What makes French Latin?

greg   Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:47 pm GMT
« Guest » : « True, but wrong. This does not support your contradiction of the original statement.»
Allez, je suis gentil : je vais t'aider. Chausse tes lunettes et lis bien :
TTT : « Can one say that French is a Germanic language that uses Latin vocabulary? »

Je pense que la réponse que j'apportais à « Guest » (celui qui prétendait que « Verbal conjugations and adjective inflections are Latin; sentence structure and some formations like passé composé are german. ») permettait de faire d'une pierre deux coups : montrer que les temps périphrastiques (ceux qui existent toujours et ceux qui ont disparu) n'étaient en aucun cas [1] ni une exclusivité française — [2] ni une influence germanique.




« Guest » : « Prove that there is no german influence on French grammar. »

Pourquoi irai-je prouver quelque chose que je n'ai pas affirmé ? Chausse bien tes lunettes et relis tous les messages qui précèdent. Ceci fait, fais marcher tes méninges avant de te sentir obligé d'utiliser l'impératif pour exhiber tes lacunes. Merci.
Guest   Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:50 pm GMT
<<Impossible. Le français ***EST*** du latin. Par conséquent la langue française est réellement latine. >>

not in the pure sense that Italian is. Italian is continuous, uninterrupted, un-fooled-around-with Latin, spoken by the same people over time.

French, Spanish, Romanian, etc were adopted by peoples whose native tongue was not Latin, hence the variations.

If you want to know what Latin would be like today, look no further than Italian.
Guest   Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:01 pm GMT
"not in the pure sense that Italian is. Italian is continuous, uninterrupted, un-fooled-around-with Latin, spoken by the same people over time.
French, Spanish, Romanian, etc were adopted by peoples whose native tongue was not Latin, hence the variations. If you want to know what Latin would be like today, look no further than Italian."


WHAT A BUNCH OF BALONEY..!!
greg   Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:50 pm GMT
« Guest » : « <<Impossible. Le français ***EST*** du latin. Par conséquent la langue française est réellement latine. >> not in the pure sense that Italian is. Italian is continuous, uninterrupted, un-fooled-around-with Latin, spoken by the same people over time. »

Le français, le toscan, le lombard, le piedmontais, le catalan, le provençal, le savoyard, le castillan, le roumain, le galicien, le picard et le gascon sont ***TOUS*** liés au latin de façon continue.

D'autre part il est faux de dire que tous le habitants de la péninsule italienne ont pratiqué le latin comme idiome maternel. Tel n'était pas le cas ni des Barbares germaniques (Lombards, Ostrogoths, Wisigoths etc) ni des Étrusques.




« Guest » : « French, Spanish, Romanian, etc were adopted by peoples whose native tongue was not Latin, hence the variations. »

Le latin a été adopté par les Grecs de Grande-Grèce, mais aussi par les locuteurs italiotes du messapien, de l'osque, du falisque, du ligure, du vénète, du volsque, de l'ombrien etc.
greg   Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:12 pm GMT
« Guest » : « <<Faux. L'ancien français n'est pas un pidgin. Comme toutes les langues d'Oïl, c'est une évolution de l'orolatin de Gaule septentrionale.
>> That is your opinion. Again, no proof.».

Non, ce n'est pas mon opinion. Ce sont les faits avérés. Pour te le démontrer, je vais prendre la définition d'un pidgin que tu donnes toi-même. L'orolatin de Gaule septentrionale n'a jamais été un pidgin car il n'a jamais été une langue auxiliaire. Au contraire, il a toujours été la langue maternelle des latinophones gaulois du haut moyen-âge (ou de l'Antiquité tardive). A fortiori, la langue qui est issue de l'orolatin gaulois — soit l'ancien français archaïque — n'est pas un pidgin non plus.

D'autre part, l'orolatin de Gaule du Nord n'a jamais été une forme simplifiée de l'orolatin en général car il existait alors un diasystème cohérent à l'échelle de toute la Romanie qui permettait l'intercompréhension. Bien entendu, le scriptolatin gaulois (même tardif) — l'ancêtre de l'ancie français archaïque — était parfaitement compréhensible pour tout latinophone désireux de le lire.

Toujours en reprenant ta définition du pidgin, la diminution du volume lexical n'est pas avérée — bien au contraire. Des formes concurrentes ont coexisté fort longtemps avant que telle ou telle ne triomphe de l'autre. Il s'agit donc d'un phénomène de transformation lexicale nécessitant un accroissement des formes existantes, et non l'inverse.

La structure grammaticale est loin de s'être simplifiée — si tant est que le mot "simplification" veuille dire quelque chose (surtout dans un esprit aussi simple que le tien). Comme je l'ai indiqué dans un autre sujet, on a au contraire assisté à une véritable complexification du système des temps et à une superposition des formes analytiques et synthétiques. Ce n'est qu'ensuite que s'est opérée une sélection qui a conduit aux tableaux de conjugaison des langues romanes actuelles.

Il est exact que la phonologie a connu de grandes variations. Mais la majorité de ces modifications étaient déjà en germe à l'époque de la Rome impériale, voire bien avant. C'est faire montre d'une très grande ignorance que de s'imaginer que les évolutions phonologiques et phonétiques ayant conduit aux diverses langues romanes auraient débuté avec les invasions barbares — voire avec la chute de Rome.





« Guest » : « This is EXACTLY what Old French was--a simplified, broken-down corrupted form of Latin used between celtic, Latin & german groups as a common speech. »

Je comprends, à te lire, que ce phantasme te tient particulièrement à cœur. Malheureusement cette chimère obsessive qui est la tienne ne fait pas partie de la réalité. J'ai déjà indiqué que l'ancêtre de l'ancien français archaïque (l'orolatin de Gaule septentrionale) était du latin en cours d'évolution et non une sorte d'interlingua avant l'heure (encore qu'interlingua soit une langue tout à fait respectable et non un pidgin). Tu comprendras donc aisément (?) que ce que l'ancêtre ne fut pas, le rejeton ne saurait l'être.
Guest   Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:14 am GMT
Ohhh, is that what this is about? semantics???

so had I used a respectable term, like interlingua you would have been able to accept it. Blah.

I know I press hard toward extreme points of view, but it is in order to balance this unbalanced equation (had I not done this, would anyone know that there is a german element in French? no.you never hear of it). This is to make people think. Change never comes by accepting what we've been trained to think--what an embarassment.

you know what your problem is greg, you love French too much ; ]

mais c'est tout le bien
romano   Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:21 am GMT
Dear JK,

The fact you think France and England are 2 close sisters is your own point of view, and maybe that is what is taught to you at school. But i would like to remind you 2 things :

-The french in any way do not identify themselves with the english. It simply does not work. Why? Because we have other neighbours, like Germany, Swiss, Italy, spain, Belgium.

So, do not see Europe only with one neighbour as you do, but we know there are some other cultures and share many things with them more than with you.

Ask to an alsacian if he feels closer to an english or to a german, ask to a frehcn form the Flanders if he feels close to an english or a belgian, ask to a catalan if feels close to the english or a spanish catalan, ask the same to a basque, Ask to a savoyard, a lyonnais, a provençal if he feels close to an englsi or to an italain.


When they will answer to you by a laugh, it won't be difficult to understand that your question aws a non sense.


I would like to precise to you, that if in England you think the France and England are 2 sisters. The mentalities are different, and the way a peopole think can be totally ignored by your supposed "french sister". Because in France, we tend to considerate that we are more sister with Italy? We use to say the "brothers enemies" or the "cousin country".
Ouest   Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:27 pm GMT
<<Ask to an alsacian if he feels closer to an english or to a german, ask to a frehcn form the Flanders if he feels close to an english or a belgian, ask to a catalan if feels close to the english or a spanish catalan, ask the same to a basque, Ask to a savoyard, a lyonnais, a provençal if he feels close to an englsi or to an italain. >>

The point is that not only France has been havily germanized in the late antiquitybut also all the other European countries. Especially Italy with its succession of Gothic, Lombard, Bavarian, Allamanic and Franc invasions has lost most of its Latin roots.
Peter   Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:20 pm GMT
"The point is that not only France has been heavily germanized in the late antiquity but also all the other European countries. Especially Italy with its succession of Gothic, Lombard, Bavarian, Allamanic and Franc invasions hs lost most of its Latin roots". That is the most imbecillic comment I have ever heard. First of all, open up your history book and discover that the Bavarians, Allamanics and Franks never played a part in Italian history. Furthermore, you are a major idiot when you say something so damn stupid by asserting that Italy lost most of its Latin roots. Au contraire! Italy not only maintained a strong sense of Latinity, but retained more of its Latin identity than any other province of the fallen Roman Empire. Do me a favor, get educated and learn the truth before making idiotic statements on a public forum.
Ouest   Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:17 pm GMT
Peter: <<First of all, open up your history book and discover that the Bavarians, Allamanics and Franks never played a part in Italian history. >>

Dear Peter, Charlemagne was a true Frank and he ruled over Italy. Franks ruled Italy for more than 200 years. In Wikipedia (though not a history book) you will find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy

Centre of the Roman civilization for centuries, Italy lost its unity after the collapse of the Roman Empire and subsequent barbarian invasions. Conquered by the Ostrogoths and briefly regained by the Eastern Empire (552), it was partially occupied by the Longobards in 568, resulting in the peninsula becoming irreparably divided. For centuries the country was the prey of different populations, resulting in its ultimate decadence and misery. Most of the population fled from cities to take refuge in the countryside under the protection of powerful feudal lords. After the Longobards came the Franks (774). Italy became part of the Holy Roman Empire. Pippin the Short created the first nucleus of the State of the Church, which later became a strong countervailing force against any unification of the country.
In 774, upon a Papal invitation, the Franks invaded the Kingdom of Italy and finally annexed the Lombards; as a reward the Frankish king Charlemagne received papal support.

Here for your information a list of barbarian kings of Italy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_barbarian_kings_of_Italy



[edit] Ostrogothic kingdom
Theodoric the Great (476 – 526)
Athalaric (526 – 534)
Theodahad (534 – 536)
Witiges (536 – 540)
Ildibad (540 – 541)
Eraric (541)
Totila (541 – 552)
Teia (552 – 553)

[edit] Lombard kingdom
Alboin (568 – 572)
Cleph (572 – 574)
Rule of the Dukes (ten year interregnum)
Authari (584 – 590)
Agilulf (591 – c.616)
Adaloald (c.616 – c.626)
Arioald (c.626 – 636)
Rothari (636 – 652)
Rodoald (652 – 653)
Aripert I (653 – 661)
Perctarit and Godepert (661 – 662)
Grimoald (662 – 671)
Perctarit (671 – 688), restored from exile
Alahis (688 – 689), rebel
Cunincpert (688 – 700)
Liutpert (700 – 701)
Raginpert (701)
Aripert II (701 – 712)
Ansprand (712)
Liutprand (712 – 744)
Hildeprand (744)
Ratchis (744 – 749)
Aistulf (749 – 756)
Desiderius (756 – 774)

[edit] Frankish kingdom
Charles I the Great (771 – 781)
Pippin (781 – 810)
Bernard (810 – 818)
Lothair I (818 – 839)
Louis II (839 – 875)
Charles II the Bald (875 – 877)
Carloman (877 – 879)
Charles III the Fat (879 – 887)
Berengar I (888 – 924)
Between 888 and 933, there were usually several claimants to the throne of Italy, and on occasion even several living crowned emperors. In 955, the kingdom of Italy was subjected to Otto I.

Guy (889 – 894)
Lambert (892 – 898)
Arnulf (896 – 899)
Louis III the Blind (900 – 905)
Rudolph (922 – 933)


Hugh (924 – 947)
Lothair II (947 – 950)
Berengar II (950 – 961)
Adalbert (950 – 963)

[edit] Kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire
The numerals of the Holy Roman Emperors are used here.

Otto I (962 – 973)
Otto II (962 – 983)
Otto III (983 – 1002)
Arduin (1002 – 1014)
Henry II (1004 – 1024)
Conrad II (1026 – 1039)
Henry III (1039 – 1056)
Henry IV (1080 – 1093)
Conrad (1093 – 1098)
Henry V (1099 – 1125)
Lothair III (1128 – 1137)
Frederick I (1154 –1190)
Henry VI (1191 –1197)
Otto IV (1208 –1212)
Frederick II (1212 –1250)
Henry VII (1308 –1313)
Louis IV (1327 –1347)
Charles IV (1355 –1378)
Wenceslaus (1378 –1410)
Sigismund (1410 –1437)
Albert II (1437 –1439)
Frederick III (1452 –1493)
Maximilian I (1508 –1519)
Charles V (1530 –1556 ) (did not formally abdicate until 1558)
Ferdinand I (1556 –1564)
Maximilian II (1564 –1576)
Rudolf II (1576 –1608)
Matthias (1612 –1619)
Ferdinand II (1619 –1637)
Ferdinand III (1637 –1657)
Leopold I (1658 –1705)
Joseph I (1705 –1711)
Charles VI (1711 –1740)
Charles VII (1742 –1745)
Francis I (1745 –1765)
Joseph II (1765 –1790)
Leopold II (1790 –1792)
Francis II (1792 –1806) Last Holy Roman Emperor. Abdicted and the Empire was disbanded.

[edit] Napoleonic kingdom
Napoleon Bonaparte (1805 – 1814, to my opinion the most barbaric one ;-)


Bavarian and Allamanics were closely related to the Lombards, since they were neighbours. Thats about history book reading...
guest   Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:05 pm GMT
what aspects of Western Civilization are attributed to the germans?

Feudal system
Marriage ceremonies (bride given away to a type of 'lord')
Holidays (Easter, Christmas originally as pagan festivals later Christianized because people refused to forsake them)
Justice system (trial by jurors/peers)?
guest   Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:07 pm GMT
...cont.

There is nothing 'Latin' about these is there?

culturally, in at least these aspects, English, French, etc are german

I don't recall seeing anything of the kind in Rome apart from bullfighting and feeding Christians to Lions : )
guest   Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:09 pm GMT
...cont

oh, and all out orgies haha
guest   Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:10 pm GMT
oh no, now I've spoken against that sacred cow Latin...

let the beatings begin
JK   Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:51 pm GMT
Yes, I think France is as much "germanic" than England. both countries have been romanized celtic lands, and then ruled by germanic tribes.

France has always been part of western Europe, historically and culturally - while the romance speaking countries are part of southern Europe. France has much less in common with Italy than with England or Germany.

http://www.ooaj.com/travel/Europe.html