Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2018, 09:10 PM   #91
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: United States
Posts: 161

I'm late getting back to this, but, it's been fun to read all the responses and learn bits and facts.

Ok so I have a question, I did learn it in English from textbooks as "Charlemagne" does it seem like I/we whoever should be calling Charlemagne with

Charles the great?
Charles?

As an improvement?

=-P

Although now I have another question.. a lot of others get Charles I or something and it would just be Charles? I guess maybe that's a starting point of some sort or another.
MarsBar is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 5th, 2018, 02:44 AM   #92

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,634

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsBar View Post
I'm late getting back to this, but, it's been fun to read all the responses and learn bits and facts.

Ok so I have a question, I did learn it in English from textbooks as "Charlemagne" does it seem like I/we whoever should be calling Charlemagne with

Charles the great?
Charles?

As an improvement?

=-P

Although now I have another question.. a lot of others get Charles I or something and it would just be Charles? I guess maybe that's a starting point of some sort or another.
He's known in English as Charlemagne, even though that obviously originates from the French.

Food for thought:
In translating English/Spanish nowadays you will notice that in English we hardly ever- unless they are very close - translate proper names. If we are talking about the former King Juan Carlos on the BBC news he will have invariably be called 'King Juan Carlos' of Spain. No one in their right mind would ever consider calling him King John Charles.

YET if in Spain TVE is talking about our very own plant-talker Prince Charles they will always say 'El Principe Carlos de Inglaterra'. Never, ever Prince Charles.

I think it's a bit blurred in this age of travel and internet as other languages overlap with general knowledge, but it shows you why these translation things arise.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 06:13 AM   #93
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,513

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsBar View Post
I'm late getting back to this, but, it's been fun to read all the responses and learn bits and facts.

Ok so I have a question, I did learn it in English from textbooks as "Charlemagne" does it seem like I/we whoever should be calling Charlemagne with

Charles the great?
Charles?

As an improvement?

=-P

Although now I have another question.. a lot of others get Charles I or something and it would just be Charles? I guess maybe that's a starting point of some sort or another.

He is also referred to as Charles the Great or Charles 1st. At the time his name was latinised though as Karolus and a contemporary of his, Einhard, wrote of his deeds in the Vita Karoli Magni, the life of Charles the Great.
authun is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 06:25 AM   #94

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 6,425
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
YET if in Spain TVE is talking about our very own plant-talker Prince Charles they will always say 'El Principe Carlos de Inglaterra'. Never, ever Prince Charles.
In Papua, which is a former British colony BTW, they call him in pidgin English, as I hv read somewhere before, 'Him Queen number one son', or something along that line.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 06:41 AM   #95

Willempie's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Netherlands
Posts: 4,042

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
He's known in English as Charlemagne, even though that obviously originates from the French.

Food for thought:
In translating English/Spanish nowadays you will notice that in English we hardly ever- unless they are very close - translate proper names. If we are talking about the former King Juan Carlos on the BBC news he will have invariably be called 'King Juan Carlos' of Spain. No one in their right mind would ever consider calling him King John Charles.

YET if in Spain TVE is talking about our very own plant-talker Prince Charles they will always say 'El Principe Carlos de Inglaterra'. Never, ever Prince Charles.

I think it's a bit blurred in this age of travel and internet as other languages overlap with general knowledge, but it shows you why these translation things arise.
Maybe true nowadays, but English historians have butchered names for centuries. Marc-Anthony, gospel of John, Joan of Arc, etc. Even today the beebs sometimes do so as my Dutch name is invariably known there as William
Willempie is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 04:27 AM   #96
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: United States
Posts: 161

Hmm I think I like Charlemagne then..

As opposed to him King number.. one.. perhaps haha..

Anyway, I guess reading other aspects I start to wonder more about the language issue since it came up.. so I guess he would of basically spoken some variation of what we now know as Dutch? Or is that misinterpreting.. I think it was a lot to take in so perhaps I may have made some not understanding there.

I also know really nothing about the other dialects people have mentioned like is it.. Alemannic Tudesque? Or is that the region.. anyway I've heard dutch spoken several times but have no real familiarity with any others.

At any rate, I guess he would have spoken that along with a number of different languages.

I guess being centrally located, it would have made sense being close to and trading with groups from England and elsewhere, all of who may not have spoken the same languages, or at least the same dialects, although no doubt with tons of loanwords and shared expressions at the same time.
MarsBar is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 02:40 AM   #97

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,634

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willempie View Post
Maybe true nowadays, but English historians have butchered names for centuries. Marc-Anthony, gospel of John, Joan of Arc, etc. Even today the beebs sometimes do so as my Dutch name is invariably known there as William
No doubt you are right. In the past the tendency was I guess to change it to something familiar. Accurate or not in some cases.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 10:07 AM   #98

Slak's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Netherlands
Posts: 283

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haesten View Post
Orderic Vitalis (1075 – c. 1142) uses Karolus Magnus in his history, The ASC just has Karl/Carl even in the 12th century Latin entries of E.
Nithardus, writing in the 840s, already speaks of him as "Karolus Magnus imperator ab universis nationibus non inmerito vocatus" ("Charles the Great (the) emperor not undeservedly called so by all nations"). (MGH, digital edition, book IV, ch. 2)
Slak is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 11:55 AM   #99

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
Conseiller du Roi
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 7,539

[QUOTE=MarsBar;2884059]Hmm I think I like Charlemagne then..

As opposed to him King number.. one.. perhaps haha..

Quote:
Anyway, I guess reading other aspects I start to wonder more about the language issue since it came up.. so I guess he would of basically spoken some variation of what we now know as Dutch? Or is that misinterpreting.. I think it was a lot to take in so perhaps I may have made some not understanding there.
We have to be careful when talking about "variations of what we now know as Dutch." The Franks before Charlemagne spoke a Low Franconian language, part of a sub-group of the Germanic family which Dutch also falls into. But Old Low Franconian or Old Frankish is not a dialect or variant of modern Dutch, rather, Dutch is a modern relative and distant descendant of the Old Low Franconian of the Salian Franks, one descendant among many. Just like your great, great grandfather is not a variation of you, but rather an ancestor with whom you share a certain amount of genetic similarity.

All of that being said, Charlemagne, whose mother was a Ripuarian Frank rather than a Salian Frank, didn't speak a Low Franconian dialect, but rather Old Rhenish Franconian, an ancestor not of Dutch but of certain west-central German dialects.

Quote:
I also know really nothing about the other dialects people have mentioned like is it.. Alemannic Tudesque? Or is that the region.. anyway I've heard dutch spoken several times but have no real familiarity with any others.
Tudesque is a French term which often acts as a catch-all for describing the ancient and early medieval Germanic dialects spoken across the other side of the langue d'oïl (old French) linguistic border. In other words it was a term used by the French to describe their Germanic, non-French neighbors to the East, as well as the languages those neighbors spoke.

Quote:
At any rate, I guess he would have spoken that along with a number of different languages.

I guess being centrally located, it would have made sense being close to and trading with groups from England and elsewhere, all of who may not have spoken the same languages, or at least the same dialects, although no doubt with tons of loanwords and shared expressions at the same time.
The Frankish realm of the time of Charlemagne was the dominant power in Europe and traders and merchants from all over the continent would have been trading there. Of course, the personal language of Charlemagne was not the language of the majority of his realm, as the entire western half of it spoke romance dialects, broadly classifiable into langue d'oïl (ancestor of modern French) and langue d'oc (ancestor of Occitan), and langue de si (ancestor of modern Spanish and Italian). Keep in mind that the Frankish realm also included parts of Spain, virtually the entirety of Northern Italy, Switzerland, Austria, and part of Denmark, as well as the heartland in the Low Countries. In a time before standardized national languages, you can imagine the enormous linguistic variation which existed within this realm, and it becomes obvious why a language like Latin was needed to connect the elites from different parts of the realm.

Thus political and religious (there was little separation between the two at the time) correspondence was almost universally conducted in Latin, however lower level economic exchange probably would have involved a great deal of bi- and tri-lingualism on the part of merchants and traders.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 12:13 PM   #100

Slak's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Netherlands
Posts: 283

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post

All of that being said, Charlemagne, whose mother was a Ripuarian Frank rather than a Salian Frank, didn't speak a Low Franconian dialect, but rather Old Rhenish Franconian, an ancestor not of Dutch but of certain west-central German dialects.
Yes, he probably spoke "Rhenish Franconian", which was/is "characterized among many other features by a restricted participation in the Second Sound Shift" (Keller, 1965); hence, not Dutch (or some kind of proto-Dutch).
Slak is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
charlemagne



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charlemagne markdienekes History Book Reviews 4 August 30th, 2014 10:10 PM
Charlemagne's lie of 794 ad paleologos Speculative History 9 August 16th, 2012 08:42 AM
Charlemagne Coeur de Leon European History 24 October 24th, 2011 02:38 PM
Charlemagne celticviking Medieval and Byzantine History 8 January 31st, 2010 06:36 AM
Charlemagne Commander Medieval and Byzantine History 22 September 24th, 2007 02:53 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.