Can we consider France a Germanic country?

PaulRyckier said:

vcnp2000, those Slavic names for German comes from the Slavic word for "mute". See also the other explantions for allemand, Diets and all...

Etymology of German, deutsch, alemán, tedesco, etc.

German Note: some of these forms specifically mean "the German language" (like Chinese, Japanese, and Hebrew), while others are all purpose adjectives. The English word German comes from Latin germanus, germani "German," originally the name of a specific tribe. The name was eventually applied by…

linguaphiles.livejournal.com

Kind regards, Paul.

Click to expand...

Then if ancient Slavs met Nemeti people somewhere in the Central Europe, how they would call them, "mute"? How to trade with them? No, I consider that the Slavs called them "Nemeti" but in slavic manner - [njemetzi]

Isleifson said:

Paul,

I am a Girondin and not a Jacobin so I don't consider that my language is not as good as the French of Paris.

The discussion about the root's of France is an old one : We have the Troyan origine, the Roman, the Gaulish, the Germanic.

A good book about the history of this is :

Click to expand...

Cher Isleifson/Laumesfeld I had a look for the book you mentioned:

La fabrique d'une nation par Claude Nicolet

I first thought that it was a bit as I mentioned: "le roman national" as the French call it, I translate it a bit denigrating, but perhaps not worser than in French, as "the national myth".
In my childhood I learned in the then still very unitariian Belgium at an age of 10, when one believes still a lot, that Clovis (Chlodovech) was the founder of "our" Belgium (Doornik/Tournai) (yes, those Merovingians) and a lot later that the same Clovis was the "father" of all French people in France...and a lot later I asked myself: Did France and Belgium existed in that time?

I read now a comment on the book in the renown "Persée"
À propos des derniers travaux de Claude Nicolet, et en particulier de La fabrique d’une nation - Persée
"À propos des derniers travaux de Claude Nicolet, et en particulier de La fabrique d’une nation " (concerning the latest works from Claude Nicolet in particular : the construction (I think in this context "fabrique" means construction) of a nation.

From that article I have the impression on the first sight, but I can be wrong, that the renowned Claude Nicolet falls again in the 19th century German/ French comparison trap as language/culture/Volk is what leads a people along the German vision and not the French approach of the nation is the state, which the Roman way leads the people by the rules of the "state".
And yes a comparison between the history of Germany and France is very complex, but I thought as I found in my following thread that this 19th century approach was already history among historians of the 21th century...I don't see that much difference anymore between Germany and France on the ARTE channel...you have only to click on the German or on the French link and you have it in one of the two languages ☺
I discussed this vision in my thread on Passion Histoire
And I see now that a certain Laumesfeld/Isleifson discussed also with me in that thread...
And I see also that I mentioned overthere the link on Historum about "nationalism":

KInd regards from your friend Paul.

vcnp2000 said:

Then if ancient Slavs met Nemeti people somewhere in the Central Europe, how they would call them, "mute"? How to trade with them? No, I consider that the Slavs called them "Nemeti" but in slavic manner - [njemetzi]

Click to expand...

Polish language
German - Niemiecki
mute - głupi

vcnp2000 said:

Polish language
German - Niemiecki
mute - głupi

Click to expand...

IDK; as I understood it, it didn't ment "mute" (as in not able in emiting sounds) but "not speaking" [our language].

deaf tuner said:

"not speaking" [our language].

Click to expand...

" "not speaking" [our language]."

There is not such word being in Polish

vcnp2000 said:

" "not speaking" [our language]."

There is not such word being in Polish

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about Polish, but about the (supposed) slav etymology (and it's old meaning) of the word "Nemec/Német/Neamt/etc" (thé same word exists in Hungarian and Romanian too, which would also support the theory of an old-Slav origin).

There's a similar phenomenon in Arabic:

deaf tuner said:

I wasn't talking about Polish, but about the (supposed) slav etymology (and it's old meaning) of the word "Nemec/Német/Neamt/etc" (thé same word exists in Hungarian and Romanian too, which would also support the theory of an old-Slav origin).

There's a similar phenomenon in Arabic:

Ajam - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Do you mean that there were old Slavs, who invented a name Nemeti for a germanic tribe? May be, who knows

deaf tuner said:

I wasn't talking about Polish, but about the (supposed) slav etymology (and it's old meaning) of the word "Nemec/Német/Neamt/etc" (thé same word exists in Hungarian and Romanian too, which would also support the theory of an old-Slav origin).

There's a similar phenomenon in Arabic:

Ajam - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

deaf tuner, thanks for this Arabic parallel. Where do you find all this, old fellow? On the internet? And why not I?
Kind regards from your Belgian friend.

vcnp2000 said:

Do you mean that there were old Slavs, who invented a name Nemeti for a germanic tribe?

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Words have a life of their own, they evolve, change form and significance.


I suppose that they called Germanic (the "others") with a word suggesting their "otherness". Like "barbarians", "ajam" (none had had the meaning it has latter).

In Hungarian there's the "oláh" (=Romanian)/"olasz" (=Italian), both coming from (slavic) vlah ⇨ ulah ⇨ oláh, which would come from the old Germanic "walhisc", both "vlah"/"walhisc" designing romance speaking people.

As for the "German" oldest form the furthest in time I found is old slavic "нѣмьць".

As Slavic/Hungarian/Romanian/Turkish/Arabic have/had the same origin word, a common origin seems logical.

Romans called that tribe "Nemetes". Tacitus et al. Because they didn't speak Latin.

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/němьcь - Wiktionary Proto-Slavic
------------
Niemiec - Wiktionary Polish
Němec - Wiktionary Czech
Nemec - Wiktionary Slovak
------------
немец - Wiktionary Belarusian
немец - Wiktionary Russian
німець - Wiktionary Ukrainian
------------
немец - Wiktionary Bulgarian
Немац - Wiktionary Serbo-Croatian
Nemec - Wiktionary Slovene
------------
német - Wiktionary Hungarian
neamț - Wiktionary Romanian
نمچه - Wiktionary Ottoman_Turkish

Fanny Cottençon



Is she Germanic. Or Latin?

deaftuner

deaf tuner said:

In Hungarian there's the "oláh" (=Romanian)/"olasz" (=Italian), both coming from (slavic) vlah ⇨ ulah ⇨ oláh, which would come from the old Germanic "walhisc", both "vlah"/"walhisc" designing romance speaking people.

Click to expand...

deaf tuner, as I live near the Romance/Germanic language border and had during my life seen a lot of questions about, which tend to be a Germanic and which a Romance "people!", I have up to now always defended the "premise"? (Dutch: these) that "waals, walloon, vlach, welsh, gaulois, galatiian" were all etymological derived from "Walhaz" meaing the Germanic word for "foreigner", the "other one".

But in this wiki they speak about a tribe "the Volcae"
From the wiki:
"*Walhaz is almost certainly derived from the name of the tribe which was known to the Romans as Volcae (in the writings of Julius Caesar) and to the Greeks as Οὐόλκαι / Ouólkai (Strabo and Ptolemy).[2] This tribe occupied territory neighbouring that of the Germanic people and seem to have been referred to by the proto-Germanic name *Walhaz (plural *Walhōz, adjectival form *walhiska-). It is assumed that this term specifically referred to the Celtic Volcae, because application of Grimm's law to that word produces the form *Walh-. Subsequently, this term *Walhōz was applied rather indiscriminately to the southern neighbours of the Germanic people, as evidenced in geographic names such as Walchgau and Walchensee in Bavaria.[1] These southern neighbours, however, were then already completely Romanised. Thus, Germanic speakers generalised this name first to all Celts, and later to all Romans and Romanised peoples. Old High German Walh became Walch in Middle High German, and the adjective OHG walhisk became MHG welsch, e.g. in the 1240 Alexander romance by Rudolf von Ems – resulting in Welsche in Early New High German and modern Swiss German as the exonym for all Romance speakers. For instance, the historical German name for Trentino, the part of Tyrol with a Romance speaking majority, is Welschtirol, and the historical German name for Verona is Welschbern. "

deaf tuner, as I am aware that you know a lot even in fields as language, I ask you what you think about this "premise"?
For me, terms in the wiki as: "almaost certainly" and "seems to have been referred to by" are not that convincing. It is a bit as my cautious approach, when I don't know that much about a certain subject .

Kind regards, Paul.

PaulRyckier said:

deaf tuner, as I am aware that you know a lot even in fields as language, I ask you what you think about this "premise"?
For me, terms in the wiki as: "almaost certainly" and "seems to have been referred to by" are not that convincing. It is a bit as my cautious approach, when I don't know that much about a certain subject

Click to expand...

You think a bit too high on me, my friend.

"Linguistic archeology" can be tricky. ATM, what can I say is to check the same article in Wiki bit in French: it's much more comprehensive and clearer.

Germanic sustratum of modern France is much deeper than French people are ready to admit. It is so deep, that sometimes pass by non being Germanic at all.

Take for example the LAW. The French law roots into the Frankish laws of the High Middle Ages, particularly in Northern France before the Revolution. This is the obvious consequence of the country being conquered by a Germanic elite.

The Germanic law transformed into common law in the northern areas, and later became part of the codified legal systems of the royal administration in the Early Modern Period, wich increasingly incorporated Roman legislation. Local legal systems in the north, however, attached closely to the Frankish rules.

The Napoleonic code took all the previous laws, reformulated them and incorporated innovations into the new civil code, following the structure of Justinian code. But this is in a great part a simplification and codification of previously existing laws in France, leaving out the feudal legislation. This core laws goes back unbroken to the Frankish conquest, as the country ruling power has not been replaced again by foreign invaders through the last 1,500 years

vcnp2000 said:

Fanny Cottençon

View attachment 37778

Is she Germanic. Or Latin?

Click to expand...

Kind of Celtic/Germanic look. Basic Western European look. You throw a rock into Northern France, Eastern Germany, Switerland, the Benelux, you hit someone with these general features. These Western Europeans are so mixed up with each other, they are basically one people. People are idiots; they'd rather stress minor cultural differences rather than the obvious biological similarity. To someone like me who is radically biologically different from a European, they are all almost identical from Scandinavia to Northern Italy (immigration aside).

vcnp2000 said:

Fanny Cottençon

View attachment 37778

Is she Germanic. Or Latin?

Click to expand...

Germanic and Latin are linguistic definitions, so a bit hard to say from a photo.
I think there are other sites for this kind of thing.

Lalli said:

Germanic and Latin are linguistic definitions, so a bit hard to say from a photo.
I think there are other sites for this kind of thing.

Click to expand...

She's Latin because she speaks roman language. France= Gaul, the richest province it was, perhaps her ancestors were the patricians there, who knows.

deaf tuner said:

"Linguistic archeology" can be tricky. ATM, what can I say is to check the same article in Wiki bit in French: it's much more comprehensive and clearer.

Walh — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

deaf tuner, thank you very for the French wiki. I learned from it. And yes "more comprehensive and clearer". Now I am prepared for future discusssions about for instance the term "Waal/Wallon" in Belgium...among others ...

Kind regards, Paul.

Frank81 said:

Germanic sustratum of modern France is much deeper than French people are ready to admit. It is so deep, that sometimes pass by non being Germanic at all.

Take for example the LAW. The French law roots into the Frankish laws of the High Middle Ages, particularly in Northern France before the Revolution. This is the obvious consequence of the country being conquered by a Germanic elite.

The Germanic law transformed into common law in the northern areas, and later became part of the codified legal systems of the royal administration in the Early Modern Period, wich increasingly incorporated Roman legislation. Local legal systems in the north, however, attached closely to the Frankish rules.

The Napoleonic code took all the previous laws, reformulated them and incorporated innovations into the new civil code, following the structure of Justinian code. But this is in a great part a simplification and codification of previously existing laws in France, leaving out the feudal legislation. This core laws goes back unbroken to the Frankish conquest, as the country ruling power has not been replaced again by foreign invaders through the last 1,500 years

Click to expand...

Frank81,

I discussed already I think the related "Roman sustratum" in comparison with the "Germanic sustratum" of France with my European Romance/Germanic language border's friend Isleifson/Laumesfeld.

For instance about the "LAW", you can be right that in the early Middle Ages it was ( you said) "the obvious consequence of the country being conquered by a Germanic elite."
But in my humble opinion of an "amateur historian" already from the time of Clovis/Chlodovech) there came a "Roman" influence that infiltrated the whole later France including the Low Countries as it came as the County of Flanders and later the Duchy of Burgundy under French influence. I have even the impression that already from the start of the HRE in 800 the whole Germanic HRE came under Roman influence? Do you mean perhaps with "northern areas" the Baltic states of that time?

Frank, have you evidence from academic work to support your claims? And yes, that academic work shows time and time again, in my humble opinion, how complex history writing is and how easy one is biased by one's own vision.

And even on academic work, how renown it may be, I have an outsider amateur vision on it. Remember the "Aristote au mont Saint Michel" from Gouguenheim. I don't want to criticize renowned French historians for their scientific research.

For instance to come back on my exchange with Isleifson about:

I read now again the whole discussion on this book from Ferrary Jean-Louis

If you understand French?...
"starting from page 153: paragraph "eight years later..."
"starting from page 156: last paragraph: "French notion of "nation" and the German one of "Volk"

As I already said to Isleifson in the 21th century apart from local culture there is no difference anymore, again in my humble opinion, between the intellectual legacy, the inherited values of both the nowadays Germany and France.

But there we are again in the actuality that I don't want to enter, as perhaps "les valeurs républicaines" (the republican values)...

Kind regards, Paul.