docoflove1974 Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 I'm happy with that last sentence, but it doesn't knock out the Bible argument. It's not a question of who translated it, but who read it and recited it afterwards. The Bible wasn't like a literary text. Christians tended to belong to the lower classes, and if they were quoting the Bible to one another, with all its un-classical definite articles, they might well begin to talk like it. This isn't just guesswork, after all -- we know the German and English Bibles have both had a significant effect on their respective languages! Quite true about Christians being lower class...I admit my knowledge of the history of the Germanic languages is lacking, but it makes some sense about the Bible affecting the language. I'd love to read more about this area, since the introduction of the article in the Romance world is quite a change in the lexico-syntax of the language family. The fact that it's postposed in Rumanian but not in the rest of Romance is also intriguing, although I believe I've read that this is due to the linguistic influences (mostly Slavic) around Dacia. Oh what I would give to see some 6th-10th century Rumanian documents!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 I'd love to read more about this area, since the introduction of the article in the Romance world is quite a change in the lexico-syntax of the language family. The fact that it's postposed in Rumanian but not in the rest of Romance is also intriguing, although I believe I've read that this is due to the linguistic influences (mostly Slavic) around Dacia. Oh what I would give to see some 6th-10th century Rumanian documents!! I'll go halves with you on that. 'Torna, fratre!' is good, but not quite good enough, eh? Yes, Bulgarian and Albanian both have suffixed definite articles, reminiscent of Romanian. It can hardly be Slavic influence, since Bulgarian is the only (major) Slavic language that does this, just as Romanian is the only (major) Romance language that does it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docoflove1974 Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Ah, only Bulgarian in Slavic? Interesting...I will be honest in that I'm not good with my Slavic morphology...but do the other Slavic languages use articles? Either way, the Balkan linguistic elements fool Romance linguists all the time, and I'm sure it's true for Slavicists. So much that we don't know about that area...and such a history! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Valerius Scerio Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 I'll go halves with you on that. 'Torna, fratre!' is good, but not quite good enough, eh? Yes, Bulgarian and Albanian both have suffixed definite articles, reminiscent of Romanian. It can hardly be Slavic influence, since Bulgarian is the only (major) Slavic language that does this, just as Romanian is the only (major) Romance language that does it. Idle speculation but Illyro-Thracian languages (in which I also think Etruscan belonged) also had definite articles coming at the end of the word. Of course, it's been a while since I touched either Etruscan or Illyro-Thracian languages (and of course, that it is a family is still disputed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludovicus Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Oh what I would give to see some 6th-10th century Rumanian documents!! In "Latin and the Romance Languages" Mario Pei states that the first record of writen Rumanian may be the phrase "Torna, fratre," which appears in a Byzantine account of a Thracian campaign in the year 587. Then we have to wait until the sixteenth century for "satisfactory Rumanian texts." I recommend the Pei book now long out of print but still available in many public and university libraries. He makes the history of Latin and its descendant languages easy to understand for the lay person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docoflove1974 Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 In "Latin and the Romance Languages" Mario Pei states that the first record of writen Rumanian may be the phrase "Torna, fratre," which appears in a Byzantine account of a Thracian campaign in the year 587. Then we have to wait until the sixteenth century for "satisfactory Rumanian texts." I recommend the Pei book now long out of print but still available in many public and university libraries. He makes the history of Latin and its descendant languages easy to understand for the lay person. Yes, I know of the phrase...and actually Graham Mallinson's Rumanian (1984) delves into the language most thoroughly...I use it often in my research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentium Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) Italian: here's the tricky part...that I know of, the majority of the Italian peninsula kept using Latin as a written form of communication much longer than the other Romance areas (Iberia, Gaul). I believe that we don't really get much until the 12th century (think Il Cantico del Fraile Sole), but I need to look that up. I'll get back to this. But, even assuming that 12th c. is the start of written Old Italian, the exact same conditions apply as for Spanish. As far as I remember Il cantico del frate sole (or Laudes Creaturarum) was composed in the XIII century. I believe there have been other literary compositions before that, the so called Edited March 2, 2006 by Silentium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludovicus Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 from the site: http://www.liberliber.it/biblioteca/f/fran...tml/cantico.htm What a lovely prayer, simple and humble. The Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi: Altissimu, onnipotente bon Signore, Tue so' le laude, la gloria e l'honore et onne benedictione. Ad Te solo, Altissimo, se konfano, et nullu homo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docoflove1974 Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 What a lovely prayer, simple and humble. It truly is. I worked on it and other poetry of that geographic area and time frame for my MA thesis, and this by far is my favorite. And, yeah, it's technically XIII...these are the volumes I used in the thesis: Monaci, E. 1954. Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli con prospetto grammaticale e glossario. Castello: Casa Editrice S. Lapi. Ugolini, F.A. 1959. Testi volgari abruzzesi. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. von Wartburg, W. 1946. Raccolta di testi antichi italiani. Berne, Switzerland: Casa Editrice A Francke S.A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludovicus Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 (edited) Thanks so much for the resources you quote. What insights do you have about this astounding poem, linguistic and otherwise? It's always knocked my socks off. Doesn't seem in the mainstream of medieval Roman Catholic prayers. St. Francis' poem seems to come out of nowhere. and it's clearly Italian, not Latin. The Latin case system isn't evident or am I missing something. More, please! Edited March 3, 2006 by Ludovicus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docoflove1974 Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Thanks so much for the resources you quote. What insights do you have about this astounding poem, linguistic and otherwise? It's always knocked my socks off. Doesn't seem in the mainstream of medieval Roman Catholic prayers. St. Francis' poem seems to come out of nowhere. and it's clearly Italian, not Latin. The Latin case system isn't evident or am I missing something. More, please! Nope, you're not missing it...case fell out of the other Romance languages very early; the only ones with vestiges were Old French (nominative/oblique) and Old Proven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludovicus Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 I'm wondering why we see "Altissimu" and "Altissimo" in the same prayer. I can't detect any grammatical reason for the use of two different endings. Any help? Why would St. Francis or a copyist make the mistake of using two different spellings. There's got to be a reason, don't you think. By the way, I'm not a trained linguist but became interested in the subject way back in high school. As a Latin student doing my homework at my Abruzzese grandparents' home I would hear the most interesing Latinisms in their speech. They would say "fradre" for brother, "is" for him, and "a logh" when asking me to move anything "(to" there). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docoflove1974 Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 I'm wondering why we see "Altissimu" and "Altissimo" in the same prayer. I can't detect any grammatical reason for the use of two different endings. Any help? Why would St. Francis or a copyist make the mistake of using two different spellings. There's got to be a reason, don't you think. Same thing that I was talking about above: different gender for mass/collective nouns. At least, that's on the surface...like I said, I desperately want to go back on my findings and comments and revise some things. By the way, I'm not a trained linguist but became interested in the subject way back in high school. As a Latin student doing my homework at my Abruzzese grandparents' home I would hear the most interesing Latinisms in their speech. They would say "fradre" for brother, "is" for him, and "a logh" when asking me to move anything "(to" there). They're not so much Latinisms as differences in dialect, although [is] for 'him' is kinda interesting. I know Sardinian continues to use forms of ipse/ipsa for pronouns and articles, and it would make sense that some Italian dialects would do the same. 'Fradre' doesn't shock me at all, nor 'a logh'. The extremely little of the Lombardese dialect that I know from my family is pretty much limited to the names of the fingers: didin 'little finger'; spozin 'marriage/spouse finger' > 'ring finger'; did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.