The figure for the distance of Romanian from Latin

LAA   Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:06 am GMT
What was Romanian's percentage of evolution from Latin again? I forgot.

The figure I'm talking about is the:

Sardinian - 8%
Italian - 12%
Spanish - 20%
Portuguese - 33%
French - 44%

What was the figure for Romanian?
Sigma   Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:14 am GMT
Romanian 23.5%
greg   Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:13 pm GMT
Je vois que notre ami LAA vient d'être happé par le virus de la linguistique...

Une vaccination préventive d'urgence s'impose :





Ces chiffres sont une tarte à la crème : ils reviennent périodiquement et illustrent parfaitement •••••••••L'IGNORANCE••••••••• de ceux qui les emploient sans savoir ce qu'ils signifient.


Voici le texte •••••••••INTÉGRAL••••••••• : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_romanes


« L'on peut donner ici les résultats d'une étude menée par M. Pei en 1949, qui a comparé le degré d'évolution de diverses langues par rapport à leur langue-mère ; pour les langues romanes les plus importantes, SI L'ON NE CONSIDÈRE •••••••••QUE LES VOYELLE TONIQUES•••••••••, l'on obtient, par rapport au latin, les coefficients d'évolution suivants :

sarde : 8 % ;
italien : 12 % ;
castillan : 20 % ;
roumain : 23,5 % ;
occitan : 25 % ;
portugais : 31 % ;
français : 44 %.

L'on voit ainsi facilement le degré variable de conservatisme des langues romanes, la plus proche du latin phonétiquement (EN NE CONSIDÉRANT •••••••••QUE LES VOYELLES TONIQUES•••••••••) étant le sarde, la plus éloignée le français. »
Azurri   Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:42 pm GMT
Sardinian - 8%
Italian - 12%
Spanish - 20%
Portuguese - 33%
French - 44%

So Sardinian is the language closest to Latin? Interesting, 44 french... I expected that french always sounded very german to me.

I am Italian btw.
greg   Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:57 pm GMT
Vraiment, tu es "italien", "Azurri" ou Azzurri ? Alors tu devrais savoir que <biancho> est d'origine germanique tout comme <azzuro> est d'origine persane via l'arabe...

Allez, forza Francia !
greg   Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:58 pm GMT
ERRATUM : <bianco> bien sûr, pas *<biancho>...
greg   Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:06 pm GMT
Et je pense que tu ne comprends pas l'italien non plus.

A propos : bravo l'Italie ! Et bravo la France pour cette superbe rencontre.
Tiffany   Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:08 am GMT
Azurri, se non capisci francese, forse capisci italiano, siccome tu sei italiano. Greg vorrebbe sapere la ragione che ti chiami "azurri" invece di "azzurri" - se sei italiano davvero.

I won't bother to provide a translation of this in English, since I assume you can read Italian, Azurri.
Pythagoras   Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:52 am GMT
This numbers are nonsense ! what percentage of evolution ? from what Latin ? Vulgar Latin or Classical Latin ? because some languages are closer to classical latin and more far away from vulgar Latin.

sarde : 8 % ;
italien : 12 % ;
castillan : 20 % ;
roumain : 23,5 % ;
occitan : 25 % ;
portugais : 31 % ;
français : 44 %.


Those numbers make Romanian 23,5% closer to Occitan 25% - but that is a total crap ! Romanian is not the closest to Occitan ! or Spanish (20%)

1.Romanian is closer to Italian than anything.

2. Occitan is closer to French than anything.

3. Portuguese is to Spanish than anything.

Therefore those numbers and % have no logic!

Everybody knows that Portuguese is closer to Spanish than any other language.

Portuguese (has the so called 31%) than why 31% of Portuguese is the closest to 20% of Spanish and not the 25% of Occitan or the 23.5% of Romanian ?

I'll tell you why, because those numbers and % are full crap !

If you make a mathematical analogy and consider those percentages as deviations of X, they don’t make any sense considering the languages they represent.

Remember is impossible for :

Portuguese={31% divergent of X}(TO BE closer to Spanish {20% divergent of X} it should be closer to the 25% of Occitan or 23,5% of Romanian.

There is something wrong with those % numbers because Portuguese is indeed closer to Spanish than Romanian or Occitan, like those % numbers want to show us !

If you are in doubt, I can prove this in a mathematical formula.

If Sardinian is 8% evolution from Latin that is in mathematics:

8% divergent from X (where x is the same source deviation for any language)

Conforming with the theory of analogy the numbers don’t represent accurately the deviance of X

Those numbers are incorrect !
Guest   Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:59 am GMT
btw. the same formula of analogy and divergence is used in geometry to calculate the angle and distance of object in raport with each other.
Georgero   Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:49 am GMT
You are right.
But you are not taking into equation the fact that those languages evolved in different directions. The fact that a langauge changed, let say 25%, doesn't mean that another language changed exactly the same words or grammar, even if it changed the same percent in quantity. Right?
Fab   Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:12 pm GMT
Georgero, you're in denial. Romanian is 23.5% (evolved from Latin in the phonetic sense).
fab   Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:34 pm GMT
the "fab" above is not the true one
fab(ulously gay)   Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:59 pm GMT
You liar! I am the real fab!
fab-fag   Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:37 pm GMT
Oh, cum on!