|
|
What makes French Latin?
The imperium Romanum has been destroyed by Germanic tribes
Germanic tribes did not destroy Roman empire at all!! On teh contrary they were absorbed by it
Guest, in response to your vitriolic diatribe against Americans, all I can say is that you sound like you are mentally ill. If you hate Americans, it's your fucking problem. Americans don't give a rats ass about what you think of them. Grow up and get a fuckin' life. Have you ever been to the US? Many Americans can speak more than just English. Don't stereotype a nation of more than 300 million people. Fuck you and all of the other third world rubbish like yourself. Stay in your own country. We don't want you here.
<<Germanic tribes did not destroy Roman empire at all!! On teh contrary they were absorbed by it >>
That is exactly the way of thinking of the "Latin" fraction. For example: many people in France think that the Gauls were visited by a very small number (2% or so) of barbarian Germanics who were quickly assimilated by a huge native population of Gauls. To their opinion, the Gauls had done the same great work of assimilation a few hundred years ago with Caesar and his Romans, in order to become civilized Gallo-Romans. In reality, the fate of a people defeated by the Romans was slavery. After the fall of the Roman empire, the Franks abolished the Roman slavery-system and repopulated the conquered areas by continual settlement.
Les "barbares" étaient fascinés par la culture romaine ! Et d'ailleurs ce sont les tribues germaniques elles-même qui ont permis à l'Empire Romain de durer, ce sont elles qui se sont battues pour sa préservation et notament (et surtout !) le Royaume Franc !
Avant même leur entrée sur le territoire romain les peuples germaniques s'étaient déjà quelque peu romanisé, grace aux contact qu'ils avaient aux frontières ! Les Germains métrisaient déjà l'art de la guerre mais leur armement s'est perfectionné car ils ont copié les techniques et les armes romaines ! Ce n'est pas pour rien que les barbares ont absoluement voulu pénétrer l'Empire Romain ! Ils voulaient faire parti de cet ensemble (bien-sûr il y a la poussée des Huns mais ceux-ci n'étaient pas pire que les romains). Le rêve de Charlemagne (ha oui il y a "magne" ou "magnus" dans son nom...déjà fan de latin le petit Charles) n'était-il pas de reconstituer l'Empire Romain tombé en 476 ? Et puis il ne faut pas oublier que avant l'arrivée des peuples germaniques toutes le régions roamines étaient déjà peuplée de populations parlant toutes latin, de culture latine (politique, coutûmes, arts...etc !) et c'était bien-sûr le cas des gaulois qui ne parlaient plus le celte depuis bien lontemps ! D'ailleurs dans la langue française il n'y a que très peu (une infimité) de mots d'origine celte..."alouette" (un oiseau) par exemple. "Et la Grèce s'empara de son farouche vainqueur", les romains eux-mêmes tout copié des grecs...et bien il s'est passé la même chose entre les gaulo-romains et les barbares ! Le mélange des peuples est largement allé à l'avantage des gallo-romains car les francs étaient très peu nombreux comparé à la population gauloise. Les francs se sont mis au latin, véhiculé par l'Eglise Catholique dont les francs étaient les protecteurs ; TOUS ! D'ailleurs sur le territoire "traditionnel" franc (nord de la France) on parle aujourd'hui une langue...romane ! Tous les dialectes d'oïl (picard, ardennais, wallon...etc) parlé au nord sont issus du latin (sauf certains dialectes alsaciens et lorrains). Au nord, à l'est, à l'ouest ou au sud de la France tout le monde tient sa culture de l'Empire Romain, n'en déplaise à certains. En tant que français habitant à Toulouse je peux vous dire que je ne me sens pas du tout dépaysé lorsque je me rends dans les Ardennes voir une partie de ma famille !
<<The imperium Romanum has been destroyed by Germanic tribes. >>
The imperium Romanum was destroyed by the Romans...themselves.
European : « French is not the native language of southern France but the Provencal LangueDoc. The North and East of France are in contrast mor Germanic than Latin, since the ancestors of the population there are mostly Germanic settlers. »
Le français est bien sûr la langue maternelle de l'immense majorité — pour ne pas dire la quasi-totalité — des Méridionaux. Tu voulais peut-être dire que les langues maternelles de nos ancêtres étaient les langues d'Oc ? Tout à fait d'accord avec toi. L'Alsace et la fraction de la Lorraine historiquement germanophone sont bien entendu d'extraction germanique quoique (presque) tous leurs locuteurs soient des francophones maternels. Mais l'Alsace et cette partie de la Lorraine ne constituent pas l'intégralité du Nord-Est — loin s'en faut ! Par ailleurs la France septentrionale fut largement celtique avant que d'être romanisée, et ne fut jamais germanisée car les rares peuplades germaniques qui s'y établirent — les Normands par exemple — finirent non seulement par se romaniser, mais aussi par exporter l'ancien français en terre germanique (l'Angleterre par exemple).
<<<Les "barbares" étaient fascinés par la culture romaine ! Et d'ailleurs ce sont les tribues germaniques elles-même qui ont permis à l'Empire Romain de durer, ce sont elles qui se sont battues pour sa préservation et notament (et surtout !) le Royaume Franc ! >>
I agree, and up to our days Germans admire and respect Roman and Greek culture and language. Still they keep on speaking a Germanic language, that is the difference to the French at the other side of the frontier. <<<Le rêve de Charlemagne (ha oui il y a "magne" ou "magnus" dans son nom...déjà fan de latin le petit Charles) n'était-il pas de reconstituer l'Empire Romain tombé en 476 ? >>>> If little Charles whould have learned Latin and Romanic and decided to live in Paris instead of Aachen, to your opinion, whould he have become a true Roman, or a Gallo Roman, or a Germano-Roman, or would he have kept on beeing a German? greg: <<Le français est bien sûr la langue maternelle de l'immense majorité — pour ne pas dire la quasi-totalité — des Méridionaux. Tu voulais peut-être dire que les langues maternelles de nos ancêtres étaient les langues d'Oc ? Tout à fait d'accord avec toi. >> Thats what I ment - les langues maternelles de tes ancêtres étaient les langues d'Oc.... <<<L'Alsace et la fraction de la Lorraine historiquement germanophone sont bien entendu d'extraction germanique quoique (presque) tous leurs locuteurs soient des francophones maternels. Mais l'Alsace et cette partie de la Lorraine ne constituent pas l'intégralité du Nord-Est — loin s'en faut !>>> L'Alsace and Lorraine are only the last regions populated with German people who have been forced to or volutarily speak a Roman dialect. The Wallones for example have done the same thing long ago, as did the Francs, Burgundii, Goths, Allemans before, especially in the whole Nord-Est of France, in Belgium and in Swittzerland
" les langues maternelles de tes ancêtres étaient les langues d'Oc.... "
et donc ? Les langues d'oc sont des langues françaises autant que la "français" dit "strandard". Leur proximité avec les Français d'oc sont evidente et largement intercompréhensibles. le français n'était pas non plus la langue maternelle de la plupart des français du nord, mais une des multiples langues d'oil, ou bien le Breton, l'Alsacien ou le francique lorrain.
le français n'était pas non plus la langue maternelle de la plupart des français du nord, mais une des multiples langues d'oil, sans oublier le Breton, l'Alsacien ou le francique lorrain.
. <<The imperium Romanum has been destroyed by Germanic tribes. >> L'empire Romain (attention, seulement d'occident) pris fin par les successions d'invasions bien sûr germaniques, mais aussi mongoles (les Huns et Attila), les Perses, les Berbères, les Slaves, les Arabes, etc... Je rappelle que l'empire Romain pris réellement fin, à partir du moment ou Constantinople fût prise, en 1453, l'empire latin d'orient s'éteint et avec lui tout lien durable avec cet empire. Car nombre de souverain on tenté de refaire naître cet empire, et parmi eux des germains, comme Otto, Charlemagne, le Saint empire germanique en est l'exemple jusqu'à qu'il prenne fin en 1800, car Napoléon autre empereur qui se fît couronner par le Pape, voulut lui aussi instaurer l'hégémonie en Europe, et en quelque sorte l'empire romain dont il était fasciné (voyez les monument comme l'Arc de Triomphe inspiré des monuments romains.) -------------------- The Roman empire (only the west roman empire) come to its end by the successions of invasions naturally Germanic, but also Mongolian (Huns with Attila), the Persians, the Berbers, the Slavs, the Arabs, etc.... I remind that the Roman empire come stop to exist really, from moment or Constantinople is taken, in 1453, the Latin empire of east goes out and with him any durable link with this empire. And many kings tried to make again this empire, and among them, Germans, as Otto, Carolus magnus, the Holy Germanic empire is the example until that it comes to an end in 1800, because Napoleon another emperor who was crowned by the Pope, wanted too to establish the hegemony in Europe, and in a sense the Roman empire with which he was fascinated (see monument as the Triumphal arch inspired from Roman monuments.) <<We should not speak about architecture here but about language and culture.>> La culture? l'architecture n'aurait aucun rapport avec la culture et donc le patrimoine? Ouest said: <<In reality, the fate of a people defeated by the Romans was slavery. After the fall of the Roman empire, the Franks abolished the Roman slavery-system and repopulated the conquered areas by continual settlement. >> Oui, beaucoup de Gaulois devinrent des esclaves, après la défaite d'Alésia, malgrès une attaque exceptionnelle des Gaulois (plus de 300.000 gaulois contre 45.000 romains, ce qui est énorme pour l'époque), c'est la première fois de l'histoire de la France qu'à peu près tous les peuples de Gaules se rallièrent, de la terrible Belgique, aux Gaulois de la Narbonnaise déjà romanisés depuis 2 siècles, même les Aquitaniques se joignièrent (peuple considéré à l'époque comme Ibérique et Vascon, ayant aucun lien avec les Gaulois dans la langue et la culture), une fois défaits, 100.000 gaulois furent amenés à Rome (ainsi que Vercingétorix leur chef) comme esclave. Mais après? La Pax Romana, fût bénéfique pour la Gaule, la population doubla, des acqueducs, des infrastuctures modernes et romaines fûrent aménagés, les villes devenirent imposantes, les vias romaines permettirent de faciliter le commerce, etc... La période romaine marqua la culture, le patrimoine, le mode de vie, la langue... La Gaule était l'une des contrée la plus imposante démographiquement de l'Empire Romain (12 millions d'habitants sur 60 millions au total), dépassant de loin ses voisins au III eme siècle en nombre de population. <<repopulated the conquered areas by continual settlement. >> Repeupler? Il s'installèrent, mais repeupler est un mot un peu trop grand. Après leur passage, la population diminua de 4 millions d'habitants...
<<<<<La Gaule était l'une des contrée la plus imposante démographiquement de l'Empire Romain (12 millions d'habitants sur 60 millions au total), dépassant de loin ses voisins au III eme siècle en nombre de population.
<<repopulated the conquered areas by continual settlement. >> Repeupler? Il s'installèrent, mais repeupler est un mot un peu trop grand. Après leur passage, la population diminua de 4 millions d'habitants... >>>>> Where do you get all these numbers from? You should admit that these are pure hypothetic estimations, since no census of population was ever done and reported in these times. It could be as well that the Gallo_Roman population of vast areas fled and was reduced to such a small number that the almost depopulated areas (the Nord-Est) had to be repopulated by Germanic settlers. You wrote: <<<La Pax Romana, fût bénéfique pour la Gaule, la population doubla, des acqueducs, des infrastuctures modernes et romaines fûrent aménagés, les villes devenirent imposantes, les vias romaines permettirent de faciliter le commerce, etc... La période romaine marqua la culture, le patrimoine, le mode de vie, la langue... >>> Fact is, that after the Germanic invasions all the roman "culture, le patrimoine, le mode de vie, la langue" and also the christian religion also crumbled down and vanished away. For example the aqueducts ceased to be used, and Latin language changed to become Romanic. Why should all the "Latinity" have dissapeared if only a small number of invaders had entered a Gaul havily populated by Gallo-Romans? I think, that the Latinity of France (and Europe) has not survived the barbarian invasions. Latinity has afterwards been repeatedly reimported in adapted versions during history - first by Germanic nobility (e.g. Charlemagne) and Anglo-Saxon and Irish missionaries, in the end by the Italian Renaissance.
<<Where do you get all these numbers from? You should admit that these are pure hypothetic estimations>>
Sache bien à tes dépends que je suis l'un des "Antimooners" le plus précis, mes données ne sont jamais une "hypothetic estimations", contrairement à d'autres... Les 12 millions d'habitants de la Gaule du III eme siècle, sont une estimation *REELLE* de l'INSEE et de l'INED (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques et Institut national d'études démographiques): http://www.indices.insee.fr/bsweb/servlet/bsweb?action=BS_SERIE&BS_IDBANK=043638781&BS_IDARBO=01000000000000 Quant à la population estimée de l'empire romain, c'est via Wikipédia que j'ai trouvé ce chiffre: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0145-5532%281979%293%3A3%2F4%3C115%3ASADOEG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H << Fact is, that after the Germanic invasions all the roman "culture, le patrimoine, le mode de vie, la langue" and also the christian religion also crumbled down and vanished away. For example the aqueducts ceased to be used, and Latin language changed to become Romanic. Why should all the "Latinity" have dissapeared if only a small number of invaders had entered a Gaul havily populated by Gallo-Romans? I think, that the Latinity of France (and Europe) has not survived the barbarian invasions. Latinity has afterwards been repeatedly reimported in adapted versions during history - first by Germanic nobility (e.g. Charlemagne) and Anglo-Saxon and Irish missionaries, in the end by the Italian Renaissance. >> I think that the reality is a little more complex... "Mehr Licht!" as Goethe said.
The latin language was just one of the Indoeuropean language spoken at that time. I am not familiar with the languages spoken in France before Galia was conquered by Rome (I suppose there were Celtic languages), but in Spain there were several Indoeuropean languages: Lusitanian and Celtiberian for example that were probably not that far from Latin, that explains why some authors report that the Roman soldiers could somehow understand the local languages and that would explain why Latin was easily adopted in Spain, maybe because it was a similar language to the ones the locals spoke. The exception are the Euskera (Basque) which is not Indoeuropean and the Iberian languages.
I´d like to add that the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings/Normans and even Celts did not change much the genetic map of the British tribes which to this day remain related to the Iberians (obviously I am not talking about language). This has been discussed in a thread in this forum: http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t5442-30.htm That said I would speculate that Northern and Eastern French populations are probably more Germanic - in terms of genetics - than the British because... the British Islands are Islands and the French and the Germanic Tribes have been pretty much neighbors and cousins since the 4th century AD.
" The latin language was just one of the Indoeuropean language spoken at that time. I am not familiar with the languages spoken in France before Galia was conquered by Rome (I suppose there were Celtic languages), but in Spain there were several Indoeuropean languages: Lusitanian and Celtiberian for example that were probably not that far from Latin, that explains why some authors report that the Roman soldiers could somehow understand the local languages and that would explain why Latin was easily adopted in Spain, maybe because it was a similar language to the ones the locals spoke "
The pre-roman languages of France were mainly celtic, which IS a indo-European language. Celtiberian, as it name shows it was also a celtic language (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtib%C3%A8re), close to the languages spoken in France at that time. " That said I would speculate that Northern and Eastern French populations are probably more Germanic - in terms of genetics - than the British because... the British Islands are Islands and the French and the Germanic Tribes have been pretty much neighbors and cousins since the 4th century AD. " what do you call "northern and eastern" France ? the tiny lands of french Flanders and Alsace-Moselle ? In this case I would agree that they are maybe relatively close to the genetics of northern Europe (if we don't take account of the millions of them who have Italians and portuguese origins, people who emigrated in mass to those industrial regions in the 19-20th century) But if you consider northern to be the northern half, and eastern the eastern half, you give me a big laugh ! do you really think that a Corsican, Niçois or Provençal people (who are eastern French people) would be as much germanic as the English !!! :)
<<Lusitanian and Celtiberian for example that were probably not that far from Latin, that explains why some authors report that the Roman soldiers could somehow understand the local languages and that would explain why Latin was easily adopted in Spain, maybe because it was a similar language to the ones the locals spoke. The exception are the Euskera (Basque) which is not Indoeuropean and the Iberian languages.
>> 1, Celtiberian is a mixture of Celtic language and Iberian language. 2, Iberian isn't related with Latin, but it must be related with basque (proto-iberian?) and Berber languages. 3, The Gaulish spoken by the Gauls presented many resemblances with the Latin, so, the totality of the Gauls were romanised at the end of the IIIrd century, all spoke Latin (even the gauls of Brittany, were romanised but after re-celtized during the britonnic invasion), as the Iberians at the same time. 4, Several roman families became established in Hispania, this known part of the country a big popularity, so 2 Roman emperors were iberian: Trajan and Hadrian, obviously, its 2 factors weren't without incidence in the developpement and the romanisation of the iberian people. An extract of "Hispanité et Romanité" "Romanised before the Narbonensis (Gallia), Spain was, after Sicily and before Greece and East, the laboratory of the Roman imperialism, confronted with the Punic thalassocratie." The majority of the inhabitants protohistoric of Gallia spoke certainly the Gaul, declined in several dialects, and had to understand between them: Julius Caesar mentioned however that in this period three parts of Gallia distinguished themselves by the customs, the culture, but also by the "language". This assertion is very delicate to understand: Is it about three variations within the same Celtic language, either Julius Caesar wanted to speak about three very different languages, namely the Gaul, the Basque and a Germanic language? <<I´d like to add that the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings/Normans and even Celts did not change much the genetic map of the British tribes which to this day remain related to the Iberians (obviously I am not talking about language). This has been discussed in a thread in this forum>> Funny! A legend said that Julius Caesar moved a legion of Picts and Scottish to invade the rebellious Wasconia, It's with that some people explain the resemblance between the Basques and Scots (morphologically). <<That said I would speculate that Northern and Eastern French populations are probably more Germanic - in terms of genetics - than the British because... the British Islands are Islands and the French and the Germanic Tribes have been pretty much neighbors and cousins since the 4th century AD. >> Avec ton raisonnement on pourrait dire aussi que les allemands sont plus celtiques que les Irlandais ou les Gallois: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Celtes-carte.PNG Que les arméniens et géorgiens sont les européens de "pure souche": http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Meyers_1890_ethnographic_detail.jpg En somme, puisque nous venons tous d'Afrique, les africains sont les ancêtres des européens, et donc ils sont les véritables détenteurs de l'héritage européen: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Map-of-human-migrations.jpg Que les singes que l'on expose au zoo, devraient être considérés comme des êtres respectables, vu qu'ils sont nos ancêtres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae Que les souris sous nos portes devraient proliférer tranquillement, puisque, quelquepart se sont nos lointains cousins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal Etc... "Ecce Homo!"
"Celtiberian is a mixture of Celtic language and Iberian language. "
This is a common mistake. Celtiberian is a Celtic language in the Iberian peninsula not a mixed of a Celtic and Iberian languages. "But if you consider northern to be the northern half, and eastern the eastern half, you give me a big laugh ! do you really think that a Corsican, Niçois or Provençal people (who are eastern French people) would be as much germanic as the English !!! :)" You understood me the first time. Even my dog knows that these areas have little germanic influence. As for the British modern studies all point to the basic Iberian - probably basque - origin of most the British genes. Another myth ruined by modern genetics. |