serena1570 at yahoo.com
Sat May 17 11:03:18 PDT 2003
Daniel wrote in an earlier post:
> Unless you're calling *French* a "hopelessly corrupted form of
> Latin", and while I appreciate the slam, that cannot be called
> accurate at all.
And then Daniel wrote in this most recent post:
> It's a court report. I don't see anything notably Latin in it: I
> recognize most of the words as either English or French (or something
> really close: "pur" is "pour", I think). Except I don't recognize
> "per prisoner" and "Et pur ceo". I think that when they called it
> "law French", they meant it.
Latin words in that quote (which may also still be retained in French
for all I know, but they haven't been changed at all from their Latin
origin): fuit, per, que, et, de. The rest looks about 2/3 French and
Now that I've had the chance to skim over the material in the links you
provided, I don't see any place that says that French isn't a corrupted
form of Latin. Any linguist knows that French, Italian, Spanish,
Portugese, and (the other Romance language the name of which escapes me
at the moment) are *all* corrupted forms of Latin; hence the name,
"Romance", as in, of Rome or the Roman people = Latin.
Okay, to be precise, law-French was, by the seventeenth century, a
hopelessly corrupt dialect of the Norman French brought over by William
the Conqueror from Normandy, which was in turn a corrupt language
originally derived mostly from Latin, which was a corrupt language
originally derived mostly from..., and on back to "Indo-European".
English is a hopelessly corrupt mismash of languages, about half of
which go back to Latin and another chunk of which are from the
Scandinavian languages. Every language spoken today is a corrupt form
of an earlier language which is a corrupt form of an even earlier
language which is....
I thank Daniel for providing me with this opportunity to clarify my
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
More information about the Heralds