The linguistic effects of the Justinian reconquests

kasumigenx

kasumigenx

It seems that the Gallo Italic, Italian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Dalmatian, Romansch, Sardinian, Romanian, Venetian, Portuguese and Spanish have nothing in common but it seems that the languages were affected by the Justinian reconquests.

These languages seem to have something in common in their use of Con for the word With and Ab becomes A, in Occitan/Catalan they ambiguated Ab and Apud to Amb while French does have separate uses of Ab>A and Apud becomes Avec or Eut/Ot, Occitan simplified this further by merging Ab and Apud into Amb.

Does butterflying Justinian reconquests change the Spanish and Italian languages as a whole?
 

Gloss

kasumigenx said:
It seems that the Gallo Italic, Italian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Dalmatian, Romansch, Sardinian, Romanian, Venetian, Portuguese and Spanish have nothing in common but it seems that the languages were affected by the Justinian reconquests.

These languages seem to have something in common in their use of Con for the word With and Ab becomes A, in Occitan/Catalan they ambiguated Ab and Apud to Amb while French does have separate uses of Ab>A and Apud becomes Avec or Eut/Ot, Occitan simplified this further by merging Ab and Apud into Amb.

Does butterflying Justinian reconquests change the Spanish and Italian languages as a whole?
Click to expand...
I'm not following the logic, why would the Justinian reconquest have caused this?
 

August II Mocny

Banned
kasumigenx said:
It seems that the Gallo Italic, Italian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Dalmatian, Romansch, Sardinian, Romanian, Venetian, Portuguese and Spanish have nothing in common but it seems that the languages were affected by the Justinian reconquests.

These languages seem to have something in common in their use of Con for the word With and Ab becomes A, in Occitan/Catalan they ambiguated Ab and Apud to Amb while French does have separate uses of Ab>A and Apud becomes Avec or Eut/Ot, Occitan simplified this further by merging Ab and Apud into Amb.

Does butterflying Justinian reconquests change the Spanish and Italian languages as a whole?
Click to expand...
You're describing regular linguistic changes that just happen. Like the change of k to ch along the Joret line
 

Avalon

kasumigenx said:
It seems that the Gallo Italic, Italian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Dalmatian, Romansch, Sardinian, Romanian, Venetian, Portuguese and Spanish have nothing in common but it seems that the languages were affected by the Justinian reconquests.

These languages seem to have something in common in their use of Con for the word With and Ab becomes A, in Occitan/Catalan they ambiguated Ab and Apud to Amb while French does have separate uses of Ab>A and Apud becomes Avec or Eut/Ot, Occitan simplified this further by merging Ab and Apud into Amb.

Does butterflying Justinian reconquests change the Spanish and Italian languages as a whole?
Click to expand...
Isn't this scenario more so that French (and Occitan) is the odd one out here rather than everyone else.
 
kasumigenx

kasumigenx

Avalon said:
Isn't this scenario more so that French (and Occitan) is the odd one out here rather than everyone else.
Click to expand...
Yes, Arpitan, French, and Occitan are the odd ones, English and Scots seem to have adapted some of the Oddities of these three languages actually, the word for with of other Germanic languages is Mid/Med.
 
Last edited:
kasumigenx

kasumigenx

Occitan was simpler in grammar than French even in its older forms...which makes it easier to implement as the language of France instead of the Langue d'Oil but the Normans promoted the Oil dialects but the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine with Henry II and the Albigensian crusade ruined its chances...

It is similar to Galician/Portuguese which was replaced by Castilian in Leon due to the split of Portugal.
 
Last edited:
WilliamOfOckham

WilliamOfOckham

kasumigenx said:
It seems that the Gallo Italic, Italian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Dalmatian, Romansch, Sardinian, Romanian, Venetian, Portuguese and Spanish have nothing in common
Click to expand...
They’re from the same language family.

kasumigenx said:
Yes, Arpitan, French, and Occitan are the odd ones, English and Scots seem to have adapted some of the Oddities of these three languages actually, the word for with of other Germanic languages is Mid/Med.
Click to expand...
The similar developments of Gallo-Romance apud hocque “and against this” > French avec “with” and English with is just a coincidence; several other languages have undergone the same change. The logic is pretty clear if you think of phrases like “with the grain” or “with the wind”, which still preserve an intermediate meaning “along”.

If you want a real Romance influence on English, check out de “down from > of” and English of, which is actually a doublet (twin) of off. Old English af only had the spatial meaning; Middle English developed the possessive / attributive meaning due to Romance influence. Compare German ab, where the attributive von developed instead from fan “from”.
 
Last edited:
WilliamOfOckham

WilliamOfOckham

August II Mocny said:
How can a single particle mean anything?
Click to expand...
A single grammatical element can “mean” quite a lot. For example, in many indigenous languages of Central America, the word for “but” is pero, loaned directly from Spanish. That reveals a long history of close contact and more-or-less proficient bilingualism, which is of course historically interesting.

The authentic English example of “of” :: French de reveals something similar.
 

August II Mocny

Banned
WilliamOfOckham said:
A single grammatical element can “mean” quite a lot. For example, in many indigenous languages of Central America, the word for “but” is pero, loaned directly from Spanish. That reveals a long history of close contact and more-or-less proficient bilingualism, which is of course historically interesting.

The authentic English example of “of” :: French de reveals something similar.
Click to expand...
But usage of con vs avec/amb has nothing to do with Justinian Restoration. The OP makes no sense
 
Umbric Man

Umbric Man

I certainly wonder, if Justinian managed to conquer at the all the now-Romance-speaking parts of the WRE (since I'll grant the Kingdoms of East Francia/Germany and Heptarchy/England are solidly Germanic by now) - would a new Latin standard dialect develop to cover all that area, and if so, what would be the most likely OTL languages/dialects it'd take inspiration from?
 

August II Mocny

Banned
kasumigenx said:
Yeah, but this looks like a coincidence if you look at it but what would be the linguistic effects of having it not happen in the first place.
Click to expand...
What if there was no Justinian Restoration?

Neapolitan and Sicilian would have fewer Greek loanwords?

There would be no Griko and Calabrian Greek

Besides that not much.
 
Last edited:
kasumigenx

kasumigenx

Umbric Man said:
I certainly wonder, if Justinian managed to conquer at the all the now-Romance-speaking parts of the WRE (since I'll grant the Kingdoms of East Francia/Germany and Heptarchy/England are solidly Germanic by now) - would a new Latin standard dialect develop to cover all that area, and if so, what would be the most likely OTL languages/dialects it'd take inspiration from?
Click to expand...
Or rather what would happen if Syagrius won and his successor allied with Justinian.
 
WilliamOfOckham

WilliamOfOckham

August II Mocny said:
But usage of con vs avec/amb has nothing to do with Justinian Restoration. The OP makes no sense
Click to expand...
Agreed. But the real story (if Wiktionary is to be believed) is cool - it looks like apud hocque > avec is due to Frankish influence. If we use a little poetic license, we could imagine hesitant native Frankish speakers forgetting the Gallo-Romance word *con and substituting instead that garbled circumlocution until it stuck.

Which is both fun and, honestly, explains quite a lot about the weirdness of French among the Romance languages. A lot of basic French vocabulary comes from just... very odd ways of saying things (aujourd’hui “on the day of today” is the most famous example, although that comes quite a bit later) and it’s cool to imagine that as native Germanic speakers mangling the original Gallo-Romance.
 
kasumigenx

kasumigenx

WilliamOfOckham said:
Agreed. But the real story (if Wiktionary is to be believed) is cool - it looks like apud hocque > avec is due to Frankish influence. If we use a little poetic license, we could imagine hesitant native Frankish speakers forgetting the Gallo-Romance word *con and substituting instead that garbled circumlocution until it stuck.

Which is both fun and, honestly, explains quite a lot about the weirdness of French among the Romance languages. A lot of basic French vocabulary comes from just... very odd ways of saying things (aujourd’hui “on the day of today” is the most famous example, although that comes quite a bit later) and it’s cool to imagine that as native Germanic speakers mangling the original Gallo-Romance.
Click to expand...
Originally Northern Gallo Romance used Apud as well, but it evolved to Ot or Eut, Occitan ambiguated/merged Apud with Ab which resulted in Amb.
 
kasumigenx

kasumigenx

I think this shows the language and the isoglosses show that Occitans tend to be more culturally religious than the Oil speaking people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top