|
|
Are Romance languages some kind of Germano-Latin?
<<Take a look at Icelandic, they build new words from the core vocabulary, they don't need to take Latin or Greek words at all. >>
No language "needs" to borrow from Latin and Greek to enhance their vocabularies, not even English. God didn't *christen* Latin or Greek as the official "Mother" tongues from which all others should exact and build new words from. No one did.
We *choose* to take from Latin and Greek.
We have enough resources in English to make our own words too.
Lemme see, here we go: "gainweigh" for 'counterbalance' (vb.)...voila I just created a word from English!
"withyield" [BAM!]--to "recompense/pay back"...there's another!
"endcome" --"return/come back"
"formind" -- "ignore"
"changile" -- "tending/prone to change, unstable" < Eng. "change" < Fr. + Eng. "-ile" < O.E -ol, -el suffix denoting tendency [cf. suffix "-ative"]
We can be very resourceful. But we like the Latin words better.
"In other languages, such as French or Spanish, what does one do to elevate language register? Does one use a set of words separated out for higher speech, like in English? "
Well, cultured people in Spain are prone to use latin expressions: ad hoc, deo gratia, in extremis, modus operandi ... Also they use many Greek words (simbiosis for example). In ancient times, Spanish speakers took many loanwords from Latin which were used for an elevated speech , but they nowadays are no longer so sophisticated but normal words . These are called "cultismos". For example " fabrica was a cultism borrowed from Latin while Spanish had the word "fragua" (note that the higher degree of corruption) to denote the same thing. Nowadays fragua means a slightly different thing that fábrica but Spanish has plenty of "dobletes", that is two words which mean the same thing(one directly taken from Latin, and the other one more vulgar in the sense that it belonged to the language since the begining)There are other less cultured people who simply choose the longest words they find because they think that long is beautiful and short is ugly. For example, they prefer "finalizar" instead of "acabar" (both words have the same meaning, to end, and really none of them are inherently more suitable than the other for an elevated register). I heard also that in Mexico and other Spanish speaking countries in America they make use of English words for higher speech. This needs confirmation from the American forumers.
">I heard also that in Mexico and other Spanish speaking countries in America they make use of English words for higher speech. This needs confirmation from the American forumers.<"
Maybe, however, I think it's more of an neologism expression then a cultured speech. I'll grant you this though, many mexicans use English to sound sophiscated, or trendy or mimic American shows & cartoon slang which tends to be annoying; they disregard Spanish in a despicable manner ad nauseam.
">In ancient times, Spanish speakers took many loanwords from Latin which were used for an elevated speech , but they nowadays are no longer so sophisticated but normal words . These are called "cultismos". For example " fabrica was a cultism borrowed from Latin while Spanish had the word "fragua" (note that the higher degree of corruption) to denote the same thing.<"
Fabrica = farica = farca / fraca = fracua = fragua
<<many mexicans use English to sound sophiscated, or trendy or mimic American shows & cartoon slang which tends to be annoying; they disregard Spanish in a despicable manner ad nauseam>>
Well it's human.
The Iberians abandoned their native language and adopted Latin, which developed into Spanish, among others.
The Mexicans abandoned their native language and adopted Spanish.
greg Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:06 pm GMT
>>>>>
Ouest : « The theory of 1]2]3] is substantiated by Christopher Lucken
http://medievales.revues.org/document638.html ».
Toujours pas compris la différence entre orolangue & scriptolangue ?
<<<<
I try my best:-)
1) Written texts in antique medieval documents are the only source we have since no tape recorder existed at that time. So one has to deduce from them by analogies.
2) The theory of 1]2]3] is substantiated by Christopher Lucken
http://medievales.revues.org/document638.html since he doesn`t speak of written but of oral language when he says:
"latin « vulgaire », [..] ***parlé*** par le « peuple » rustique et les barbares"
3) written texts in standard language have a long term influence on oral language since upper class people try to distinguish themselves from the masses by using a language near the written standard languages. Subsequently, ambitious people from lower classes try to imitate them - finally even patois resembles more and more the written standar languages.
<<Linguists often state that French owes to Germanic only a few words - exactly 544 following Henriette Walter, or 13 % of all foreign words introduced into modern French.>>
According to this source http://www.multilingual-matters.net/cils/006/0195/cils0060195.pdf there are 2613 English words in French, and also 694 Old German, 312 Dutch and 47 Scandinavian words in French. I think thats more than 544.
English is Latin and German. It has a German grammar and a Latin vocabulary, it's a kind of hybrid. It has also greek roots etc.
<<
<<Linguists often state that French owes to Germanic only a few words - exactly 544 following Henriette Walter, or 13 % of all foreign words introduced into modern French.>>
According to this source http://www.multilingual-matters.net/cils/006/0195/cils0060195.pdf there are 2613 English words in French, and also 694 Old German, 312 Dutch and 47 Scandinavian words in French. I think thats more than 544.
>>
Your right, the correct statement was <<Linguists often state that French owes to the Old Germanic languages Frankish, Burgundian and Goth only a few words - exactly 544 following Henriette Walter, or 13 % of all foreign words introduced into modern French.>>
How many words of original Latin provenience and coming from Latin into French by pure evolution do exist and are still in use in modern French? Many of the Latin words in modern French have been introduced later on by borrowings as adstrates, like it was done in English.
<<According to this source http://www.multilingual-matters.net/cils/006/0195/cils0060195.pdf there are 2613 English words in French, and also 694 Old German, 312 Dutch and 47 Scandinavian words in French. I think thats more than 544. >>
Oh yes, and thats not forgetting the 408 words borrowed from Modern German and German dialects.
« Guest » : « According to this source http://www.multilingual-matters.net/cils/006/0195/cils0060195.pdf [...] »/
Cette source a l'air fantaisiste sur certains points. Dommage Henriette !
page 202 ou page 7
1] <aubépine> vient d'une altération d'un calque gallo-latin <albus spinus>, d'après une tournure *gauloise*, pas germanique...
2] <prudhomme>, <prud'homme> est une réfection d'un adjectif substantivé suivi d'un complément de nom : <preu d'ome>, comme <preu de fame> pour une dame → il ne s'agit, à l'origine, aucunement d'un adjectif suivi du nom qu'il qualifie, mais au contraire un nom (issu d'un adjectif) suivi de son complément. Rien de germanique là non plus...
3] <gentilhomme> est une forme figée : un adjectif suivi du nom qu'il qualifie recyclés en un nouveau substantif, presque comme dans <gente dame>. On trouve l'inverse sans problème : <por marier les puceles gentis>, <et ses biaus bras et son cors bel et gent>.
4 ] <sage-femme>, qui au passage a remplacé <ventriere> vers la fin du XIVe siècle (bien après les invasions barbares...), est également une forme figée. Si l'antéposition de <sage> avait été causée par un calque syntaxique germanique, la même cause aurait produit les mêmes effets avec des mots autres que <femme>. Mais il n'en est rien : <Vipos est un grant conte qui appert en semblance d'un ange, et faict home saige et hardy>, <ainz qu'il i muire tant gentil home saige>, <conseilez mei cume mi home saive>, <li anciain prodome saige>, <faite fut per noble home et saive>.
5] <banc-seing> → formule figée (moyen français). On trouve aussi : <lequel romant je promet restituer à mondi sieur de Fréjus, à son bon plesir, tesmoing mon saing manuel cy mis>.
La caractère antéposé ou postposé de l'adjectif en ancien français (où l'antéposition est beaucoup plus fréquente qu'en français moderne) est lié à de nombreux facteurs, l'influence germanique étant sans doute le moins évident.
À telle enseigne que certaines expressions médiévales comme le second énoncé dans <s'il i muert, c'est domage grans> (dont le sens n'est pas exactement *{c'est grand dommage}) trouve comme équivalent *formel* (au niveau de l'agencement syntaxique) <c'est grand dommage> en français contemporain — et non *<c'est dommage grand>. Donc si on suit le raisonnement qui attribue systématiquement l'antéposition de l'adjectif à une hypothétique influence germanique, que faire de AF <domage grans> vs Fr <grand dommage> ?
Pareil pour AF <mescheance droite> = Fr <une véritable malchance>. Laquelle de ces deux expressions est un calque syntaxique germanique ? Celle qui *aurait* pu correspondre aux invasions germaniques (avec quelques siècles de décalage quand même...) mais qui ne suit pas le modèle antéposé, ou celle de 2007 qui ne suit pas le modèle postposé mais n'a rien à voir avec le moyen-âge ?!?
<,Your right, the correct statement was <<Linguists often state that French owes to the Old Germanic languages Frankish, Burgundian and Goth only a few words - exactly 544 following Henriette Walter, or 13 % of all foreign words introduced into modern French.>>
>>
And I wonder very seriously if that 544 count includes only *confirmed* Old germanic (i.e. Frankish, Burgundian, etc) words without derivations.
I know of one germanic root 'but' in French from germanic *butt* (either Old Norse or other...the root was common to most if not all germanic languages, including English) which means "end, goal" that has many children such as 'débuter' and all its derivatives (début, débutante, etc). Does that 544 count only tell 'butt' once, or three times (according to this example)?
CORRECTION:
And I wonder very seriously if that 544 count includes only *confirmed* Old germanic (i.e. Frankish, Burgundian, etc) words without derivations.
should read:
And I wonder very seriously if that 544 count includes only *confirmed* Old germanic (i.e. Frankish, Burgundian, etc), *and* words without derivations.
btw, many obvios germanic words have no confirmed germanic etymology (like 'blonde' or 'maint')
And some have even tried to link those to Latin ('flavus' and 'magnus'--magnus, btw wouldn't work. Maint means manifold, 'magnus' means Big--it's a stretch for sure)
<<And I wonder very seriously if that 544 count includes only *confirmed* Old germanic (i.e. Frankish, Burgundian, etc), *and* words without derivations.
>>
If you count words "not confirmed" and "derivations" is it higher than 544? Is that what you're trying to say?
<<If you count words "not confirmed" and "derivations" is it higher than 544? Is that what you're trying to say?>>
Yes!
|