I wonder if the Latin and Germanic languages ever mated

Guest   Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:44 am GMT
Why have Greek and German never experienced the wholesale loss of word-endings and noun cases that has for instance made Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian separate languages from Latin?
OïL   Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:32 am GMT
"Why have Greek and German never experienced the wholesale loss of word-endings and noun cases ?"

All Germanic languages also dropped the declension system, except for German. German is inherently very conservative.
I think the answer summarizes in one name: Martin Luther, who wanted German to retain the dignified complexity associated to Latin.
Canuto   Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:32 pm GMT
Because Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and English were languages spoken by sea people, and thus they were early exposed to other people with different languages, which made their own language become easier to communicate with them.In contrast the Germans and the Russians lived in inner lands so they were less exposed to diverse peoples and thus their languages didn't change as much as the mentioned before.
iveatenspam   Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:20 am GMT
<<Because Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and English were languages spoken by sea people, and thus they were early exposed to other people with different languages, which made their own language become easier to communicate with them.In contrast the Germans and the Russians lived in inner lands so they were less exposed to diverse peoples and thus their languages didn't change as much as the mentioned before. >>

Are the Greeks sea people, or do they live in inner lands?
Sam II   Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:56 am GMT
<<Because Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and English were languages spoken by sea people, and thus they were early exposed to other people with different languages, which made their own language become easier to communicate with them.In contrast the Germans and the Russians lived in inner lands so they were less exposed to diverse peoples and thus their languages didn't change as much as the mentioned before. >>

This sea-vs.-inner-land-people concept doesn't convince me, since the language transformation happened in a Period when sea traffic was not so important. Most people worked in agriculture everywhere. Perhaps the Wikings were to a higher degree sea people, but their language was not massively altered - in the contrary, Swedish and Dask are relatively close to Old Norsk.
OïL   Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:48 pm GMT
On est tenté d'expliquer la complexité du russe par le fait d'être parlé sur une immense étendue continentale.

L'Islande est par excellence une nation de marins, et le faible nombre de locuteurs aurait pu le faire vite évoluer vers plus de simplicité. En fait c'est la plus conservatrice des langues scandinaves. Et la plus compliquée.
Linguist   Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:44 pm GMT
>>All Germanic languages also dropped the declension system, except for German

That's not really true. Faroese and Islandic still have cases, actually Islandic looks like old Norwegian, it may be the most conservative language in the world as it doesn't use any latin/greek international words in science, it creates native words, so I suppose it even doesn't have any loans... this is real conservatism.

Slavic languages are also very conservative, but in the way of grammar only, they have many load words, but really archaic grammar.
Linguist   Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:51 pm GMT
<<Because Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and English were languages spoken by sea people, and thus they were early exposed to other people with different languages, which made their own language become easier to communicate with them.In contrast the Germans and the Russians lived in inner lands so they were less exposed to diverse peoples and thus their languages didn't change as much as the mentioned before. >>

This sea-vs.-inner-land-people concept doesn't convince me, since the language transformation happened in a Period when sea traffic was not so important.
----------------------------

I do agree. Nor Germans nor Russians didn't live isolated, first of all they communicated between each other ;) Sea traffic doesn't play any role here, i.e. communication with other people. Russia was for 200 years under Mongols, there are no any Mongol loans in Russian, and language wasn't changed at all. I can't explain why it happens, but it's not open/isolated society thing for sure.
Sam II   Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:24 pm GMT
<<<That's not really true. Faroese and Islandic still have cases, actually Islandic looks like old Norwegian, it may be the most conservative language in the world as it doesn't use any latin/greek international words in science, it creates native words, so I suppose it even doesn't have any loans... this is real conservatism. >>>

I have read that Lithuanian is also supposed to be one of the most archaic and least changed conservative Indo-European language. It must be very complex and difficult to learn - is it so?
Guest   Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:47 pm GMT
<<Does anybody know if an example exists of any contemporary or historical form of a Latin/Germanic hybrid? A sort of pidgin, perhaps?... >>

In Luxembourg, Lorraine and Alsace there are people speaking a mixed up Latin/Germanic language, mostly with a Germanic base and many French vocabulary in it - pretty like English. The names Luxembourg, Lorraine and Alsace themselves are Latin/Germanic hybrids.
guest   Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:00 pm GMT
<<In Luxembourg, Lorraine and Alsace there are people speaking a mixed up Latin/Germanic language, mostly with a Germanic base and many French vocabulary in it - pretty like English. The names Luxembourg, Lorraine and Alsace themselves are Latin/Germanic hybrids. >>

A Germanic base with French words added hardly constitutes a "Latin/Germanic" hydrid language...that's simply a Germanic language!
Guest   Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:03 am GMT
<A Germanic base with French words added hardly constitutes a "Latin/Germanic" hydrid language...that's simply a Germanic language! >

Would you consider a phrase like "Tu viens avec?", which is based on the German base construction "Kommst du mit?", to be a German sentence using French words?
OïL   Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:48 pm GMT
"Would you consider a phrase like "Tu viens avec?", which is based on the German base construction "Kommst du mit?", to be a German sentence using French words?"

Non. De telles constructions (où une préposition prend un statut peu clair d'adverbe mais est de fait utilisée comme particule à l'allemande) sont moins systématiques que dans les langues germaniques mais néanmoins courantes dans la langue parlée:
— "Il lui court après"
— "Je lui tape dessus"
— "Tu passes devant"
— "Vous avez quelque chose contre?"
— "Rentre dedans!"

Et même en italien: "tirare fuori" ("tirer dehors" = extraire), "tiramisu"...
guest   Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:58 pm GMT
<<Would you consider a phrase like "Tu viens avec?", which is based on the German base construction "Kommst du mit?", to be a German sentence using French words? >>

Do you mean: 'Viens-tu avec'?

I would consider that to be a French sentence influenced by German usage ('avec' final position) and syntax (verb first) [otherwise, the original sentence is only influenced by the final position of 'avec']. That sentence in theory **could** be produced/engineered by the French themselves, but that would still hint at a German or germanic substratum already inherently present in the language (contructions like this were common in Old French and stemmed from Frankish constructions like 'monter amont').

However, if I saw this today, and it appeared suddenly, I would know that it wa German.

Same with regional/substandard English: May I come 'with'--German.
greg   Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:02 pm GMT
Guest : « Why have Greek and German never experienced the wholesale loss of ►word-endings◄ and noun cases that has for instance made Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian separate languages from Latin? »

Rassure-toi : ni le castillan, ni le portugais, ni le français, ni l'italien n'ont perdu leurs terminaisons. Il suffit de regarder une table conjugaison pour s'en rendre compte.

Mais peut-être parlais-tu uniquement des noms ?