iddio, tu vuoi ch'io ponga?
Io qui starò. -Di Gelboè son questi
i monti, or campo ad Israèl, che a fronte
sta dell'empia Filiste.''
Good luck greg
Civis Romanus sum : « Let me remember that persisting in writing in French appears as a symptom of great arrogance. »
Ah oui ? Eh bien de tels propos sont assurément les symptômes d'une grande ignorance : tu ne sais rien des raisons qui me poussent à ne pas utiliser l'anglais. Tant qu'il en sera ainsi, abstiens-toi de tout commentaire déplacé. Il en va de même pour le nombre hallucinant de fadaises que tu débites à la minute.
Un conseil : si ma prose te dérange, passe ton chemin. Je ne te retiens pas.
Ah oui ? Eh bien de tels propos sont assurément les symptômes d'une grande ignorance : tu ne sais rien des raisons qui me poussent à ne pas utiliser l'anglais. Tant qu'il en sera ainsi, abstiens-toi de tout commentaire déplacé. Il en va de même pour le nombre hallucinant de fadaises que tu débites à la minute.
Un conseil : si ma prose te dérange, passe ton chemin. Je ne te retiens pas.
Hi all.
To me it's rather amusing how Spanish's phonology is based on Classical latin. I'll keep it vague.
Spanish has all the pronunciations and sounds of that of Classical & Italian and perhaps romanian. Because of this (spanish speakers would) learn the three languages mentioned MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EASILY. And would LEARN this instead because of close resemblence in phonology, while the syntax can be somewhat easily learnt.This is what I think so don't take my word for it..do some research. I'm just speaking
what I know and open to new enlightments
Gratias! omnes
To me it's rather amusing how Spanish's phonology is based on Classical latin. I'll keep it vague.
Spanish has all the pronunciations and sounds of that of Classical & Italian and perhaps romanian. Because of this (spanish speakers would) learn the three languages mentioned MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EASILY. And would LEARN this instead because of close resemblence in phonology, while the syntax can be somewhat easily learnt.This is what I think so don't take my word for it..do some research. I'm just speaking
what I know and open to new enlightments
Gratias! omnes
Greg:
Your not-answer is an answer. In any case I accept the advice. From my side this "diatriba" is over.
Good luck
Your not-answer is an answer. In any case I accept the advice. From my side this "diatriba" is over.
Good luck
Can anybody give me an translation of this song in Italian and Possibly in Classical Latin? Thanks;)
Que seas feliz, feliz, feliz
es todo lo que pido
en nuestra despedida
no pudo ser despues
de haberte amado tanto
por todas esas cosas tan absurdas
de la vida.
Siempre podras contar conmigo
no importa donde estes
al fin que ya lo ves
quedamos como amigos.
En vez de despedirnos
con reproche y con llantos
yo que te quise tanto
quiero que seas feliz, feliz, feliz
Que seas feliz, feliz, feliz
es todo lo que pido
en nuestra despedida
no pudo ser despues
de haberte amado tanto
por todas esas cosas tan absurdas
de la vida.
Siempre podras contar conmigo
no importa donde estes
al fin que ya lo ves
quedamos como amigos.
En vez de despedirnos
con reproche y con llantos
yo que te quise tanto
quiero que seas feliz, feliz, feliz