Are Romance languages some kind of Germano-Latin?
The Arabs did not integrate in the Catholic-Roman spanish society because:
They were the conquerors
They saw the native culture as inferior, hence they had not interest in getting assimilated to it. Note that I'm not saying which culture was superior, but in fact the Arabs did not considered what they found worthy or valuable, so they simply destroyed everything which could remind that there was a distinct culture before them. (This may have relation to their religion too, monoteistic cultures are very ego-centric).
Yes, the Germanic tribes also conquered and ruled Western Europe, but they did see the local culture as far superior to theirs so they did all the possible in learning the culture of conquered peoples.
They were the conquerors
They saw the native culture as inferior, hence they had not interest in getting assimilated to it. Note that I'm not saying which culture was superior, but in fact the Arabs did not considered what they found worthy or valuable, so they simply destroyed everything which could remind that there was a distinct culture before them. (This may have relation to their religion too, monoteistic cultures are very ego-centric).
Yes, the Germanic tribes also conquered and ruled Western Europe, but they did see the local culture as far superior to theirs so they did all the possible in learning the culture of conquered peoples.
<<They saw the native culture as inferior>>
It actually was inferior. Everything proves that.
<<This is still until today a feature of muslim culture not to integrate and assimilate into foreign cultures.>>
Is that right? How about the 30-something Arab speaking countries? Were they assimilated,integrated,etc ,or they just thought:"Hey let's stick to Arabic and Islam. It's more fun."
It actually was inferior. Everything proves that.
<<This is still until today a feature of muslim culture not to integrate and assimilate into foreign cultures.>>
Is that right? How about the 30-something Arab speaking countries? Were they assimilated,integrated,etc ,or they just thought:"Hey let's stick to Arabic and Islam. It's more fun."
« guest » : « This does not change the fact that French 'on' (and catalan <hom> & occitan/gascon <òm> for that matter) received their use from germanic 'man' ».
Si justement ça change tout. Ça rend ton hypothétique démonstration (toujours attendue) encore plus difficile à construire. Mais on ne manque pas de patience sur Antimoon.
« guest » : « 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). »
Je ne disais pas autre chose :
« [...] l'usage du pronom anglais <one> comme dans <one may not know> est probablement un calque **syntaxique** (et non **pas lexical**) du français <on>.
« guest » : « 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. »
Non, c'est absolument faux. Le remplacement de <man>, <mane>, <manne>, <mon>, <monne> (etc) par <on>, <one>, <oon>, <an> (etc) est loin d'être terminé en moyen-anglais :
1] « Also whan thei wille make hire ydoles, or an ymage of ony of hire frendes, for to have remembrance of hym, thei maken alle weys the ymage alle naked, with outen any maner of clothinge. For thei seyn, that in gode love scholde be no coverynge, that **man scholde** not love for the faire clothinge, ne for the riche aray, but only for the body, suche as God hathe made it, and for the gode vertues that the body is endowed with of nature; but only for fair clothinge, that is not of kyndely nature. »
2] « The eorthe quaked heom undur
No **scholde mon** have herd the thondur
For the noise of the taboures
And the trumpours, and the jangelours. »
3] « Thanne comth scornynge of his neighebor, al do he never so weel. Thanne comth accusynge, as whan **man seketh** occasioun to anoyen his neighebor, which that is lyk the craft of the devel, that waiteth bothe nyght and day to accusen us alle. »
4] « **Man seith** that eise maketh theof » → On dit que l'occasion fait le larron.
5] « And this shal be the heyest joye that may ben, to beholden the dede that God Hymselfe shal don. And **man shal** do ryte nowte but synne. »
« guest » : « 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). »
Mais les prépositions <æf>, <af>, <off>, <of>, <av>, <ab> (etc) n'ont pas la même étymologie que <von>, <van>, <fon>, <fan> (etc).
« guest » : « 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". »
Étant donné que <litre> a été adopté du français voilà 200 ans à peine, les exemples <"[an] liter milce> & <[an] liter of (from) milce> ne sont guère probants. D’autant que la séquence <of milce> a toutes les chances d’être un élément d’une locution assez courante ainsi que dans MA¹ <thou art fol of milce and of ore> → {tu es empli de pitié et de compassion}.
Voici des occurrences avec l’équivalent vieil-anglais de An¹ <milk> :
1] Þanne sceal man nime mede oððer **wyfes meolc** and do innan þa eaʒen → génitif : {lait de femme} (au passage on constate la construction <sceal man> = {on doit} antérieure au remplacement de VA¹ <man> par MA¹ <one> sous l’influence de Fr¹ <on>)
2] Nim **wifes meolce** þry sticcæs fulla.
Le moyen-anglais, en revanche, témoigne du calque syntaxique dont MA <of> est le vecteur :
1] And the ryche men drynken mylk **of mares** or **of camaylles** or **of asses** or **of other bestes**.
2] [...] þe litle porcion **of milke** that we vsyn to yeve to the serpente.
Mais on trouve également <wommannes melk> en moyen-anglais, comme dans <woman’s milk> aujourd’hui : le calque français n’a pas éradiqué le génitif saxon.
3] Ha chepeð hire sawle þe chapmon **of helle*** → {elle vend son âme au marchand de l’enfer} (première moitié XIIIe s.)
¹ MA = moyen-anglais — An = anglais (moderne) — VA = vieil-anglais — Fr = français
Si justement ça change tout. Ça rend ton hypothétique démonstration (toujours attendue) encore plus difficile à construire. Mais on ne manque pas de patience sur Antimoon.
« guest » : « 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). »
Je ne disais pas autre chose :
« [...] l'usage du pronom anglais <one> comme dans <one may not know> est probablement un calque **syntaxique** (et non **pas lexical**) du français <on>.
« guest » : « 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. »
Non, c'est absolument faux. Le remplacement de <man>, <mane>, <manne>, <mon>, <monne> (etc) par <on>, <one>, <oon>, <an> (etc) est loin d'être terminé en moyen-anglais :
1] « Also whan thei wille make hire ydoles, or an ymage of ony of hire frendes, for to have remembrance of hym, thei maken alle weys the ymage alle naked, with outen any maner of clothinge. For thei seyn, that in gode love scholde be no coverynge, that **man scholde** not love for the faire clothinge, ne for the riche aray, but only for the body, suche as God hathe made it, and for the gode vertues that the body is endowed with of nature; but only for fair clothinge, that is not of kyndely nature. »
2] « The eorthe quaked heom undur
No **scholde mon** have herd the thondur
For the noise of the taboures
And the trumpours, and the jangelours. »
3] « Thanne comth scornynge of his neighebor, al do he never so weel. Thanne comth accusynge, as whan **man seketh** occasioun to anoyen his neighebor, which that is lyk the craft of the devel, that waiteth bothe nyght and day to accusen us alle. »
4] « **Man seith** that eise maketh theof » → On dit que l'occasion fait le larron.
5] « And this shal be the heyest joye that may ben, to beholden the dede that God Hymselfe shal don. And **man shal** do ryte nowte but synne. »
« guest » : « 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). »
Mais les prépositions <æf>, <af>, <off>, <of>, <av>, <ab> (etc) n'ont pas la même étymologie que <von>, <van>, <fon>, <fan> (etc).
« guest » : « 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". »
Étant donné que <litre> a été adopté du français voilà 200 ans à peine, les exemples <"[an] liter milce> & <[an] liter of (from) milce> ne sont guère probants. D’autant que la séquence <of milce> a toutes les chances d’être un élément d’une locution assez courante ainsi que dans MA¹ <thou art fol of milce and of ore> → {tu es empli de pitié et de compassion}.
Voici des occurrences avec l’équivalent vieil-anglais de An¹ <milk> :
1] Þanne sceal man nime mede oððer **wyfes meolc** and do innan þa eaʒen → génitif : {lait de femme} (au passage on constate la construction <sceal man> = {on doit} antérieure au remplacement de VA¹ <man> par MA¹ <one> sous l’influence de Fr¹ <on>)
2] Nim **wifes meolce** þry sticcæs fulla.
Le moyen-anglais, en revanche, témoigne du calque syntaxique dont MA <of> est le vecteur :
1] And the ryche men drynken mylk **of mares** or **of camaylles** or **of asses** or **of other bestes**.
2] [...] þe litle porcion **of milke** that we vsyn to yeve to the serpente.
Mais on trouve également <wommannes melk> en moyen-anglais, comme dans <woman’s milk> aujourd’hui : le calque français n’a pas éradiqué le génitif saxon.
3] Ha chepeð hire sawle þe chapmon **of helle*** → {elle vend son âme au marchand de l’enfer} (première moitié XIIIe s.)
¹ MA = moyen-anglais — An = anglais (moderne) — VA = vieil-anglais — Fr = français
<< It was inferior It actually was inferior. Everything proves that.>>
Nothing proves that.
Nothing proves that.
greg,
Middle English 'man' is not the same as Old English 'men' here.
In Old English, the pronoun was 'men(n)', not 'man(n)' as it is in German and Dutch (albeit it's the same word, but in slightly different form).
Middle English 'man' is either a re-intro from Norse, or built anew from the noun 'man' following the same model.
You err.
Middle English 'man' is not the same as Old English 'men' here.
In Old English, the pronoun was 'men(n)', not 'man(n)' as it is in German and Dutch (albeit it's the same word, but in slightly different form).
Middle English 'man' is either a re-intro from Norse, or built anew from the noun 'man' following the same model.
You err.
<<Mais les prépositions <æf>, <af>, <off>, <of>, <av>, <ab> (etc) n'ont pas la même étymologie que <von>, <van>, <fon>, <fan> (etc).
>>
They don't have to be. They're the same in basic meaning. Scandinavian 'av' *is* the same word. German's equivalent, as I'm sure you are aware, is 'ab'.
>>
They don't have to be. They're the same in basic meaning. Scandinavian 'av' *is* the same word. German's equivalent, as I'm sure you are aware, is 'ab'.
<<Non, c'est absolument faux. Le remplacement de <man>, <mane>, <manne>, <mon>, <monne> (etc) par <on>, <one>, <oon>, <an> (etc) est loin d'être terminé en moyen-anglais :
>>
That is not correct
The use of "one" as a pronoun is seen throughout Middle English:
"The feest was ful of melodye | *One* myght haue luste to see such a feeste" --Reynard the Fox
"Joon answeride to hem and seide, Y baptise in watir, but in myddil of yow hath stonde *oon*, that ye knowen not" --Wyclif Translation of John 1:26
"and eek wyfs and mayds, thogh manye a *oon* rekketh nat a grote of swych matirs" --Chaucer, Medieval Dick
>>
That is not correct
The use of "one" as a pronoun is seen throughout Middle English:
"The feest was ful of melodye | *One* myght haue luste to see such a feeste" --Reynard the Fox
"Joon answeride to hem and seide, Y baptise in watir, but in myddil of yow hath stonde *oon*, that ye knowen not" --Wyclif Translation of John 1:26
"and eek wyfs and mayds, thogh manye a *oon* rekketh nat a grote of swych matirs" --Chaucer, Medieval Dick
« guest » : « Middle English 'man' is not the same as Old English 'men' here. »
De quel exemple parles-tu ?
« guest » : « In Old English, the pronoun was 'men(n)', not 'man(n)' ».
Je ne suis pas d'accord. Exemples :
1] « Her **mon mai** arede of Arðure þan king, hu he twelf ȝere seoðen wuneden here » → ~ {ici on peut lire sur le roi Arthur, comment il vécut ici douze ans ensuite}.
2] « On hwam *mæg man* geseon mannes deaþ ? » → {comment peut-on prédire la mort d'un homme ?}.
3] « Ðæt lengtenfæsten **mon sceal** mid swíðe heálícre gýmene healdan » → {on doit suivre le Carême avec le plus grand soin}.
« guest » : « <<Mais les prépositions <æf>, <af>, <off>, <of>, <av>, <ab> (etc) n'ont pas la même étymologie que <von>, <van>, <fon>, <fan> (etc).
>>
They don't have to be. They're the same in basic meaning. Scandinavian 'av' *is* the same word. German's equivalent, as I'm sure you are aware, is 'ab'. »
Tu mélanges les torchons et les serviettes.
De quel exemple parles-tu ?
« guest » : « In Old English, the pronoun was 'men(n)', not 'man(n)' ».
Je ne suis pas d'accord. Exemples :
1] « Her **mon mai** arede of Arðure þan king, hu he twelf ȝere seoðen wuneden here » → ~ {ici on peut lire sur le roi Arthur, comment il vécut ici douze ans ensuite}.
2] « On hwam *mæg man* geseon mannes deaþ ? » → {comment peut-on prédire la mort d'un homme ?}.
3] « Ðæt lengtenfæsten **mon sceal** mid swíðe heálícre gýmene healdan » → {on doit suivre le Carême avec le plus grand soin}.
« guest » : « <<Mais les prépositions <æf>, <af>, <off>, <of>, <av>, <ab> (etc) n'ont pas la même étymologie que <von>, <van>, <fon>, <fan> (etc).
>>
They don't have to be. They're the same in basic meaning. Scandinavian 'av' *is* the same word. German's equivalent, as I'm sure you are aware, is 'ab'. »
Tu mélanges les torchons et les serviettes.
« Guest » :
« <<Non, c'est absolument faux. Le remplacement de <man>, <mane>, <manne>, <mon>, <monne> (etc) par <on>, <one>, <oon>, <an> (etc) est loin d'être terminé en moyen-anglais :
>>
That is not correct
The use of "one" as a pronoun is seen throughout Middle English [...] ».
Tu n'as pas compris ce que je disais : nous sommes d'accord. J'affirmais, non pas que le pronom <on>, <one>, <oon>, <an> (etc) n'existait pas en moyen-anglais (il existait), mais qu'il n'avait pas encore totalement remplacé les anciennes formes <man>, <mane>, <manne>, <mon>, <monne> (etc).
« <<Non, c'est absolument faux. Le remplacement de <man>, <mane>, <manne>, <mon>, <monne> (etc) par <on>, <one>, <oon>, <an> (etc) est loin d'être terminé en moyen-anglais :
>>
That is not correct
The use of "one" as a pronoun is seen throughout Middle English [...] ».
Tu n'as pas compris ce que je disais : nous sommes d'accord. J'affirmais, non pas que le pronom <on>, <one>, <oon>, <an> (etc) n'existait pas en moyen-anglais (il existait), mais qu'il n'avait pas encore totalement remplacé les anciennes formes <man>, <mane>, <manne>, <mon>, <monne> (etc).
<<De quel exemple parles-tu ?>>
Why do you always seek examples?
This is not a forum for little children on the playground. I expect more : )
No. No more examples shall be given...
Why do you always seek examples?
This is not a forum for little children on the playground. I expect more : )
No. No more examples shall be given...
<<Tu n'as pas compris ce que je disais : nous sommes d'accord. J'affirmais, non pas que le pronom <on>, <one>, <oon>, <an> (etc) n'existait pas en moyen-anglais (il existait), mais qu'il n'avait pas encore totalement remplacé les anciennes formes <man>, <mane>, <manne>, <mon>, <monne> (etc). >>
Oh , my bad then...
apologies man.
POST ENGLISH DUDE! My French is not that good
Oh , my bad then...
apologies man.
POST ENGLISH DUDE! My French is not that good
<<<
Yes, the Germanic tribes also conquered and ruled Western Europe, but they did see the local culture as far superior to theirs ....>>>
That is not 100% correct, since the local poulation had no high prestige in the Eyes of the Germanic settlers and successors of the Roman imperium. From a Germanic point of view, the locals were bad warriors and more like slaves than free men, since they payed taxes.
<<<...so they did all the possible in learning the culture of conquered peoples. >>>
Until today it is a common observation that Germans try to assimilate quickly in any society and to learn the local languages and dialects. It is some kind of politeness, not the perception that German culture is inferior. Even if they think that they do things far better than the locals, Germans make some kind of sport of it to learn as quickly as possible the local language in order not to be perceived as foreigners. Why they do this and others not is not very clear to me. Perhaps somebody knows?
Yes, the Germanic tribes also conquered and ruled Western Europe, but they did see the local culture as far superior to theirs ....>>>
That is not 100% correct, since the local poulation had no high prestige in the Eyes of the Germanic settlers and successors of the Roman imperium. From a Germanic point of view, the locals were bad warriors and more like slaves than free men, since they payed taxes.
<<<...so they did all the possible in learning the culture of conquered peoples. >>>
Until today it is a common observation that Germans try to assimilate quickly in any society and to learn the local languages and dialects. It is some kind of politeness, not the perception that German culture is inferior. Even if they think that they do things far better than the locals, Germans make some kind of sport of it to learn as quickly as possible the local language in order not to be perceived as foreigners. Why they do this and others not is not very clear to me. Perhaps somebody knows?
Herbist, the fact that local population was weaker in militar terms does not imply that the German tribes saw them as inferior. In fact they adopted the language of the conquered people for some reasons, not for a strange inherent feature of the Germans as you depict it. And it is simply that Latin was seen as very prestigious by the Franks and the Goths. The Germans did not enslavered the native peoples , so what you say is a nonsense. Appart from that, remember that the Goths entered in France and Spain following commands from Rome to protect these lands against other Germanic peoples which were not federated with Rome, so the natives had no reason to see them as invadires and fight against them.
The Germans do not inherently tend to assimilate in other societies so easily as you may think. I met Germans who retired to Spain and can't speak a single word of Spanish after living in this country for 10 years, just like those ghettos of muslims who only speak Arabic.
The Germans do not inherently tend to assimilate in other societies so easily as you may think. I met Germans who retired to Spain and can't speak a single word of Spanish after living in this country for 10 years, just like those ghettos of muslims who only speak Arabic.
« guest » : « <<De quel exemple parles-tu ?>>
Why do you always seek examples?
This is not a forum for little children on the playground. I expect more : )
No. No more examples shall be given... ».
T'as pas pigé ma question. Je ne te demandais pas de fournir davantage d'exemples (tu n'en as fourni aucun et je n'attends aucun miracle). Je sollicitais de ta part un effort minimal : citer, parmi les miens, l'exemple que tu contestais. Mais c'est déjà au-dessus de tes forces apparemment. Dommage pour la discussion.
Why do you always seek examples?
This is not a forum for little children on the playground. I expect more : )
No. No more examples shall be given... ».
T'as pas pigé ma question. Je ne te demandais pas de fournir davantage d'exemples (tu n'en as fourni aucun et je n'attends aucun miracle). Je sollicitais de ta part un effort minimal : citer, parmi les miens, l'exemple que tu contestais. Mais c'est déjà au-dessus de tes forces apparemment. Dommage pour la discussion.