Was the manufacture/producing of French "nation" the biggest (politically ordered and controlled) cultural genocide in modern European history?

Oct 2013
14,075
Europix
#31
1st. You are not a linguist either, but your pretend your opnion to be considered so accepted as an opinion linguist scholar. Despite you support a not accepted fantasy. ... .
No,. I'm not a linguist and I don't pretend to be considered a scholar. Fantasy: what fantasy are You talking about?

...2nd. Does not matter, since I can read the opinion of linguistic scholars. ... .
It does matters. It helps You read works related to language. It also helps You to understand better what the works are about.

...3rd I know: Everything is simply "nonexistent" for you what you don't want to hear/read. .... .
No, not "everything". The consensus You already mentioned, a consensus that doesn't exist. Reading a couple of things on it would make clear that.

...4th Do you speak about yourself? ... .
Nope. I do give sources, I do check sources. Even other's, as often are interesting and makes me learn more.

....5th. Why do you call the 19th century politically planned and forced cultural genocide as "Linguistic evolution" ? Evolution..... what a cool fantasy name for a genocide.
Firstly, You have to present much more to prove it was a genocide.

Secondly, You should go a bit further in French History and French Language's history, and You'll understand that it didn't started in the 19th.

And yes, it was an evolution, caused by politic, economic, cultural factors. As in most other cases.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
5,118
#34
1st. You are not a linguist either, but your pretend your opnion to be considered so accepted as an opinion linguist scholar. Despite you support a not accepted fantasy.

2nd. Does not matter, since I can read the opinion of linguistic scholars.

3rd I know: Everything is simply "nonexistent" for you what you don't want to hear/read.

4th Do you speak about yourself?

5th. Why do you call the 19th century politically planned and forced cultural genocide as "Linguistic evolution" ? Evolution..... what a cool fantasy name for a genocide.

Your posts are not commensurate with some who claims to be an electrical engineeering graduate. They are simply emotional plees, passion and prejudice masquerading as reason and supported by bitterness and acrimony.
 
Oct 2013
14,075
Europix
#35
Simple fact: The so-called Gallo-Romance category is just a third level cathegory among the IE languages like the "West Germanic" term among the IE languages.

Cathegorising, nomenclatures, systematic is a way to make us understand better, to have "une vue d'ensemble" (a general view).


As any general view, it's lacking accuracy.


Drawing a parallel between Gallo-Romanic and West-Germanic can be very misleading from the very start: unlike Germanic or Slavic languages/dialects/patois, Romanic languages have the characteristic to come with certitude from one language - Latin - that was already a standardised language, a written language and a language we know very well.


Latin had itself dialects, differing more or less from written/classical Latin, living dialects. Meaning evolving by tendencies coming from "interior" and influences coming from "exterior" of the language.


Gallo-Roman language/dialects are nothing more than an evolution of Latina vulgata, with a feeble Gallic/Celtic substratum and with feebleGermanic suprastratum.


... lack of mutual intelligibility among these very different languages.
The local differences existing in Gallo-Romanic (existent in any language) doesn't mean they were initelligible.

Authun already mentioned the "linguistic continuum" for a reason.

Besides, there is also the "circulation" aspect: languages/dialects/regionalism aren't hermeticaly closed, fixed in time phenomenons. Words, locutions, ideas are exchanged, languages/dialects/regionalisms are influencing each other permanently.

So no, You can't generalise "lack of mutual intelligibility" nor "very different languages".

Today's French is a result of interaction of "la Langue du Roy", a Gallo-Romanic dialect that succeeded as the normative of the French language to be, with the other Gallo-Romanic dialects. It wasn't exclusively "erasing" the other dialects but also "coagulating" them.


And he process started already in the 6th-7th c and it's continuing even today.


The French language didn't "eradicate" dialects in the 19th, the French nation didn't came to life in the 19th. It started way before.


___________
PS: Authun, and anyone interested in some aspects of the evolutions of languages, dialects, regionalism, I recommend Jérôme SERME "Un exemple de résistance à l’innovation lexicale : Les « archaïsmes » du français régional". The introduction and chapter 1 is dealing with general principles, phenomenons, aproaches on Latina vulgata and Gallo-Roman (in French):
full thesis downloading: http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/documents/getpart.php?id=136&action=pdf)
 
Last edited:
Likes: authun

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
5,118
#36
PS: Authun, and anyone interested in some aspects of the evolutions of languages, dialects, regionalism, I recommend Jérôme SERME "Un exemple de résistance à l’innovation lexicale : Les « archaïsmes » du français régional". The introduction and chapter 1 is dealing with general principles, phenomenons, aproaches on Latina vulgata and Gallo-Roman (in French):
full thesis downloading: http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/documents/getpart.php?id=136&action=pdf)
Thanks for that but I couldn't read french with that level of technical complexity.

Found this though, History of the French Language. It's a course with a tempting introduction:

"A linguistic study of the phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical changes which turned the Latin spoken in Gaul into modern standard French."