Why Has Gaul/France A Romance Language?

After the collapse of the West (and even before) Gaul was invaded/conquered by Germanic tribes over and over again, eventually all settled more or less down with the Franks, (which were germanic), now my question is, why do the french speak the french of today (romance) and not a germanic language?

cheers

viggen

Viggin,

From what I have read, the language of the Franks blended with the Vulgar Latin in use in the area. The Frankish language influenced vocabulary and pronounciation, but the grammar of Vulgar Latin was more or less retained.

The reason that Frankish language merely blended rather than taking over completely is because most of the Germanic peoples still used the former Roman bureaucrats to run things. Latin was also the language of the new religion.

Since we're talking about this, one thing that has perplexed me so is how the French and Germans got their accent? Is there some reason why it sounds so... well its sounds kind of rich like British.

Main question, was it Gallic influence or Roman influence on the accent?

Germanic influence on the Gallo-Latin language, if I recall correctly.

why does everyone call me viggin

The reason that Frankish language merely blended rather than taking over completely is because most of the Germanic peoples still used the former Roman bureaucrats to run things. Latin was also the language of the new religion.

hmmm, the religion argument did not apply to england..., and would you say that the roman bureaucrats dissapeared quicker and more complete then in gaul? The british isles had an influx of germanics and well they switched, gaul had that too, but didnt...

regards

viggen

hmmm, the religion argument did not apply to england..., and would you say that the roman bureaucrats dissapeared quicker and more complete then in gaul?

The Romans did retreat from Britain much earlier than Gaul. Britain also had adjoining territories that had very little to do with Rome, but who knows if thats even a factor. Some of the early waves of Franks became clients of the late Roman Empire, afaik.

why does everyone call me viggin

 

 

hmmm, the religion argument did not apply to england..., and would you say that the roman bureaucrats dissapeared quicker and more complete then in gaul? The british isles had an influx of germanics and well they switched, gaul had that too, but didnt...

 

regards

viggen

Sorry ...ViggEn. :bag:

Britain has never been truly Romanized, only on the surface. Gaul was far more Romanized, especially the regions closest to Italy. The people there were more ingrained with the culture, language and legal-political traditions of Rome. The Germanic overlords found it best to adapt the existing framework to their own end, rather than trying to topple the existing framework completely.

Britain, on the other hand, had a thin vaneer of Romanization, which easily vanished under the weight of the Germanic tribal culture.

Viggin,

 

From what I have read, the language of the Franks blended with the Vulgar Latin in use in the area. The Frankish language influenced vocabulary and pronounciation, but the grammar of Vulgar Latin was more or less retained.

 

The reason that Frankish language merely blended rather than taking over completely is because most of the Germanic peoples still used the former Roman bureaucrats to run things. Latin was also the language of the new religion.

And Frankish rulers were ready enough to admire and adopt Latin culture. Still, it was perhaps a near thing. French as it survives is in many ways far more different from Latin than any of the other Romance languages.

In the same way, maybe it was a near thing whether Norman French wiped out English in the 11th to 13th centuries. And English as it survives is far more different from early Germanic than, say, German or Dutch or Swedish are.

Sorry to bring up a potentially dead thread, but I just joined the forums today, and this topic being more-or-less my specialty, I thought I could clarify just a bit. Many of you brought up bits and pieces of the 'accepted' answer, but I figure I can tie things together more.

Romanization is a large part of the answer: the Romans fully conquered the Gauls, principally with Roman infrastructure, trade, and military. As the substratum culture, the Gauls inputted lexical aspects to Gallic Latin (and the entire Latin language, as a rule), perhaps local pronunciation, but that's about the extent of it. Celtic and Italic languages are highly similar, being that both are from the same branch of Indo-European, so linguistic integration was relatively quick; the education and administration systems put in place by the Romans facillitated this, since in order to get anywhere in Romanized Gaul, you had to speak/read/write in (Classical) Latin. As for the rest of the culture, the Gaulish people (read: the average plebian) were attracted to Roman education and trading systems; the aristocracy were attracted to trade ($$) and military protection from the Roman army. Basically, the Romans were firmly in control in Gaul with a 'superior' system.

So much so, that when the Franks came into Gaul, the system which the Romans had installed was far superior to that of the Germanic tribes, even in its declined state. Even though the Franks were the superstratum culture, and continued to use Frankish in the court, they allowed 'Roman' culture and language to continue. By that time, Late Latin--Vulgar Latin taken to the next stage--was the language of the people, and this, plus the Ecclesiastic Latin being used in the Church, lead to the continuation of the area now known as France being Romance-speaking, not Germanic-speaking.

This holds true for Iberia (mostly Visigothic tribes) as well as northern Italy (mostly Ostrogothic tribes), with the same process. Interestingly, the borrowed Germanic (and Celtic!) words in the modern Romance languages come from Latin...as in, the Romans borrowed these terms from the Germanic tribes, 'Latinized' them, and as the Romance languages evolved, so did these words into their present-day state.

Side note: The biggest difference between Gaulish/Iberian Celts and Britonnic Celts was how they organized themselves. Continental Celts tended to live in towns, hence the relative ease by which they were Romanized. Insular Celts--both the Brythonic and Gaelic groups--were tribal and somewhat nomadic, so Romanization was near impossible. While the Romans did maintain forts and civilizations in present-day England, they were never truly successful, and were constantly being raided and harrassed by the Britonnic Celts. It took the "silly French kniggits" (pardon the Monty Python) to do that in 1066.

Side note: The biggest difference between Gaulish/Iberian Celts and Britonnic Celts was how they organized themselves. Continental Celts tended to live in towns, hence the relative ease by which they were Romanized. Insular Celts--both the Brythonic and Gaelic groups--were tribal and somewhat nomadic, so Romanization was near impossible. While the Romans did maintain forts and civilizations in present-day England, they were never truly successful, and were constantly being raided and harrassed by the Britonnic Celts. It took the "silly French kniggits" (pardon the Monty Python) to do that in 1066.

Are you a linguist? Because that would be great.

Can you explain how the different groups got their accents?

Are you a linguist? Because that would be great.

 

Can you explain how the different groups got their accents?

Not just a linguist...a historical Romance linguist!

Hmmmmmmmm...how long do ya got for me to answer your second question? heheehe

Are you a linguist? Because that would be great.

 

Can you explain how the different groups got their accents?

 

Not just a linguist...a historical Romance linguist!

 

Hmmmmmmmm...how long do ya got for me to answer your second question? heheehe

Don't worry about time, just answers and I will be very thankful for you.

Not a problem!

Ok...accents...I'm assuming you're talking about how the various Romance languages and dialects have different phonological features. They actually all stem from the same processes:

Vowels: destabilization of the long/short distinction, which lead to an open/closed distinction...which is nothing more than saying that the sound quality of the vowels changed. From here, each language does different things, from simple (Castilian--only 5 'pure' vowel sounds) to inflected (nasalization in Portuguese and French) to everything in between.

Consonants: two things here, which are linked to each other--the 'yod' leading to palatalization.

Ok, quickie Phonetic/Linguistics 101: the roof of your mouth is your palate...and if you just close your mouth in a 'rest' position, the bulk of your tongue is directly under your palate. It's a central part of your oral cavity (insert perversion here hehe), and so languages--in particular Indo-European languages--tend to gravitate their sound changes here. Palatalization is the process whereby a sound changes so that it is articulated closer to, if not at, the palate. Example: Latin C/G before non-low front vowels (i, e) palatalized into various sounds, but usually either a "ch/zh" or even post-alveolar "s/z". (If you put the tip of your tongue on the back of your teeth, and then work it back towards your palate, you feel a 'bump' or ridge...this is your alveolar ridge.)

The 'yod' (Hebrew letter, sounding like a 'y') is a Romance-specific (I believe) sound change...certain combinations of sounds in CLat produced high front vowel sounds (like an "i" or "eeeee"), which in turn lead to palatalization of these groups. There are 4 of them, and in each language they did different things...but the origins are all the same. Some change the sounds entirely (lacte >> It. latte, Sp. leche, Fr. lait, Port. leite, etc.); others just added a couple of subtle additions (platea > platja >> It. piazza, Sp. plaza [ts or th, depending on the dialect], Port. pla

Salve docoflove1974!

I look forward to many fruitful discussions to come!

the simplest explanation is often the most correct one. Language change is by-and-large internal...aspects about the given language push it towards one kind of change over another.

It's an interesting theory. If valid, it ought to be possible to identify which aspects of a given language will 'push it towards change', I'd suggest. Could you show Latin to a researcher who doesn't know the Romance languages and get a prediction of which aspects will push the language towards change?

Insular Celts--both the Brythonic and Gaelic groups--were tribal and somewhat nomadic, so Romanization was near impossible.

Again, I'm looking for evidence here -- but historical this time! Is there evidence for nomadic lifestyles in Roman Britain?