|
|
What makes French Latin?
" It's just a fact that in France "Germanic" beer is very well appreciated: the mean consumption of wine is 60 litres/year, mean consumption of beer is 40 litres/year. So France is 60% Latin and 40% Germanic ;-) "
Wrong, the consumption of beer in France, as much as in Italy is among the lower of Europe (and the world).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_world_by_beer_consumption.png
<<CERQUIGLINI, Bernard. «H comme Histoire. Le français: un créole qui a réussi» dans Le français dans tous ses états, Paris, Flammarion, p. 109-123, 2000.
or
Bernard Cerquiglini
Une langue orpheline, 240 p. ,2007, 21,50 €
ISBN : 9782707319814
GENCOD : 9782707319814
I hope you can read French or an English translation will be published... >>
Thanks Ouest! : )
<<Wrong, the consumption of beer in France, as much as in Italy is among the lower of Europe (and the world).
>>
Uh, the grayed-out areas are those where *Wikipedia*--or whoever provided the map--HAD NO DATA.
It does NOT mean that these areas have the lowest consumption.
Ouest : « Since I have no time for writing big books (...) ».
Pas de temps et pas d'arguments, surtout ! Tu n'as toujours pas démontré ce que tu affirmais...
Ouest : « (...) I am happy that some literature showing that French is a Creole language (...) »
Et moi je serais encore plus hereux que tu nous donnes tes références en la matière parce que c'est zéro pour l'instant. Mais il n'est de pire sourd que celui qui refuse d'entendre.
<<<<Et moi je serais encore plus hereux que tu nous donnes tes références en la matière parce que c'est zéro pour l'instant. Mais il n'est de pire sourd que celui qui refuse d'entendre. >>>>
The main question remains, what kind of process led to the loss of Latin grammar in French. If I can't convince you that it has probably happened by language contact and not by conventional "evolution", perhaps Wikipedia can:
<<<<<
Deflexion (linguistics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deflexion is a linguistic process related to inflectional languages (like all members of the Indo-European language family) reflecting a gradual decline of the inflectional morphemes (atomic semantic units) bound to lexemes (abstract word units). Typically, word endings to indicate noun cases and verbal tenses are affected, leading to the loss of some inflectional affixes. Complete loss of the original subset of affixes combined with a development towards allomorphy and new morphology is associated with pidgin and creolization[1][2].
Directly related to deflexion is the fact that the languages become less synthetic and more analytic in nature.
Deflexion is a common feature of the history of many Indo-european languages. According to the Language Contact Hypothesis for Deflexion[3], supported by the comparison between Germanic languages[4], for instance, Icelandic and Afrikaans, this process is attributed to language contact. Specifically, the phenomenon occurs at the presence of large, influential groups of speakers that acquired the leading idiom as a second language[5] (L2 acquisition), thus by nature is limited to economical trade-offs widely considered as acceptable. Though gradual, English experienced a dramatic change from Old English being a moderately inflected language using a complex case system, to Modern English, considered a weakly inflected language or even analytic. Important deflexion changes first arrived into the English language with the North Sea Germanic (Ingvaeonic) shifts, shared by Frisian and Low German dialects, like merging accusative and dative cases into an objective case. Viking invasions and the subsequent Norman conquest accelerated the process.>>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflexion_%28linguistics%29
Also here it is stated, that the loss of grammatical complexity (like the declension system = deflexion) is associated with language contact.
References can be found in the wikipedia-article. One of them is online:
[2] Morphology in pidgins and Creoles, Ingo Plag, University of Siegen, Version of June 28, 2004
http://www2.uni-siegen.de/~engspra/Papers/Creole/pc-morphology-ell.pdf
q.e.d! (Mais il n'est de pire sourd que celui qui refuse d'entendre.;-)
...but perhaps you have another explanation, why French has lost so much of the Latin grammar?
<<Ouest : « Since I have no time for writing big books (...) ».
Pas de temps et pas d'arguments, surtout ! Tu n'as toujours pas démontré ce que tu affirmais...
...
Ouest : « (...) I am happy that some literature showing that French is a Creole language (...) »
Et moi je serais encore plus hereux que tu nous donnes tes références en la matière parce que c'est zéro pour l'instant. Mais il n'est de pire sourd que celui qui refuse d'entendre. >>
-------------------------------------------
showing what you affirm and providing references does not necessarily prove the truth of a matter--
references can mislead, and be manipulated to support any fanciful notion, even those that have solidified into precedences, which is quite obvious in your case (greg)
is this some "french" way of presenting arguments???
you should run for the next US democratic party ticket--your methods fit in nicely!
<<Et moi je serais encore plus hereux que tu nous donnes tes références en la matière parce que c'est zéro pour l'instant. Mais il n'est de pire sourd que celui qui refuse d'entendre. >>
He's just mad 'coz no one ever asked him to write a book
Ouest : « (...) perhaps Wikipedia can (...) ».
Non, certainement pas Wikipédia et encore moins le Wikipédia anglophone, lequel affirmait, il y a peu, que 15 % des 35.000 mots du « Petit Robert » étaient d'origine germanique... C'est quelqu'un d'Antimoon qui a rectifié cette ânerie après que nous en ayons discuté.
Au lieu de faire des copier-collers à la pelle et de répéter « Cerquiglini » comme un petit robot, est-ce que tu pourrais te fendre d'un ***RAISONNEMENT*** de ta propre facture, si ça n'est pas trop de demander ?
Dans le même ordre d'idée, et puisque que tu prétends parler français et tout connaître sur l'émergence de cette langue, nous feras-tu la faveur d'une réponse que tu auras composée dans la langue de Molière ?
Here another source with a complete argumentation showing why French is probably a Creole language
In his dissertation (University of Ottawa, Canada) nemed
‘From Latin to early Romance: A case of partial creolization?’,
http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~bjoseph/publications/2005mcwhorterrev.pdf
Stephane Goyette engages in what might be called ‘applied creolistics’, taking insights from what is known about creoles and creolization in general and applying them in a novel arena to material not previously considered relevant to creolistics. His focus is on an interesting and challenging question: why was there so much movement towards analytic structuring in the development of Latin into the Romance languages, and especially so much more than in the development of Greek over a comparable period of time?
Goyette’s provocative answer is that creolization, with its propensity to lead ‘to a radically heightened degree of analyticity’ (p. 126) played a role in the development of Latin (but not Greek).
Here some extracts:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ABSTRACT
This thesis aims to ascertain whether or not the phenomenon known as creolization played a role in the emergence of the Romance language from Latin. Creolization and normal language change differ in terms of their respective effects upon inflectional morphology: normal language change yields morphological loss and morphological creation through grammaticization. Creolization cause inflectional morphology to be severely
reduced. Thus, the hypothesis tested would predict that the transition from Latin to Romance would involve an unusuly high degree of morphological loss and an absence of creation of new
inflectional morphology. Cornparison with another language, whose extemal history precludes Ïts having been creolized, Greek, is used to ascertain whether Romance shows an musual pattem of morphological loss . .
Comparison is first made between the fate of Latin nominal declension in Romance and Classical Greek declension in Modem Greek. It is found that declension was almost wholly eliminated in Romance but is preserved largely unscathed in Modem Greek. A similar fate befell adjectival declension. Likewise, the synthetic comparatives and superlatives of Latin did not survive into Romance, but those of Classical Greek survived into Modem Greek. Comparison of the two verb systems yields a similar result : whereas Romance severely reduced Latin verbal morphology (most importantly, the passive), Modern Greek has presaved the greater
part of Classical Greek verbal mophology unscathed. If one adds to this a complete absence of any morphological creation in the emerging Romance languages, one is forced to conclude that creolization must indeed have played a role in the history of Romance.
In conclusion, some examination is made of other alleged instances of creole-influenced language change, all of which are found wanting: some suggestions are made regarding methodology. Likewise, the implications of this conclusion, to linguists and especially Romance linguïsts, are presented
..........
7.7 Concluding remarks
This thesis sought to establish whether there is any linguistic basis supporting the contention that creolization played a significant role in the emergence of Romance from Latin, a possibility which cannot be
lightly dismissed in light of the extemal history of Latin.
Basing itself on the premise that creolization differs from normal language change in leading to a radically heightened degree of analyticity, use was made of Greek as a comparandum indicating 'normal', gradual linguistic change, in order to ascertain whether in fact the evolution from Latin to Romance is more creole-like than that of Greek. ....
It was found that, in nominal as well as in a major subset of verbal morphology, Latin had evolved in the direction of much more radical analyticity than Greek, and moreover had not, during the relevant period, created any new synthetic structures; this in contradistinction to what is expected in the case of 'normal', gradual linguistic evolution.
On this basis, postulating creolization as a contrïbuting factor in the evolution of LatinRomance becomes a matter of explanation rather than speculation, and indeed would appear to be the sirnplest (and therefore, on the basis of Occam's razor, should be the one accepted), as othenwise we are left with having to explain the greater analytic
aspect of Romance when compared to Greek in the nominal as well as in the verbal system.
If one accepts the validity of the data presented here, then one must point out that a refutation of this theory presented here, to be taken seriously, would need to present an alternative explanation as to why, in contradistinction both to its Romance daughters and Indo-European sisters, Late LatinlEarly Romance underwent such a radical, unidirectional
shift in the direction of analyticity; this in its nominal as well as verbal systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps this can convince even the most sceptical spirits that a process of Creolization must have happened and, if they are still incredulous, motivate them to present an alternative explanation as to why Late Latin / Early Romance underwent such a radical, unidirectional shift in the direction of analyticity.
To my opinion, the most probable reason for the Creolization of Latin is the historic fact that barbaric populations massively invaded Western Europe. The invasions were followed by hundredth of years of Germanic dominance and settlement in what is today France, Italy and Spain. What other language contact (= driving force of Creolization) could have led to such a radical change of Latin towards Roman languages?
Ouest : « (...) showing why French is probably a Creole language ».
Probablement ?! Pourquoi "probablement" ?!? Tu n'en es déjà plus sûr ? Et pourquoi ne nous sers-tu pas des réflexions venant de toi au lieu de passer ta semaine à rechercher un malheureux copier-coller que tu viens pondre ici comme un voleur ? Et pourquoi refuses-tu de parler français, toi qui en sais tant au sujet cette langue ? Pourquoi ne parviens-tu toujours pas à engager un dialogue constructif ?
Ouest : « (...) why was there so much movement towards analytic structuring in the development of Latin into the Romance languages (...) ».
C'est ici que tu commets le contresens le plus terrible parmi tous ceux que tu collectionnes déjà. La tendance que tu mentionnes concerne avant tout l'évolution du latin au latin, et ce bien avant la chute de Rome. Elle est même antérieure à la conquête de la Gaule par César. Ta grille d'analyse est donc fausse, dès le départ.
« (...) normal language change (...) »
C'est quoi une évolution "normale" ?
« Creolization and normal language change differ in terms of their respective effects upon inflectional morphology: normal language change yields morphological loss and morphological creation through grammaticization. Creolization cause inflectional morphology to be severely reduced. »
Pas de doute en ce cas : le passage du l'orolatin à l'oroman est une evolution "normale", pas une créolisation.
« It is found that declension was almost wholly eliminated in Romance (...) »
Faux. L'ororoman n'a pas "éliminé" le système casuel puisqu'il a perduré. Le système a été recyclé.
« A similar fate befell adjectival declension. »
Faux également. L'adjectif roman est décliné.
« Likewise, the synthetic comparatives and superlatives of Latin did not survive into Romance (...) ».
Risible.
Bellissime, richissime, élégantissime, rarissime, doctissime, ignorantissime, gravissime, célèbrissime, nullissime etc.
Le suffixe <issime> est même employé avec des mots tels que : louche → louchissime, mince → mincissime, tendance → tendancissime etc.
Ce suffixe est tellement vivant qu'on l'utilise avec des noms propres : chiraquissime, béjartissime, chanellissime, mitterrandissime etc.
« If one adds to this a complete absence of any morphological creation in the emerging Romance languages, one is forced to conclude that creolization must indeed have played a role in the history of Romance. »
Summum du grotesque : l'histoire de la conjugaison romane est celle d'une grande innovation et de la mise en parallèle de formes concurrentes.
« Basing itself on the premise that creolization differs from normal language change in leading to a radically heightened degree of analyticity, use was made of Greek as a comparandum indicating 'normal', gradual linguistic change, in order to ascertain whether in fact the evolution from Latin to Romance is more creole-like than that of Greek. »
Ce qui est consternant c'est l'absence d'élément positif permettant de vérifier l'hypothèse en question. Tu aurais pu aussi comparer l'orolatin du VIIe s. avec l'oro-anglo-saxon contemporain et parvenir à la conclusion que ni l'un ni l'autre n'étaient des créoles.
« If one accepts the validity of the data presented here (...) ».
Non seulement tous les éléments sont faux, mais la compréhension de ce que fut le latin est inexistante.
« To my opinion, the most probable reason for the Creolization of Latin is the historic fact that barbaric populations massively invaded Western Europe. »
Et selon moi, la raison pour laquelle cette fumisterie t'obsèdes, c'est que tu ne connais ni le latin, ni le français, ni l'ancien français, ni l'occitan, ni l'ancien occitan etc.
« What other language contact (= driving force of Creolization) could have led to such a radical change of Latin towards Roman languages? »
Eh bien ça saute aux yeux pourtant. Dans le cas de la Gaule, c'est le contact avec les langues gauloises (ultramajoritaires) qui auraient pu déclencher un processus de pidginisation, voire de créolisation. Pourtant, ce ne fut pas le cas : le latin est devenu la langue maternelle des autochtones. En revanche, en Gaule, les peuples germaniques ont été latinisés et romanisés.
greg:<<<<« Likewise, the synthetic comparatives and superlatives of Latin did not survive into Romance (...) ».
Risible.
Bellissime, richissime, élégantissime, rarissime, doctissime, ignorantissime, gravissime, célèbrissime, nullissime etc.
Le suffixe <issime> est même employé avec des mots tels que : louche → louchissime, mince → mincissime, tendance → tendancissime etc.
Ce suffixe est tellement vivant qu'on l'utilise avec des noms propres : chiraquissime, béjartissime, chanellissime, mitterrandissime etc. >>>>
As a Frenchman you should know that words like bellissime, richissime, élégantissime, rarissime etc. are not classical French but modern vernacular spoken French (near to argot or Parisian slang) - or did you learn in school that such words can be used in a serious essay ? Molière would never have used a word like élégantissime....
Frank : « (...) you should know that words like bellissime, richissime, élégantissime, rarissime etc. are not classical French but modern vernacular spoken French (near to argot or Parisian slang) (...) ».
bellissime → XVIe s.
richissime → XIVe s.
élégantissime → XIXe s. (minimum)
rarissime → XVIe s.
grandissime → XIVe s.
gravissime → XIVe s.
sérénissime → XIIIe s.
illustrissime → XVIIe s.
excellentissime → XIVe s.
savantissime → XIXe s. (minimum)
brévissime → avant 1960 (minimum)
béatissime → XVIe s.
révérendissime → XVIe s.
délicatissime → XIXe s. (minimum)
généralissime → XVIe s.
doctissime → XIXe s. (minimum)
altissime → XVIe s.
Sachant que Molière a vécu au XVIIe et que <élégantissime> a au moins plus de 100 ans, il n'est pas étonnant qu'il ne l'ait pas utilisé. Mais tu remarqueras qu'il aurait pu en utiliser bien d'autres... Je ne sais pas d'où tu sors cette idée que tous les substantifs & adjectifs suffixés en <issime> ne pourraient être utilisés ni à l'écrit ni dans la langue classique. En tout cas elle est faussissime !
Il existe même des superlatifs en ancien français qui n'ont pas survécu jusqu'à nous tels que <mellisme>.
Ouest : « It is found that declension was almost wholly eliminated in Romance but is preserved largely unscathed in Modem Greek. A similar fate befell adjectival declension. Likewise, the synthetic comparatives and superlatives of Latin did not survive into Romance, but those of Classical Greek survived into Modem Greek. »
J'ai déjà réfuté la première partie du propos, mais il n'est pas inutile de préciser que les déclinaisons existaient en ancien oïl et en ancien oc, et existent en roumain moderne.
D'autre part l'ancien français regorge de comparatifs synthétiques qui de surcroît sont toujours déclinés (soit une double réfutation de ton propos) :
Fr <plus belle> → AF <bellezor> <bielissor> <belissor>
Fr <plus gracieux> → AF <gencor> <gencior>
Fr <plus fort> → AF <forçor> <forcheur> <forceur> <fortre>
Fr <plus gros> → AF <grossor>
Fr <plus haut> → AF <hauçor>
Fr <plus jeune> → AF <jovegnor> <juvenor> <joignor> <joindre> <genvre>
Fr <plus ancien> → AF <ancienor>
Fr <plus mauvais> → AF <noaillor> <noaudre> <noals< <nualz> <noauz> <noaiaus>
Fr <plus grand> → AF <graindre> <graignor> <greignor> <greugneur>
Fr <moindre> <plus petit> → AF <mendre> <moindre> <meindre> <menre> <maindre> <menor>
Fr <meilleur> → AF <meillor> <mieldre> <meldre> <meillur> <mieudre><meillour> <meudre>
Fr <plus nuisible> → AF <grivor>
Fr <pire> → AF <pire> <peior> <poior> <peieur> <piour> <pior> <pieur>.
La liste est longue... Et je pourrais continuer avec les langues d'Oc anciennes.
Ouest : dans toutes tes tentatives, il y a toujours au minimum trois ou quatre chaînons manquants → l'orolatin préimpérial en diachronie, l'orolatin postimpérial en diachronie, l'ancien français en diachronie, l'ancien occitan en diachronie — pour ne me limiter qu'aux faits linguistiques majeurs relatifs au latin & la Gaule.
German has the same construct of adjectival declension like Latin, so it's easy to imagine that the settlers of Germanic tongue had less problem with that. Examples
Fr <plus gros> → AF <grossor> German <größer>
Fr <plus haut> → AF <hauçor> German <höher> English <higher>
Fr <plus jeune> → AF <jovegnor> <juvenor> <joignor> <joindre> <genvre> German <jünger> English <higher>
Fr <plus grand> → AF <graindre> <graignor> <greignor> <greugneur> English <greater>
Fr <moindre> <plus petit> → AF <mendre> <moindre> <meindre> <menre> <maindre> <menor> German <minder> Dutsh <minder>
Please note that te French word Haut has a Germanic ethymology...
Quest : tu fais même des fautes pour écrire ton pseudo...
Sinon, à part ça, que voulais-tu nous apprendre avec tes comparaisons entre l'ancien français et des langues germaniques modernes ?
Au passage : c'est <étymologie>, pas *<éthymologie>. Mais bon ; passons...
|