Re: Old French

En réponse à Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>:

> > Please get your facts right! You're talking about the "serments de
> > Strasbourg" which were written in Roman and Tudesque (indeed a
> Romance
> > and a Germanic language).
> > Old French didn't exist by then, and nobody ever said so.
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Please get _your_ facts straight, Christophe. I have seen in published
> scholarly books any number of times statements referring to the language
> of
> that period of Old French. Even if it's not the best analysis,
> _somebody_
> still said so.
Titles please. I've never seen such books. Even my book of French I had when I
was 12 didn't claim so, and yet was full of other simplifications. Also, the
answers of Ray and Julien seemed to agree with it. Next time I'll add
an "AFAIK" to be sure.

>
> > Roman is an ancestor of Old French that's true, but nothing else, and
> its
> > grammar and syntax were too different to be called French.
>
> Still, it's closer to French than to eny other modern language, except
> probably Langue d'Oc. I've also seen what you call Old French referred
> to
> as Middle French, as well as "Roman" called Old French.
>
And how did they call 16th century French then? Because the only name I've ever
seen it called was Middle French, and it was too different from both Modern
French and the dialects referred to as Old French to be called like any of
those two.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.