PDA

View Full Version : Walloon, a Germanised Romance language ?



Maciamo
22-06-06, 11:20
Walloon is sometimes considered as a dialect of French, and more often nowadays as a Romance language of its own. It is spoken in Wallonia (the southern part of Belgium), mostly by elderly people and farmers, who can also all speak French. Many younger Walloons may understand a few words of Walloon but not really speak it.

I noticed that the pronuciation of Walloon was closer to that of Germanic languages rather than Latin ones. Many vowels are elungated, and some sounds have even been transcribed using the Scandinavic " å ". Quite a few words have direct Germanic roots and contrast a lot with their French transaltion. Here are some examples : [Walloon => English/French (other language)]

gate => goat/chèvre (closer to the Swedish/Norwegian "get", Danish "ged" or Dutch "geit" than the German "Ziege").

breutchene => small loaf of bread/petit pain (direct import from the German "Brötchen")

conén (or conin) => rabbit/lapin (Danish/Norwegian/Swedish = "kanin", Dutch = "konijn", German = "Kaninchen")
robète => another Walloon word for rabbit (from Middle Dutch "robbe", obviously sharing a root with the English "rabbit")

spraute => sprout/chou (Dutch = "ontspruiten"; in this case English is the nearest)

sitouve => stove (heater)/poêle (again, English is the nearest equivalent)

wafe => waffle/gauffre (Dutch = "wafel", German = "Waffel")

aujî => easy/facile (only English has a similar word, although they both ultimately come from the French aisé)

heid => heath/lande (Dutch/German = Heide), hill/collinne

raspoie (Old Walloon) => raspberry/framboise (like robète, spraute and sitouve, only English has a word related to it)

Oddly enough, the Walloon word for potato (krompir) is related to many central European languages (identical in Slovene, krumpir in Serbo-Croat, krumpli in Hungarian, crumpenă in Romanian). Apparently it derives from the German Grundbirne ("ground pear") and the term spread around the Austrian empire.

Karolus
20-07-06, 18:00
Interesting.It's discouraging(im not sure if this is the word I need) that walloon is only spoken by older people.

Maciamo
28-08-06, 13:38
The heartland of Wallonia was part of the German Holy Roman Empire since its foundation by Charlemagne (a Walloon himself, born and raised near Liege) in 800 until the 15th century. From the mid-16th century only 1/3 of Wallonia remained German (the principality of Liege) until the French Revolution in 1789. Given that the Belgians are mostly of Frankish (i.e. Germanic) descent, with a bit of Gallo-Roman leftovers, it would be fairly natural to refer to the Walloon (and also Alsacians and Northern French) as French-speaking Germans.

Maciamo
17-03-08, 11:25
Here are a few more examples :

spitter : to spatter, to splatter, to splash
sprotcher : to squeeze, to crush
sketer : to break, to shatter, to split
tchapiauter : to chatter, to chat
pesteller : to pester
jatte : jar, jug, mug
wachoter : a liquid that is leaking or spilling (related to "wash")

These words actually show more similarity with English than with Dutch or German, although the similarity isn't close enough to consider that these are imports from English (even a few centuries old). The Walloon words probably evolved from Old Frankish words, Frankish being quite closely related to Anglo-Saxon.

For example, the Frisian word for "spatter" is "spatterje", which confirms a possible common origin for both Saxon and Frankish, as Frisian is their closest neighbour.

Maciamo
15-05-09, 16:05
I found this very concise French-Walloon dictionary (http://www.scribd.com/doc/12103914/Vocabulaire-Francais-Wallon) on Google Books. The core vocabulary of Walloon is definitely derived from French, but there are hundreds of words that either come from Flemish/German or are of completely unknown origin to me. These words don't even sound Indo-European to me :

bedot => sheep
moxhon => small bird
kokâ => egg
tiair => mountain
gonhire => woody mountain
kopalle => mound, hillock
aiwe => river

Maciamo
29-11-09, 19:43
Walloon is classified as an oïl dialect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_d%27o%C3%AFl) of Gallo-Romance languages, based on the way the word for "yes" is pronounced. The Walloon for "yes" is "ayi". It may sound vaguely similar to "oïl" (pronounce "oi" as in "oil" without the "l"), but it is in fact closer to the Scottish "aye". Both are probably syllable reversal of the Germanic "ja" or "yeah".

The Walloon for "no" is "neni". It is again much closer to the German "nein" than the French "non" or southern Romance "no". Likewise the negative equivalent of the French "pas" (as in je ne sais pas) is "nin". It is probably a nassalised version of the Dutch "niet" German "nicht", derived from the local Frankish dialect. In any case it is completely different from "pas".

So despite the big chunk of Romance vocabulary, many basic words in Walloon appear to be of Germanic, Celtic or unknown origin (possibly pre-Celtic).

It surprises how little studied the language is. After all, it covers an area with more traditional speakers than Welsh or Scottish Gaelic.

S-K
30-11-09, 02:50
Most Walloons nowadays are French speaking...

Do you think that Walloons ethnically are an ofspring of Romanized speaking Germanics?

Maciamo
30-11-09, 20:35
Most Walloons nowadays are French speaking...
Do you think that Walloons ethnically are an ofspring of Romanized speaking Germanics?

According to Y-DNA tests, Walloons and Flemings aren't so different. Both have an admixture of Germanic and Gallo-Roman blood, although Wallonia has a bit more Gallo-Roman ancestry (proportions vary according to the provinces, with more Germanic lineages in the north and east). I have written about this here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=352710&postcount=9).

Maciamo
08-07-10, 10:48
I just noticed that in Belgian French and Walloon the word pet (pronounced like in English) means exactly the same as the English "butt" in the sense of someone's "buttocks" or "bottom". The usage (informal) is even the same. They probably share the same Germanic etymology.

Interestingly there does not seem to be a Dutch/Flemish or German word close to it keeping the same meaning. Pet isn't used in the French of France either (the word exist but pronounced without the final "t" and doesn't mean the same).

Maciamo
30-08-10, 13:46
Here is another example of why Walloon might be considered a Germanised Romance language. The Walloon word for castle is tchestê, which is almost the same as the English 'chester' (as in Manchester, Winchester Chichester, etc.). Chester is the Anglo-Saxon pronunciation of the Latin word castrum, which gave castello in Italian, castillo in Spanish, château in French, and of course 'castle' in English. The fact that the Walloon word is closer to the Anglo-Saxon than to the French or other Romance languages is, I think, a clear sign that Walloon was originally the language of the Franks who adopted Latin after settling in the Roman province of Gallia Belgica.

Selwyn Greenfrith
19-04-12, 06:25
Here is another example of why Walloon might be considered a Germanised Romance language. The Walloon word for castle is tchestê, which is almost the same as the English 'chester' (as in Manchester, Winchester Chichester, etc.). Chester is the Anglo-Saxon pronunciation of the Latin word castrum, which gave castello in Italian, castillo in Spanish, château in French, and of course 'castle' in English. The fact that the Walloon word is closer to the Anglo-Saxon than to the French or other Romance languages is, I think, a clear sign that Walloon was originally the language of the Franks who adopted Latin after settling in the Roman province of Gallia Belgica.

Talking of etymology, why is somewhere like 'Waterloo' inside Wallonia and why has it's name never been Romanised by way of either Walloon, Picard or French etc?

Cimmerianbloke
29-06-12, 04:30
Actually, Walloon is a very uneven language. I was born near Mons and our dialect there is clearly Picard-related. I have also spent some time in Liège and found it very difficult to understand their dialect, sometimes it was chinese to me. Some of the words you listed are very familiar to me (sketter, spitter, jatte, gade, bedot), some I have never heard. During my classical studies as a teenager, we had to study the classical, La Fontaine and Walloon versions of "the wolf and the lamb", that introduced me to some sort of Borinage Picard literature (Frameries-born poet Bosquetia). A pity no serious linguistic surveys of Walloon dialects are not more widespread as these dialects have a tendency to disappear quickly.

Here is, for French-speakers, an interesting page about the Borinage dialect:
http://borinage.blogspot.de/p/le-parler-borain.html

zanipolo
29-06-12, 09:38
Actually, Walloon is a very uneven language. I was born near Mons and our dialect there is clearly Picard-related. I have also spent some time in Liège and found it very difficult to understand their dialect, sometimes it was chinese to me. Some of the words you listed are very familiar to me (sketter, spitter, jatte, gade, bedot), some I have never heard. During my classical studies as a teenager, we had to study the classical, La Fontaine and Walloon versions of "the wolf and the lamb", that introduced me to some sort of Borinage Picard literature (Frameries-born poet Bosquetia). A pity no serious linguistic surveys of Walloon dialects are not more widespread as these dialects have a tendency to disappear quickly.

Here is, for French-speakers, an interessing page about the Borinage dialect:
http://borinage.blogspot.de/p/le-parler-borain.html

I wonder if its a frankish left over of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotharingia

MOESAN
30-06-12, 14:12
I found this very concise French-Walloon dictionary (http://www.scribd.com/doc/12103914/Vocabulaire-Francais-Wallon) on Google Books. The core vocabulary of Walloon is definitely derived from French, but there are hundreds of words that either come from Flemish/German or are of completely unknown origin to me. These words don't even sound Indo-European to me :

bedot => sheep
moxhon => small bird
kokâ => egg
tiair => mountain
gonhire => woody mountain
kopalle => mound, hillock
aiwe => river

I don't agree with the definition: "latin or french speaking germanic people":
For I believe, Walloons have an heavy celtic and pre-celtic componant ethnically (and genetically), when we have more serious data on them) -surely, the Liège district inhabitants showed genetically (before modern immigration, from Italy during the XX°C.) a greater influence of Francs or other Germanic tribes - their dialects doesn't origin in french but in an old romance dialect since the Roman Empire, showing phonetically the lack or the maybe basque influenced suffixation of E- before stops groups with S- (ST-, SP-, SK- >> EST-, ESP-, ESK- what is interesting is notice that welsh languages tended to prefix an atone Y- before the same groups of stops, even if the present day tendencies are to drop them down) - considering this aspect, Walloon dialects are closer to Italic (latin) or Germanic languages, it is true -
and in XX° C. Alsacians (spite of some celtic-pre-celtic origins too) and North Lorraine inhabitants was germanic (dialects) speakers (Swabish sort of Alemanic and Franconic "frankish") -
I'm amezed as you in front of this words; but for aiwe I remember the french Oil dialects: ô (eau), iô, iaù, ève, èwe, and occitanic aîga, aîgo << aqua : water

MOESAN
30-06-12, 14:14
for kopalle: mound, hillock, a suggestion: = french 'coupelle' in some dialects for the top of a tree (rounded shape, i think) - a bet!

MOESAN
30-06-12, 14:18
sorry for my short posts: it comes to my as it comes!
aiwe/ ADDENDA: brittonic celtic afon /avon/, aven << abona = river (I-E root akw-, ap- ?)

Cimmerianbloke
01-07-12, 01:49
Hi Moesan,
I am sadly not a specialist in linguistics, but I have a basic knowledge, and your last post seems to me a little bit of a shortcut, I'd even call it a motorway. Consider Celtic languages were not written, as Latin has been since the Romanization of Gaul, and you'd agree that modern Walloon probably owes more to Roman languages than to Celtic, whose occurrences and legacy in French are well documented. Modern French having been highly borrowing from Greek, Germanic and to some extent Celtic, Arabic and half a dozen more languages, it makes sense to look at linguistics with a cautious approach, especially for the Liège dialect, where Germanic and Latin languages have been colliding since Charlemagne.

Selwyn,
I can confirm that if the spelling stays the same, the pronunciation in French has not much to do anymore with the English one...

Christiaan
01-07-12, 02:01
sorry for my short posts: it comes to my as it comes!
aiwe/ ADDENDA: brittonic celtic afon /avon/, aven << abona = river (I-E root akw-, ap- ?)

Kokâ = reminds me of Kuiken and Küken(=chick)...coq(old french)

moxhon = mus(singul.) mussen(plural) (<-dutch =sparrow Engl)... http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/mus probably latin (musca) =flie, but in this case it means small bird

The centralgerman word Kuppe for hill is probably of latin origin. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuppe

The westerngermanic word Ahe, Aa and A ( http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/a1 ) still looks very similair, but I agree it is most likely the regional version of this indo-european word.

Maciamo
01-07-12, 15:18
sorry for my short posts: it comes to my as it comes!
aiwe/ ADDENDA: brittonic celtic afon /avon/, aven << abona = river (I-E root akw-, ap- ?)

I also think it is more likely that the Walloon word comes from Celtic than from a direct corruption of the Latin aqua. Well, obviously Latin is an Italic language related to Celtic, so the two are ultimately derived from the same Proto-Italo-Celtic source. But aiwe just sounds closer to avon or aven than to aqua.

MOESAN
02-07-12, 12:16
[QUOTE=Cimmerianbloke;396557]Hi Moesan,
I am sadly not a specialist in linguistics, but I have a basic knowledge, and your last post seems to me a little bit of a shortcut, I'd even call it a motorway. Consider Celtic languages were not written, as Latin has been since the Romanization of Gaul, and you'd agree that modern Walloon probably owes more to Roman languages than to Celtic, whose occurrences and legacy in French are well documented. Modern French having been highly borrowing from Greek, Germanic and to some extent Celtic, Arabic and half a dozen more languages, it makes sense to look at linguistics with a cautious approach, especially for the Liège dialect, where Germanic and Latin languages have been colliding since Charlemagne.

surely my post can seams very naive to you, but my meaning was: in spite of the fact that even germanic speaking populations of Belgium have some pre-germanic genetic heritage, as Walloons have, I think there is a great enough difference about proportions of germanic and pre-germanic heritage: It is not linguistic - I think too that the genuine Roman (or Italic as a whole) genetic heritage in Walloons is very weak versus the (pre-)Celtic one - no linguistics here too - concerniing linguistics, I think that the walloon dialects, as the pickard ones, are NOT FRENCH (modern language) but the local evolutions of a romance language that traces back until the Gallo-Roman period and before that ROman occupation (as in France, almost all the big dialects trace back to romance, not to french (heavily Ile-de-France-Orléanais dialect influenced) - that was my point: celtic and pre-celtic when I spoke about genes, more romance (latin) when I spoke about language... surely there have been more exchanges between germanic and romance dialects in North-France, Normandy and Belgium than in other parts of France (except in Franco-provencal of eastern France and Switzerland, with Alamans and Wisigoths maybe?)- but when looking at Walloons phonetics compared to Pic(k)ard phonetics, we see that the germanic influence seams slightly stronger for pickard (and northern normand) dialects than in Walloon - I confess I'm not aware of the princiapl traits of Lorraine romance dialects - surely it would be interesting knowing them to compare to walloon...
*(as said by one, not to confuse between "french" speaking Belgium and eastern genuine walloon dialects)
all that said, I shut my mouth because I have only a surface knowledge of walloon

Cimmerianbloke
03-07-12, 03:14
I really had no idea about how intricated the question was before the start of the thread. Your argumentation has its points, taking into account the tumultuous history of the region and its Dutch, French and Spanish occupations that might have helped into cristallizing the dialects. I am however convinced the "hinge" period of the formation of these dialects would be the late Middle Ages and therefore bear a strong Latin influence. The difference between Picard Borain and Namurois is just too harsh to be purely dialectal or due to the "famous" Namur accent.
Consider also that in the case of Aachen, a seemingly Roman name (Aquis Granum) took a Germanic life of its own (Aachen, Dutch "Aken" is a Latin root with Germanic ending "The Waters"). Even stranger, the Romance forms it took in Italian (Aquisgrana) and Spanish (Aquisgrán), and its phonetic molding into Slavic Polish "Akwizgran". Stunning when you know how long that city has been around. Where linguistics can be a very handy tool, it can also lead us into more confusion.
I have to confess I know nothing about Lorraine dialects, but Alsacian have I learned through Kansass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCKyIKWjNsw&feature=relmfu)...

MOESAN
03-07-12, 17:06
I really had no idea about how intricated the question was before the start of the thread. Your argumentation has its points, taking into account the tumultuous history of the region and its Dutch, French and Spanish occupations that might have helped into cristallizing the dialects. I am however convinced the "hinge" period of the formation of these dialects would be the late Middle Ages and therefore bear a strong Latin influence. The difference between Picard Borain and Namurois is just too harsh to be purely dialectal or due to the "famous" Namur accent.
Consider also that in the case of Aachen, a seemingly Roman name (Aquis Granum) took a Germanic life of its own (Aachen, Dutch "Aken" is a Latin root with Germanic ending "The Waters"). Even stranger, the Romance forms it took in Italian (Aquisgrana) and Spanish (Aquisgrán), and its phonetic molding into Slavic Polish "Akwizgran". Stunning when you know how long that city has been around. Where linguistics can be a very handy tool, it can also lead us into more confusion.
I have to confess I know nothing about Lorraine dialects, but Alsacian have I learned through Kansass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCKyIKWjNsw&feature=relmfu)...

There no opposition in my writings to your thoughts: basically walloon is a romance language (= latin origin)
- there is a lot of reasons to think that here popular latin language (the latin of the armies) took early over an other language (celtic or germanic or "N-W european", there is debate even if I bet for a celtic one) - as in other latin origin languages the differenciation could have begun since the IV-V° century, and after that historic events have surely brought some noticeable differences between pcard and wallon dialects - no surprise -
&: by the way, I was speaking about romance lorrain dialect when thinking to posible links with walloon, not the germanic south-western franconic "thiois" of North Moselle and North Elsass, akin to Luxemburgish and somewhat slightly distinct from the alemanic alsacian dialects

Kentel
22-07-12, 11:23
Here is another example of why Walloon might be considered a Germanised Romance language. The Walloon word for castle is tchestê, which is almost the same as the English 'chester' (as in Manchester, Winchester Chichester, etc.). Chester is the Anglo-Saxon pronunciation of the Latin word castrum, which gave castello in Italian, castillo in Spanish, château in French, and of course 'castle' in English. The fact that the Walloon word is closer to the Anglo-Saxon than to the French or other Romance languages is, I think, a clear sign that Walloon was originally the language of the Franks who adopted Latin after settling in the Roman province of Gallia Belgica.

German loanwords and germanicization are two different things : English has borrowed between 30% and 50% of its lexicon to French during the Middle Ages, but is still considered as a Germanic language.

What makes a language Germanic, Romance, or else, is not its vocabulary but primarily its phonetic features. This is the basis of linguistic typology: you could have 99% french words, if Grimm's and Verner's Laws are respected, then it is Germanic.

I am not a specialist of Walloon, but if I take the word "tchestê" which you mentioned in your post, it is 100% Romance:

1- it originates from Latin (actually not from "castrum" but from "castellum" meaning "citadelle").

2- its pronunciation "tsh" is typically French : what you have there is the affrication of the latin [k] before [a] after palatalisation. This process is French, and occurs nowhere else. During the XIth and XIIth centuries, when most English borrowings from French occurred, the grapheme "ch" (from Lat. "c") was pronounced "tsh" in Old French. Only during the XIIIth century, the pronunciation was reduced to "sh". Therefore, the English words with an initial "ch" pronounced "tsh" are are mostly French loanwords with a rigorously accurate Old French pronunciation ("chance", "choice", "chamber", "chair" etc.). On the contrary, the phonetics of "castle" is Germanic, albeit being a Latin word.

MOESAN
22-07-12, 21:54
German loanwords and germanicization are two different things : English has borrowed between 30% and 50% of its lexicon to French during the Middle Ages, but is still considered as a Germanic language.

What makes a language Germanic, Romance, or else, is not its vocabulary but primarily its phonetic features. This is the basis of linguistic typology: you could have 99% french words, if Grimm's and Verner's Laws are respected, then it is Germanic.

I am not a specialist of Walloon, but if I take the word "tchestê" which you mentioned in your post, it is 100% Romance:

1- it originates from Latin (actually not from "castrum" but from "castellum" meaning "citadelle").

2- its pronunciation "tsh" is typically French : what you have there is the affrication of the latin [k] before [a] after palatalisation. This process is French, and occurs nowhere else. During the XIth and XIIth centuries, when most English borrowings from French occurred, the grapheme "ch" (from Lat. "c") was pronounced "tsh" in Old French. Only during the XIIIth century, the pronunciation was reduced to "sh". Therefore, the English words with an initial "ch" pronounced "tsh" are are mostly French loanwords with a rigorously accurate Old French pronunciation ("chance", "choice", "chamber", "chair" etc.). On the contrary, the phonetics of "castle" is Germanic, albeit being a Latin word.

OK (even if it is very improbable that a language can loan 99%of its words from one another language...)
to support your demonstration, I 'll add that picard and northern dialects of french normand are more germanic influenced (Saxons, Francs and Vikings influences) for phonetics than walloon, because in these dialects, C remained /k/ before A, not turning into TCH (walloon) or SH (other dialects of Oil french) -

Kentel
22-07-12, 22:31
You're right.

As a matter of fact, "castle" (with [k] and not "sh") is a borrowing from Normand, it illustrates quite well your point.

bator
13-03-13, 01:17
OK (even if it is very improbable that a language can loan 99%of its words from one another language...)
to support your demonstration, I 'll add that picard and northern dialects of french normand are more germanic influenced (Saxons, Francs and Vikings influences) for phonetics than walloon, because in these dialects, C remained /k/ before A, not turning into TCH (walloon) or SH (other dialects of Oil french) -

are you totally sure that it is because of germanic influence, that c remained k? also i heard that unlike in french the h's are still pronounced in walloon.is this also because of germanic influence? if you or anybody else knows, id be very curious to know. if possible, could you also write the answer to my mail folmer6adhotmail.com

Maciamo
13-03-13, 08:07
are you totally sure that it is because of germanic influence, that c remained k? also i heard that unlike in french the h's are still pronounced in walloon.is this also because of germanic influence? if you or anybody else knows, id be very curious to know. if possible, could you also write the answer to my mail folmer6adhotmail.com

The 'h' are not pronounced in Walloon.

MOESAN
13-03-13, 17:33
and the H- of germanic origin remained pronounced in Breton romances dialects ("gallo"), influence of breton where 'H-' is known??? sure enough - I think also that some northern dialects of France have H- (germanic origin) too, I' ll see for a dialect survey I have about NE Manche normand -
in French, the H- or germanic origin is no more aspired but a voice-stop exist excluding habitual liaisons:
les hommes [lèz om] obsolete latin H >< les haches [lè 'ash]
il est allé ><[I] il est halé [il è 'alé]

ofr K(a) remained K not SH nor CH, I'm sure

Selwyn Greenfrith
14-03-13, 21:40
Walloon is classified as an oïl dialect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_d%27o%C3%AFl) of Gallo-Romance languages, based on the way the word for "yes" is pronounced. The Walloon for "yes" is "ayi". It may sound vaguely similar to "oïl" (pronounce "oi" as in "oil" without the "l"), but it is in fact closer to the Scottish "aye". Both are probably syllable reversal of the Germanic "ja" or "yeah".

The Walloon for "no" is "neni". It is again much closer to the German "nein" than the French "non" or southern Romance "no". Likewise the negative equivalent of the French "pas" (as in je ne sais pas) is "nin". It is probably a nassalised version of the Dutch "niet" German "nicht", derived from the local Frankish dialect. In any case it is completely different from "pas".

So despite the big chunk of Romance vocabulary, many basic words in Walloon appear to be of Germanic, Celtic or unknown origin (possibly pre-Celtic).

It surprises how little studied the language is. After all, it covers an area with more traditional speakers than Welsh or Scottish Gaelic.

Sorry Maciamo but wouldn't think there is much unlikeness in numbers between Welsh and Walloon speakers, so what do you fully mean by the hereinabove?

Don't know how you missed it, but it has been shown that French imperialism isn't that openminded when it comes to other languages - that, if anything, would be why Walloon is so little studied.

MOESAN
15-03-13, 00:08
The 'h' are not pronounced in Walloon.

Maciamo, nenni was said in french too, as an intensive form for non, as nouna in romance "gallo" of Brittany -
the I-E forms for 'ne'/'no' (negation) are all of them so close on together that it is perilous to build too precise theories - look at the affective forms (by repetition of syllabe) for "aunt", "uncle", "father" or "mother" that have even forms outside I-E
no offense

Maciamo
15-03-13, 10:36
Sorry Maciamo but wouldn't think there is much unlikeness in numbers between Welsh and Walloon speakers, so what do you fully mean by the hereinabove?

Don't know how you missed it, but it has been shown that French imperialism isn't that openminded when it comes to other languages - that, if anything, would be why Walloon is so little studied.

What does French Imperialism or France have anything to do with Wallonia. Wallonia has never been part of France, except for a brief period under Napoleon, like the rest of continental Europe (even Switzerland).

Paul Archer
08-02-17, 22:12
The Walloon name comes from the German 'Walhaz' which means foreigner to german speakers.Originally, anyway, they don't seem to have decended from Germanic tribes.Even Germanic tribes are at least partly Gallic in origin anyway, especially in that area (R1b-U152).The 'so called' Germanic R1b-U106 (another haplogroup that is present in Wallonia) is thought to have now originated from the Halstatt area.Halstatt culture is associated with Celts (or were the elite within that culture anyway).Most Celtic / Gaulish etc. cultures are said to have developed from Halstatt or La Tene cultures.R1b-U106 haplogroup is now mostly associated with Nord-West Block, probably arriving from a journey up the Rhine (although there is evidence it being associated with Unetice culture as well which also has associations with the celts, which spread from Bohemia (czech), which is near Halstatt anyway.Unetice culture also spread to most of Germany & Western Poland.The Germani could have originally been more of a Celtic / Gallic culture before the Völkerwanderung.Nord-west block is generally described as a sort of intermediate area between Celtic & Germanic cultures.

Maciamo
09-02-17, 10:33
The Walloon name comes from the German 'Walhaz' which means foreigner to german speakers.Originally, anyway, they don't seem to have decended from Germanic tribes.Even Germanic tribes are at least partly Gallic in origin anyway, especially in that area (R1b-U152).The 'so called' Germanic R1b-U106 (another haplogroup that is present in Wallonia) is thought to have now originated from the Halstatt area.Halstatt culture is associated with Celts (or were the elite within that culture anyway).Most Celtic / Gaulish etc. cultures are said to have developed from Halstatt or La Tene cultures.R1b-U106 haplogroup is now mostly associated with Nord-West Block, probably arriving from a journey up the Rhine (although there is evidence it being associated with Unetice culture as well which also has associations with the celts, which spread from Bohemia (czech), which is near Halstatt anyway.Unetice culture also spread to most of Germany & Western Poland.The Germani could have originally been more of a Celtic / Gallic culture before the Völkerwanderung.Nord-west block is generally described as a sort of intermediate area between Celtic & Germanic cultures.

I have read on a lot of English-speaking sites that the names Wallonia and Wallons are derived from the German Walhaz, just like Wales and Wallachia. However that would be jumping to conclusions based on tenuous evidence. The truth is that the term Wallonia does not appear anywhere until the 16th century, and it not used to refer to all French-speaking Belgium, but to the hilly region in the modern provinces of Namur, Liège and Luxembourg (3 out of 5 modern Walloon provinces) and derived from the French word vallon meaning valley.

In fact it is not historically possible that Wallonia came to mean 'land of non-Germanics' since the region was heavily Germanised since the Franks were allowed to settle in Germania inferior by Emperor Julian in the early 4th century. The Salian Franks, who became the Merovingians, had their capital in Tournai, in Wallonia. The later Carolingian dynasty emerged from the region of Liège (namely Herstal and Jupille), also in Wallonia. The region was a patchwork of Frankish and Latin speakers for many century, from the Late Roman period until the Late Middle Ages. But it is actually the Frankish elite that spoke Latin, because of its prestige status, not the peasants who were mainly Frankish speakers. The Franks were the first Germanic tribe to settle in Roman land, and the only one to do so peacefully as foederati (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foederati), hence their early adoption of Latin (I am not going to say as a lingua franca as that would be ironic). As Wallonia became the seat of the two ruling dynasties that conquered Gaul (Merovingian) and the rest of Germania + half of Italy (Carolingians), Latin spread quickly among the Frankish elite in Wallonia, and this is how a predominantly Germanic-speaking region in the 4th and 5th century turned into a bilingual Latin-Frankish society. As time passed, Latin, then Old French, then modern French kept spreading as they were always associated with the ruling elite and therefore status symbols. This is how Wallonia eventually became French speaking. This has nothing to do with a presumed enclave of Gallo-Romans that resisted the Germanic invasions like in Wales. On the contrary, Wallonia was the political centre of the West Germanic world for many centuries. There are three reasons why Latin became predominant in Wallonia after the Franks settled there:

1) Frankish foederati essentially became part of Roman society and had to speak Latin. Many Franks became influential generals and some became senators in Rome. The Franks readily embraced Roman language and culture from an early time, and they were eventually the ones who defeated the enemies of Rome who had invaded and plundered the empire (Huns, Burgundians, Wisigoths, Lombards). This is why the Franks saw themselves as protectors and heirs of the Roman Empire and that Charlemagne re-founded the (Holy) Roman Empire.

2) Latin was the language of the Catholic Church, which was adopted as the official state religion by Clovis and defended by later Frankish monarchs. Indeed both the Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of France later claimed that they obtained they derived the right to rule directly from the will of God (Divine Right).

3) Latin was the language of the elite and nobility, and the Frankish courts were originally in Tournai and Liège, which helped diffuse the use of Latin even more in those regions in the Early Middle Ages.


Genetically, I have compared the autosomal data of several Flemings and Walloons and there are often more differences between individuals of a same region than between regions. In other words, it's not possible to clearly distinguish the two groups based on admixtures. Some Flemings will even appear more southern than some Walloons.

You are also wrong to say that Wallonia had less R1b-U106 than Flanders. This is what people like you, who see only the modern language divide, expect to see. But it is not what the data shows. You should check my Genetic history of the Benelux & France (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/benelux_france_dna_project.shtml). There is far more differences between the Netherlands and Flanders than between Flanders and Wallonia. In terms of undeniably Germanic haplogroups, I1 is at 13% in Flanders and 11% in Wallonia (like South Germany). All the rest is almost identical except that Flemings have more J2 and Wallons more I2a2a (most of which Germanic).

You can see the distribution of R1b-U106 in the Benelux here.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Benelux-map-R1b-S21.jpg

It's true that data from Wallonia is still scarce, but at present the highest percentages in Belgium are found in the provinces of Luxembourg (40%) and Hainaut (31%), both in Wallonia. The lowest is in the province of Namur and Liège, also in Wallonia, but Namur has a remarkably high percentage of I1 and I2a2a (including confirmed Germanic I2a2a-L801). It's hard to believe that Liège would be much less Germanic as it is the only province where German is an official language, that used to be part of Germany (Prince-bishopric of Liège until 1792), and it was the seat of the Carolingian dynasty. In terms of phenotypes, you are more likely to find Nordic looking blonds in the province of Liège (and Limburg, which is in Flanders but used to be part of the Prince-bishopric of Liège) than anywhere else in Belgium.

MOESAN
09-02-17, 20:44
Maciamo,

I wait for very more data from Wallonia, I have the impression we are talking without basis in its case - Flanders have more reliable samples I think -
I agree that physically Liege(Leek?) region is one of the most 'nordic-like' region in Belgium, but we cannot say Liege = Wallonia (and Walloon is not te only romance language in Belgium, there is the Hainaut) -
my humble opinion is that Franks had settlements in Walloonia, with very different densities according to places - as a whole, French speaking regions of Belgium show something less 'nordic' than Flanders (but even Flanders are not completely homogenous from place to place, spite small differences) - I doubt romance languages have been reintroduced lately in the most of Walloonia but I have no proof, the only way to have the key is to study the eovlution in time of the ancient toponymy I think... that said true walloon has developped or kept peculiarities of itself (absence of epenthetic 'E' before groups of initial consonnants by example): maybe the germanic element in the pop can explain it? So my impression is that Wallonia shows some germanic influence in language, as do parts of Northern and Northeastern romance speaking France, even if not always exactly the same traits. I would be very glad to know more about toponymy it's true.

MOESAN
09-02-17, 20:53
The Walloon name comes from the German 'Walhaz' which means foreigner to german speakers.Originally, anyway, they don't seem to have decended from Germanic tribes.Even Germanic tribes are at least partly Gallic in origin anyway, especially in that area (R1b-U152).The 'so called' Germanic R1b-U106 (another haplogroup that is present in Wallonia) is thought to have now originated from the Halstatt area.Halstatt culture is associated with Celts (or were the elite within that culture anyway).Most Celtic / Gaulish etc. cultures are said to have developed from Halstatt or La Tene cultures.R1b-U106 haplogroup is now mostly associated with Nord-West Block, probably arriving from a journey up the Rhine (although there is evidence it being associated with Unetice culture as well which also has associations with the celts, which spread from Bohemia (czech), which is near Halstatt anyway.Unetice culture also spread to most of Germany & Western Poland.The Germani could have originally been more of a Celtic / Gallic culture before the Völkerwanderung.Nord-west block is generally described as a sort of intermediate area between Celtic & Germanic cultures.

Wait and see (more infos) - Old Belgia of the so called Belgae was maybe inhabited by more than an IE group (I posted about that in germanic story threads in Eupedia) and maybe they was a patchwork of Celts, Germanics and ex-meta-Italics (glup!) surely the first ones - I forgot to speak of this first possible Germanics in my post to Maciamo about Walloonia) - with the data I have at hand to date I doubt UY-R1b-U106 would have been typically celtic - and the Rhine doesn't seem to me the road for the U106 climbing northwards - rather the opposite (southwards) - but I'm sure of nothing and I wait more detailed data

tcab83
09-02-17, 23:35
When I was stationed in Belgium back in the late 1980s, I lived in Cuesmes which is on the southern outskirts of Mons. My land-lady's mother spoke Chi'ti primarily. I had no idea then what Ch'ti was at the time, but I am thankful to have met my first and probably the last first-language speaker of Ch'ti.

Paul Archer
09-02-17, 23:40
I personally don't regard R1b-U106 to be a Germanic haplogroup.It is now concentrated in the Nord-West Block region, especially Frisia.It also has links with Halstatt culture or Unetice culture (which originated in Bohemia - not a Germanic ethnic / cultural / genetic group at that time, although absorbed Germanic influences later on).The Germanics came from the Völkerwander expansion from the North East.The goths which have links with Sweden but are mostly associated with Western Poland.Gothic is attested to be the first Germanic language to have any sizable texts.Gothic is an Eastern Germanic Language (a language zone that is equivalent to todays Poland).The modern Germanic languages origins can be mostly attributed to a developement outside Germany altogether - Poland & the Nordic countries.
Old Frisian was an entirely different language to modern Frisian.The people who lived in Frisia & probably most of Lower Saxony were invaded by various peoples.Firstly by a Norse / Norwegian people - who gave them their name from Yngvi Freyr ancestor of the ingaevones.The Frisians are predominantly R1b-U106, this is not an original Norwegian haplogroup, it was absorbed by their genetic make-up from this North Atlantic contact zone.The Frisian people did not originate from Norway, but an elite conquered them.They were then Conquered by Saxons or aligned with them to resist Frankish advances.The Franks at that time were probably very much of similar genetic origin to Frisians, anyway.Saxons haplogroup is said to be I-M253 (I1) but probably was quite mixed as the Saxons were a confederation of different tribes of different ethnic / genetic backgrounds.I-M253 is high in Denmark & especially, Sweden.The I-M253 in Frisia is from this association.The Frisian language absorbed Norse & then Saxon influences.Nobody really nows what the origin language of these Rb1-U106 was.The Germanic expansion is attested to be from around 2nd century BC.Rb1-U106 people were there long before they assimilated with with a developing Germanic speaking people.
The Franks (wouldn't have been known by that name then) who were very probably Rb1-U106 predominantly are known to be associated with the Batavi who entered the Rhine area around 50 BC.These pre-Frankish people association with this Chatti / Irminonic tribe (Elbe Germanic - a language developed by mixing different influences from different tribes that came into contact) Germanised their language.This would be in an apparently different way to the Frisians who had no contact with the Batavi or other Irminonic tribes.
The early Belgic tribes are associated with Rb1-U152 associated with the Helvetti / La Tene culture.This would have brought another genetic / cultural group into the area.They brought the Italo-Romance gaulish language with them.The Helvetti are said to have tribal links to the Teutones & Cimbri.It has been said that these tribes were not originally Germanic as well.The Franks eventually conquered many of these Belgic tribes who advanced up the Rhine over a few centuries.The Belgae tribes possibly merged with many advancing Irminonic (or pre-Irminonic tribes) thus no longer being a purely Italo-Roman speaking people before they came into contact with the Franks.The Franks divided into dukedomes by dividing the territory they gained between the various sons of these dukes.They eventually formed a Holy Roman Empire in similarity to the old Roman Empire but absorbing the Germanic peoples also by assimilating with the Belgic Gallic / Italo-Roman people who had continued a Roman style of governorship even after the retreat of the Romans to Rome etc.
The Pre-Wallonians seem to been a tribe / tribes who resisted the Franks or Dutch (Flemish) & maintained a more pure Gaulish / Belgic / Italo-Romance heritage.They were the people who started the Industrial Revolution on the continent.They probably absorbed the most of their Germanic / Flemish / Dutch genetics in the 17th century employing farmers from these areas in industrial jobs because they were short of labour as Industrialisation quickly advanced, especially in the areas closest to Flanders.

MOESAN
10-02-17, 15:28
@Paul Archer
What is the 'Italo-Romance gaulish' you speak of here??? First time I hear something like this! Do you have some idea about Gaulish tongue?
Germanics (for I think) did not form in Central/North Scandinavia, not more in Poland (or not only in Poland) - the most logical and parcimonious way to see it, considering timing, archeology and so on, is a centrum around Denmark including extreme Northern Europe and Southern Scandinavia -
Frisians of the Netherlands are among the most 'nordiclike' if not "pure" (it implies more than the too common "blond high statured" guys!) pop along with some regions of Scandinavia (not all of them) and it's surely not a nothern demic influence they had but rather a northern demic dominance - it's true nothing tell us there is a direct link between R-U106 and 'nordic' likeness,- but if R-U106 stayed a long time somewhere South the Baltic it could make sense - the first Scandinavians and also the first Frisians were rather an unlevel mix of WHG (+ some EHG) descendants and of EEF farmers, whatever the local drifts, before some new types can have arrived pushed by late BBs of Germany - dolichomorph 'nordic' types, not easily detected by long-duration accumulated auDNA, but easily distinctive between pops at a smaller time scale, came from East at first, not from North Europa as believed by somones.
that said, yes I think Franks of the invasions were already a mix between northern well formed Germanics and diverse tribes of Belgium; the so called 'kymric' (ridiculous term) or Coon 'Iron Age Celtic type' (a mean in fact, but interesting in itself) was strong among them, confirming the absorbtion of Celtic elements - it is not to say their apparently dominant Y-U106 had been taken from these Celts or others.
The fact some Scandinavians came southwards into the Continent does not mean they found strangers in their immediate South; it's surely more a question of climate change than of a planned invasion -
I prefer to wait more valuable and weightable facts to forge a steady opinion. As a whole the relative weakness of Northeastern France concerning U106 even compared to Y-I1, spite the fact its origin seems well linked to Germanics influence, does not plaid for a strong presence among Belgae of any sort before the Geat Invasions.
No problem with any opinion, I make my (to date) point, you make yours, life is nice.

Maciamo
10-02-17, 16:41
Paul Archer, R1b-U106 is the best candidate as a Proto-Germanic paternal lineage considering that the Centum branch of Proto-Indo-European language speakers are associated with R1b-L51. If you classify U106 as Celtic alongside the P312 branch (L21, U152, DF27), then there is no other good Proto-Germanic lineage. I1 is pre-Indo-European. R1a is divided in several branches (L664, Z284, M458) among Germanic people. Besides ancient DNA confirmed that R1b-U106 was present in Scandinavia by the Nordic Bronze Age, long before Hallstatt.

Sile
11-02-17, 01:10
The Walloon name comes from the German 'Walhaz' which means foreigner to german speakers.Originally, anyway, they don't seem to have decended from Germanic tribes.Even Germanic tribes are at least partly Gallic in origin anyway, especially in that area (R1b-U152).The 'so called' Germanic R1b-U106 (another haplogroup that is present in Wallonia) is thought to have now originated from the Halstatt area.Halstatt culture is associated with Celts (or were the elite within that culture anyway).Most Celtic / Gaulish etc. cultures are said to have developed from Halstatt or La Tene cultures.R1b-U106 haplogroup is now mostly associated with Nord-West Block, probably arriving from a journey up the Rhine (although there is evidence it being associated with Unetice culture as well which also has associations with the celts, which spread from Bohemia (czech), which is near Halstatt anyway.Unetice culture also spread to most of Germany & Western Poland.The Germani could have originally been more of a Celtic / Gallic culture before the Völkerwanderung.Nord-west block is generally described as a sort of intermediate area between Celtic & Germanic cultures.

Halstatt is associated with Celtic/gallic-illyrian-venetic peoples ......not in equal proportions

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6E7XAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=hallstatt+and+venetic&source=bl&ots=wp1OLvUdA2&sig=fMG87PMdslHYh4PbBn73vpDMmOY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikg4Lb0obSAhUBppQKHYp2BbMQ6AEIVjAI#v=on epage&q=hallstatt%20and%20venetic&f=false

Sile
11-02-17, 01:18
I personally don't regard R1b-U106 to be a Germanic haplogroup.It is now concentrated in the Nord-West Block region, especially Frisia.It also has links with Halstatt culture or Unetice culture (which originated in Bohemia - not a Germanic ethnic / cultural / genetic group at that time, although absorbed Germanic influences later on).The Germanics came from the Völkerwander expansion from the North East.The goths which have links with Sweden but are mostly associated with Western Poland.Gothic is attested to be the first Germanic language to have any sizable texts.Gothic is an Eastern Germanic Language (a language zone that is equivalent to todays Poland).The modern Germanic languages origins can be mostly attributed to a developement outside Germany altogether - Poland & the Nordic countries.
Old Frisian was an entirely different language to modern Frisian.The people who lived in Frisia & probably most of Lower Saxony were invaded by various peoples.Firstly by a Norse / Norwegian people - who gave them their name from Yngvi Freyr ancestor of the ingaevones.The Frisians are predominantly R1b-U106, this is not an original Norwegian haplogroup, it was absorbed by their genetic make-up from this North Atlantic contact zone.The Frisian people did not originate from Norway, but an elite conquered them.They were then Conquered by Saxons or aligned with them to resist Frankish advances.The Franks at that time were probably very much of similar genetic origin to Frisians, anyway.Saxons haplogroup is said to be I-M253 (I1) but probably was quite mixed as the Saxons were a confederation of different tribes of different ethnic / genetic backgrounds.I-M253 is high in Denmark & especially, Sweden.The I-M253 in Frisia is from this association.The Frisian language absorbed Norse & then Saxon influences.Nobody really nows what the origin language of these Rb1-U106 was.The Germanic expansion is attested to be from around 2nd century BC.Rb1-U106 people were there long before they assimilated with with a developing Germanic speaking people.
The Franks (wouldn't have been known by that name then) who were very probably Rb1-U106 predominantly are known to be associated with the Batavi who entered the Rhine area around 50 BC.These pre-Frankish people association with this Chatti / Irminonic tribe (Elbe Germanic - a language developed by mixing different influences from different tribes that came into contact) Germanised their language.This would be in an apparently different way to the Frisians who had no contact with the Batavi or other Irminonic tribes.
The early Belgic tribes are associated with Rb1-U152 associated with the Helvetti / La Tene culture.This would have brought another genetic / cultural group into the area.They brought the Italo-Romance gaulish language with them.The Helvetti are said to have tribal links to the Teutones & Cimbri.It has been said that these tribes were not originally Germanic as well.The Franks eventually conquered many of these Belgic tribes who advanced up the Rhine over a few centuries.The Belgae tribes possibly merged with many advancing Irminonic (or pre-Irminonic tribes) thus no longer being a purely Italo-Roman speaking people before they came into contact with the Franks.The Franks divided into dukedomes by dividing the territory they gained between the various sons of these dukes.They eventually formed a Holy Roman Empire in similarity to the old Roman Empire but absorbing the Germanic peoples also by assimilating with the Belgic Gallic / Italo-Roman people who had continued a Roman style of governorship even after the retreat of the Romans to Rome etc.
The Pre-Wallonians seem to been a tribe / tribes who resisted the Franks or Dutch (Flemish) & maintained a more pure Gaulish / Belgic / Italo-Romance heritage.They were the people who started the Industrial Revolution on the continent.They probably absorbed the most of their Germanic / Flemish / Dutch genetics in the 17th century employing farmers from these areas in industrial jobs because they were short of labour as Industrialisation quickly advanced, especially in the areas closest to Flanders.

I do not believe their is any genetic subclade link ( except R1b ) between La Tene and Halstatt except that they are both Gallic-celts .............the halstatt people did not go to LaTene after Halstatt was established.

MOESAN
12-02-17, 20:35
are you totally sure that it is because of germanic influence, that c remained k? also i heard that unlike in french the h's are still pronounced in walloon.is this also because of germanic influence? if you or anybody else knows, id be very curious to know. if possible, could you also write the answer to my mail folmer6adhotmail.com

it's just a detail - in East Brittany the 'H-' was still aspired in the 20th Century and I'm almost sure it was the same in Normand dialects - I would surprised it would not be the case for Picard dialect - I 'll try to find some clues about this, concerning Picard, and Lorrain - for Walloon Maciamo knows surely more than me.

Tchek
13-02-17, 13:01
it's just a detail - in East Brittany the 'H-' was still aspired in the 20th Century and I'm almost sure it was the same in Normand dialects - I would surprised it would not be the case for Picard dialect - I 'll try to find some clues about this, concerning Picard, and Lorrain - for Walloon Maciamo knows surely more than me.

In the Liège area there used to be definitely that hard "H" pronounced sometimes.

gandalf
29-08-17, 01:40
I am not a specialist in ethnology nor linguistics , but a theory that some of you could know , is that people don't change their language for another one , they can use and adapt foreign languages though , as an evolution . So if you look at the language map of western Europe , you can see that the so-called "celtic" language correlate with the atlantic megalith remains , and is very far away from the actual romance languages , from spanish to french .
So to explain this oddity , the mainstream explanation is that the celtic people adopted the language of the nation conquerors ...
In fact I tend to think that:
1 ) the latin was nowhere a spoken language but purely written for administration needs and also as a common language for tribes of Italy .
2 ) tribes who lives in western europe ( except atlantic coast ) spoke languages quite close to each other , and that evolved to the actual languages with borrows from several like latin , germanic etc , and latin was anyway close to gaulish languages .
So it is only at the border of this romance speaking area that some language could have replace other , like in Nederlands , Belgium .
So Wallons are not latinized germans , they are essentially of gaulish origins , conquered by Franks certainly , who shift their language to romance for political reason ; to rule all Gaul and create the Frankreich .
A lot of Franks kept their germanic , those who stayed in their native lowland : Nederland , Flanders , Frankish Rhine und Mosel , etc .

Joey D
31-08-17, 11:19
An interesting thought.

As a general rule, in this part of the world, in modern times, you do not see Germanising of romance language speakers, usually the reverse. Let us not forget that low Franconian once extended into the far North-West reaches of France, well into the 20th century, and that low Franconian almost certainly extended into the Duchy of Luxembourg.

These days, it's the romance language creeping further North into formerly Dutch-speaking parts of Belgium.

I would explain the remnant Germanic words in Walloon as being due to the taalgrens between romance and germanic languages as being at its most Northernmost where the Walloons meet the Flemish.

Maciamo
02-09-17, 08:41
An interesting thought.

As a general rule, in this part of the world, in modern times, you do not see Germanising of romance language speakers, usually the reverse. Let us not forget that low Franconian once extended into the far North-West reaches of France, well into the 20th century, and that low Franconian almost certainly extended into the Duchy of Luxembourg.

These days, it's the romance language creeping further North into formerly Dutch-speaking parts of Belgium.

I would explain the remnant Germanic words in Walloon as being due to the taalgrens between romance and germanic languages as being at its most Northernmost where the Walloons meet the Flemish.

Germanic words in Walloon are not more common close to the Dutch-speaking area. I think that the introgression happened during the Late Middle Ages, when both Franconian and Old French were spoken in Wallonia. The region was a real linguistic patchwork at the time, with some villages speaking Franconian and others French. The latter won eventually, in great part because it was the language of the nobility and government.

Sennevini
02-09-17, 14:08
I always found it interesting that Dutch is the only Germanic language in which (except for the northeast) plosives are not aspirated (like in English, German etc.).

MOESAN
03-09-17, 01:01
I am not a specialist in ethnology nor linguistics , but a theory that some of you could know , is that people don't change their language for another one , they can use and adapt foreign languages though , as an evolution .

Surely people can change their language for another one! But if a man has already some difficulty to become bilingual in his life, a complete pop ask for more time, and always through a stage of bilinguism (gaulish seemingly took between 4 and 8 centuries to completely disappear under latin/romance pressure. What arrives the most of the time is adaptation of the phonetic and sometime of the syntax by the substratum input.
But I think someones confuse possible internal Germanic substrata influences and cultural external influences as loanwords which can be later borrowed from Germanic languages.

Sennevini
03-09-17, 16:54
People differ in how easy they take on a new language, if they do they often keep their way of pronunciation. If someone has difficulties changing their language to the new dominant one, surely his children will learn it easily.

Joey D
04-09-17, 08:53
Germanic words in Walloon are not more common close to the Dutch-speaking area. I think that the introgression happened during the Late Middle Ages, when both Franconian and Old French were spoken in Wallonia. The region was a real linguistic patchwork at the time, with some villages speaking Franconian and others French. The latter won eventually, in great part because it was the language of the nobility and government.

That certainly makes sense, and also is consistent with just how far North the taalgraans is in that region, which continues to creep North even today - in other words, the Walloons may have been one of the last Germanic groups to be fully Romanticised.

At a guess (and this is purely my very own speculation), one reason why a higher percentage of Germanic words is not even more evident the closer you get to the taalgrens is because of the Brussels effect, i.e. large numbers of French speakers pulled into this administrative hub who have not experienced a process of latinisation in recent generations..

Joey D
04-09-17, 08:56
People differ in how easy they take on a new language, if they do they often keep their way of pronunciation. If someone has difficulties changing their language to the new dominant one, surely his children will learn it easily.

In this respect, your people are amongst the most multi-lingual in all of Europe. in the context of Belgie, the Flemish are far more likely to be able to speak French than the Walloons are able to speak Dutch (as a general rule).

That being the case, little wonder that the taalgrens continues its slow inexorable march Northwards.

Tchek
05-09-17, 00:18
In this respect, your people are amongst the most multi-lingual in all of Europe. in the context of Belgie, the Flemish are far more likely to be able to speak French than the Walloons are able to speak Dutch (as a general rule).

That being the case, little wonder that the taalgrens continues its slow inexorable march Northwards.

The "taalgrens" is not pushing northwards in Belgium at all, nor French is "creeping" in Flanders.

Joey D
05-09-17, 01:50
The "taalgrens" is not pushing northwards in Belgium at all, nor French is "creeping" in Flanders.

Well, the taalgrens used to go through the extreme North-West of France, well into the 20th century.

Are there many Dutch speakers left in North-West France? I don't know, but if not, or if there are far less there now than one century ago, then I suggest to you that that is equivalent to the taalgrens shifting North.

I note the Dutch wikipedia has this map and this to say about Frans-Vlaanderen:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Frans-Vlaanderen.png/260px-Frans-Vlaanderen.png

Frans-Vlaanderen (lichtrood) en het gedeelte dat tot in de 20e eeuw voornamelijk Nederlandstalig was (donkerrood)


Now my Dutch may not be up to scratch, but it appears to be saying that the dark red zone was Dutch speaking up to the 20th century (intimating that it no longer is).

To me at least, that is indicative of a Northwards movement of the taalgrens.

It is certainly true that the Flemish have become far more protective of their language over the past half century, clearly a stance taken out of necessity given the Northwards march of the taalgrens.

In this article in the Dutch wikipedia: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlands_in_Belgi%C3%AB
we read:

De laatste officiële talentelling in Brussel (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resultaten_van_de_talentelling_per_gemeente_van_he t_Brussels_Hoofdstedelijk_Gewest) dateert van 1947 (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947). (Daarna werden officiële talentellingen onder Vlaamse politieke druk afgeschaft omdat ze vaak onbetrouwbaar werden uitgevoerd en geen argument mochten zijn om het Nederlands verder te 'minoriseren'.) Toen lagen de verhoudingen als 24,24% Nederlandstalig en 70,61% Franstalig. Volgens verschillende bronnen leek het aantal Nederlandstaligen in Brussel in 2010 tussen de 6 en de 8% te liggen.
Een in 2001 (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) gehouden steekproef door de Vrije Universiteit Brussel (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrije_Universiteit_Brussel) naar het gebruik van de thuistaal gaf het volgende resultaat:[bron?] (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bronvermelding#Bron_gevraagd)


NL: 9%
NL & FR: 11%
FR: 50%
FR & Anderstalig: 10%
Anderstalig: 20%

In 2013 is er een kleine verschuiving te zien van deze percentages:[1] (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlands_in_Belgi%C3%AB#cite_note-1)


NL: 5%
NL & FR: 17%
FR: 38%
FR & Anderstalig: 23%
Anderstalig: 17%

De kennis van het Nederlands is derhalve die van de derde taal geworden...

Maciamo
05-09-17, 07:54
There was a sharp shift fro Dutch to French in the Nord department of France over the last 100 years. This map shows the evolution of the speakers of each language from 1874 to 1972 in the arrondissement of Dunkirk. Dark green is Dutch speaking only. Light green is bilingual with a Dutch majority. Orange is bilingual with a French majority. And reddish brown is French-speaking only. Most of it was Dutch speaking in the late 19th century but it is now overwhelmingly French speaking.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/FlamandArrondissementDunkerque.PNG


This map shows the longer term evolution since Frankish times. Dutch was spoken over most of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, but receded to the corner between Dunkirk and Hazbroek in the 20th century.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Kaartfransvlaanderen.jpg

Tchek
05-09-17, 11:09
All the examples you showed above is in France not in Belgium.

In Belgium, the Dutch-speakers are progressively more and more dominant, politically, economically, demographically for 40 years now; all the historical French-speaking minorities of Flemish cities (Antwerp, Ghent...) are gone, Francophones were kicked out of Leuven university, and more recently were pushed away from the army. I don't think the Dutch language ever enjoyed such a dominant position ever in History in the area.

Maybe there is a push from France to Flanders I don't know (I doubt it, France has zero political power in Belgium); but there is no push of Wallonia into Flanders at all.

Joey D
05-09-17, 15:00
All the examples you showed above is in France not in Belgium.

In Belgium, the Dutch-speakers are progressively more and more dominant, politically, economically, demographically for 40 years now; all the historical French-speaking minorities of Flemish cities (Antwerp, Ghent...) are gone, Francophones were kicked out of Leuven university, and more recently were pushed away from the army. I don't think the Dutch language ever enjoyed such a dominant position ever in History in the area.

Maybe there is a push from France to Flanders I don't know (I doubt it, France has zero political power in Belgium); but there is no push of Wallonia into Flanders at all.

I think we would all accept that there has been a major move to protect and strengthen Dutch in the Dutch speaking parts of Belgium, arguably out of necessity because of the Northwards movement of the taalgrens and in the context of what we are talking about, what happened in far North-West France is relevant).

In terms of Belgium itself, I put this to you. Not too long ago, Brussels would have been viewed as a bilingual island in Dutch speaking territory. But for decades now, the area immediately South of Brussels has become more French-speaking, effectively joining Brussels to the French speaking part of Belgium.

If people have a different view on this, I'm genuinely interested in hearing it.

I should add, I come to this discussion as a neutral. I have a great deal of respect for French and Dutch people and language (including the Belgians of course, in fact, here in Australia, we feel we have a very special relationship with the people of Belgium). I am merely reporting what I understood the situation to be (admittedly it's some time since I've taken a close look at the subject).

It's about 20 years ago since I last visited Belgium. I stayed with a lovely couple in Brugge and at that time they expressed a lot of frustration at the language situation, and the encroachment of French.

If that has since slowed down, I will be the first to applaud.

Tchek
06-09-17, 14:20
I think we would all accept that there has been a major move to protect and strengthen Dutch in the Dutch speaking parts of Belgium, arguably out of necessity because of the Northwards movement of the taalgrens and in the context of what we are talking about, what happened in far North-West France is relevant).

In terms of Belgium itself, I put this to you. Not too long ago, Brussels would have been viewed as a bilingual island in Dutch speaking territory. But for decades now, the area immediately South of Brussels has become more French-speaking, effectively joining Brussels to the French speaking part of Belgium.

If people have a different view on this, I'm genuinely interested in hearing it.

I should add, I come to this discussion as a neutral. I have a great deal of respect for French and Dutch people and language (including the Belgians of course, in fact, here in Australia, we feel we have a very special relationship with the people of Belgium). I am merely reporting what I understood the situation to be (admittedly it's some time since I've taken a close look at the subject).

It's about 20 years ago since I last visited Belgium. I stayed with a lovely couple in Brugge and at that time they expressed a lot of frustration at the language situation, and the encroachment of French.

If that has since slowed down, I will be the first to applaud.
The problem is that the Flemish are far far more vocal about the situation and the international press is very flemish-centered (the British press took sides, helped with their traditional francophobia). Paul Belien who is a far right Flemish nationalist journalist, is a regular writer in the Telegraph and the Dailymail when Belgium is mentionned.
When BBC World made a little documentary about the Belgian crisis few years ago, they summoned... Filip Dewinter, the leader of the Vlaams Belang (far-right Flemish nationalists) to explain the situation.
Those people are sollicitated in the international mainstream medias as if they were normal, objective observers. If you want to talk about race relations, you don't ask the KKK (or Nation of Islam or whatever) for objective answers.

No wonder a lot of people around the world think the Flemish are little snowflakes threatened by some malevolent Walloon menace who lurks or "creeps in" , that's the idea Flemish nationalists try hard to push. Fact is that people move very little in Belgium. It's one of the country with the least mobile people in Europe, so no one is invading anyone within the country. People tend to die in the city they were born.

Now it doesn't mean there are no valid concerns. Belgium is not effective as it is and it doesn't allow the regions any freedom of decisions, Brussels is a mess. Politics in Wallonia is a complete mess because of stupid politicians. Obv, it's a easy for a Flemish to think "we don't talk anymore and we don't know what's up over there".
I don't know why you think there is a northward movement of the "taalgrens" in Belgium, it's actually a very stable border.

Francophones (or walloons) are not invaders, they are as much the historical inhabitants of the area as any Dutch-speakers, for centuries.

Joey D
06-09-17, 23:44
I'm certainly not viewing walloons as invaders, nor am I suggesting that the Flemish have not fought back, but they would have fought back because the taalgrens had been moving northwards for over 100 years. They most definitely would have had legitimate concerns at one point.

Maciamo
07-09-17, 16:10
Fact is that people move very little in Belgium. It's one of the country with the least mobile people in Europe, so no one is invading anyone within the country. People tend to die in the city they were born.

That's a good point. The only regular migration within Belgium is toward Brussels. That's why Brussels has become increasingly French speaking. As central Brussels was taken over by poor (and mostly Muslim) immigrants, wealthier Brusselers moved progressively away from the centre toward the suburbs, just like in many American cities. When the suburbs within the boundaries of Brussels became full, they started moving into the adjacent municipalities in Flanders. In some cases, like Kraainem and Wezenbeek-Oppem, these municipalities have become predominantly French speaking too over the last 50 years, but that's just because the population of Brussels has been growing and suburbs needed to expand. I also know many Flemings who moved to Wallonia, but they are more dispersed and normally adopt French as they are cut off completely from Flanders. Among those I know, the Flemish parents who moved to Wallonia didn't even bother speaking (much) Dutch with their kids, so that the second generation is native French speaking with Dutch as a second language learned most at school. Even in Flanders itself, many upper-middle to upper class Flemings speak French at home.

MOESAN
09-09-17, 23:16
It was the dominant opinion among linguists, even if the palatalisation/non-palatalisation is as well an "ethnic"/stratum question as an affiliation to a peculiar language family. ATW it really seems linked to peopling history...

Chris&Phil
27-05-18, 16:57
Oddly enough, the Walloon word for potato (krompir) is related to many central European languages (identical in Slovene, krumpir in Serbo-Croat, krumpli in Hungarian, crumpenă in Romanian). Apparently it derives from the German Grundbirne ("ground pear") and the term spread around the Austrian empire.

I've always learned that this typically Serbo-Croat word "krompir" originated in this area (Hainaut & Namur) during the very first years of the 18th century. The French king Louis de bourbon the XIVth had enrolled some "Cravate" regiment (the tie was invented in Croatia, Hrvatska in their own language) during the war along the Danube against the army of the duke of Marlborough.
my thoughts for a penny.

Philippe

Georges
30-09-20, 02:25
aiwe/ ADDENDA: brittonic celtic afon /avon/, aven << abona = river (I-E root akw-, ap- ?)
There are two words:
1. "aiwe", from Latin "aqua";
2. the P-Celtic word.


spitter : to spatter, to splatter, to splash
From "ex"+"pede(m)". Several words of the same family: "piter", "copiter". The first meaning of "spiter" is "to kick".

There are, indeed, LOTS of Germanic words in Walloon. And the fact that the adjective is normally before the noun. One of the 3 types of Genitive is also common with English and Flemish. The "viebes spitron" are like in Flemish, German, and Lombard. Also the use of the present continuous, like in English. Some notions are to be translated word for word from the Germanic languages, ex.: "dji vs voe volt" = "'k zie u gaarne". From all the Romance laguages, Walloon is indeed the one where the Germanic adstrate is the largest.


Actually, Walloon is a very uneven language. I was born near Mons and our dialect there is clearly Picard-related. I have also spent some time in Liege and found it very difficult to understand their dialect, sometimes it was chinese to me.

First, Picard is NOT Walloon. Now, as for the Lidjeu dialect, once you know for what stands each /h/, it's easy. In fact, "h", "sch", "xh", and "jh" are all pronounced the same there. Sometimes they create homophones ("schaper", to save VS "haper", to steal/grab). Now half of their /:/ are Latin "-osus" and "-orem"; the other half are "e".

There are Walloon features that can be found in other Romance languages, such as:
- the coordination conjunctions "si" & "yet", meaning "and", both also in Romanian;
- double present perfect, also in Breton and Romanian;
- no concording of the tenses ("si dj' reu sepou, dji n' reu nn mnou");
- verb "to have" for the present perfect, always, like is Spanish ("dji m' a lav, il a morou");
- a substantivation of the infinitive, similar to the one in Romanian;
- indefinite pronouns like in Romansh ("sacw, sak, sawou...");
- a combination of the singural and plural ("dj' avans rcin, dj' ans rcin");
- short forms: avans=ans, avoz=oz, like in Catalan;
- plural feminine adjectives ending in "-s": "des spesss covietes" etc.

There are also some of the consonants mutations of the Celtic, which are also found in some Italian dialects.

There are still grammar features in Walloon that puzzle me as to their origins:
1. The use of the infinitive in a sentence, after coordination. Ex.: "Vaici on cze et mougn walon" ("Here we eat Walloon, and we speak Walloon"); "Dji tchante et esse bea" ("I sing and am beautiful").
2. The use of the Semitic genitive ("li live li Djr, l'Evandjle Sint-Djhan").