Are Romance languages some kind of Germano-Latin?
<<Classical Latin is not more Latin than Vulgar Latin.>>
Actually, Vulgar Latin is less *Italic* than Classical Latin (which was less Italic than Old Latin) for the reasons you cite.
But what's the big deal here?
Everone has their own version of Latin, and all are "PURE" Latin?...bologna!
I kinda see what the post about the colors means...no matter how far removed it becomes, everyone still "wants" to refer to it as "Latin"...why?
bologna!
What does the Italian town mean in here?
lol, that's a term which means "rubbish" or "complete trash". we use it to signify that something is utterly and completely false.
...cont.
although in origin it's the Italian town, the term we use really refers to the sandwich meat : )
like when someone tries to tell you that the meat is roast beef (i.e. very good) but it's not, they are tricking you--it's really Bologna! (cheap meat)
« Guest » :
« And in the case of French, the most germanic of all Romance languages [NOTE: I am not claiming that French is germanic. Romance languages by and large are mostly of Latin descent], phonemes, pronunciation and usage are also influenced --eg. "on" < 'hom(me)' in
"En France *on* (<'homme'-"man") parle Français" [i.e. 'In France *MAN* speaks French']
cf. German
"In Frankreich spricht *man* Franzoesisch"».
Je ne partage pas tes points de vue : ni l'affirmation selon laquelle le français serait « la plus germanique des langues romanes », ni l'influence germanique que tu tires d'un parallélisme formel entre le français et l'allemand modernes.
Sur ce dernier point, tu t'es focalisé sur une comparaison entre le français et l'allemand. Ce faisant tu oublies bien d'autres langues romanes :
→ le catalan <hom>
→ l'occitan & le gascon <òm> (même si cette proforme est peu utilisée)
→ l'ancien toscan <uomo> & <uom>
→ l'abruzzais <nome>.
Les mêmes causes produisant les mêmes effets, si tu veux qu'on suive ton hypothèse, il te faut donc non seulement démontrer que l'utilisation de Fr <on> est un calque de Al <man> (ce que tu n'as pas fait), mais que c'est également le cas des quatre langues précitées.
Mais il y a un point que tu n'as pas vu et qui risque de compliquer ton travail. Compte non tenu de la différence de registre (qui n'est pas le point qui nous intéresse ici), tu as omis de mentionner que Fr <on> & Fr <l'on> peuvent, dans certains cas, être interchangeables. Exemple : <il faut qu'on sache quoi faire> & <il faut que l'on sache quoi faire>. À ma connaissance cette possibilité n'est pas permise en allemand, alors qu'elle existait en ancien toscan et ancien français, et qu'elle existe toujours en catalan (merci à nos amis catalanophones d'infirmer ou confirmer ce point).
Pourquoi cette précision est-elle importante ? Parce qu'elle permet d'établir que les formes <l'hom>, <l'huem>, <l'om>, <l'um> (etc) de l'ancien français se sont *grammaticalisées* au même titre que leurs équivalents dépourvus d'article défini antéposé. Alors je pose une question à nos amis germanicophones : la coexistence de la proforme sans article défini avec la proforme précédée d'un article défini est-elle avérée dans les langues germaniques anciennes et/ou actuelles ? Si la réponse est non, j'ai bien peur que ton hypothèse ne tienne pas debout.
Enfin, pour terminer sur le sujet des influences mutuelles syntaxiques entre familles romane & germanique, je pense que l'usage du pronom anglais <one> comme dans <one may not know> est probablement un calque syntaxique (et non pas lexical) du français <on>. À l'instar de <of> comme dans <the house of John> qui est un calque syntaxique de <de>.
<<Enfin, pour terminer sur le sujet des influences mutuelles syntaxiques entre familles romane & germanique, je pense que l'usage du pronom anglais <one> comme dans <one may not know> est probablement un calque syntaxique (et non pas lexical) du français <on>. À l'instar de <of> comme dans <the house of John> qui est un calque syntaxique de <de>. >>
The similarity between the English pronoun 'one' and the French word 'on' does not denote relationship (cf. Spanish 'mucho' looks much like English 'much' but they are coincidence). In English, 'one' took over the function of general pronoun when the Old English form 'men(n)' became unstressed to> 'me' leading to confusion with the personal pronoun 'me' - "me". This occurred long before the French influence and before the French word took on the form of 'on'. --No relation.
I do not agree that English's use of 'of' in English is of French origin at all, although it is a calque in phrases directly translated from French which contain 'de', as all other prepositions are. Almost all germanic languages have paralleled the development of 'of' equivalents (cf. Dutch 'van' "een vriend van u" - a friend of yours; German 'von', Swedish 'av', etc).
Our use of 'of' stems from Anglo-Saxon for signaling the ablative (of dune - from the hill, down; of thyrst - thirsty [lit. 'of thirst'], etc) and would be used in the same way today had the Norman Conquest never occurred. In phrases like 'a liter of milk' (fr. un litre de lait) it is necessary for English to use the ablative preposition 'of' because the genitive would never work [i.e. "milk's liter"???]--No, it's not possessive. Had this phrase existed in Old English, it would have either been "[an] liter milce" (dative = defunct ablative) or "[an] liter of (from) milce".
<<"[an] liter milce">>
...cont.
in the above phrase, it was necessary to add an additional marker denoting the ablative (i.e. the preposition *of*) once the inflectional ending on 'milc', in this case, the -e, disappeared.
This does not change the fact that French 'on' (and catalan <hom> &
occitan/gascon <òm> for that matter) received their use from germanic 'man'
<<Je ne partage pas tes points de vue : ni l'affirmation selon laquelle le français serait « la plus germanique des langues romanes », ni l'influence germanique que tu tires d'un parallélisme formel entre le français et l'allemand modernes.
>>
LOL, Wait, are you telling me that French is NOT the most germanic influenced of the Romance languages?
Right! Perhaps it's the least! HAHA
To answer the question of the thread:
To some degree, yes they are.
The Germanic,that is Gothic influence on all Romance languages except for French is insignificant. There is no such term as Germano-Latin. Don't know where you people come up with all these names. Arabic influence on Spanish is far greater than the Germanic one and no one calls Spanish Arabo-Latin.
I don't understand why people think English and German are so far apart. My native language is English and I can understand at least 40% of German broadcast.
Never really understood why all the tools' names in Romanian come from German. Almost everything,starting with screwdriver up until chainsaw are German.
<<<The Germanic,that is Gothic influence on all Romance languages except for French is insignificant. There is no such term as Germano-Latin. Don't know where you people come up with all these names. Arabic influence on Spanish is far greater than the Germanic one and no one calls Spanish Arabo-Latin. >>>
1) There was not only the Gothic influence, but also the Teutones, as well as the Cimbri, Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, Alans, Langobards, Suebi, Alamanni, Vandals and Normanni/Wikings that invaded , settled and ruled in Western Europe and influenced the Roman language by trying to learn Latin as a second language with only patial success.
2) Arabs did not mix with the christian Ibero-Romano-Gothic population of Spain and had no intention to learn the Germano-Roman Latin spoken by their victims. This is still until today a feature of muslim culture not to integrate and assimilate into foreign cultures.
<<I don't understand why people think English and German are so far apart.>>
I don't think they are that far apart. They are closer to each other than some of the so called Chinese dialects. Mandarin and Cantonese only share 19% lexical similarity compared with 60% between English and German.