Walloon, a Germanised Romance language ?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:

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_België
we read:

De laatste officiële talentelling in Brussel dateert van 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 gehouden steekproef door de Vrije Universiteit Brussel naar het gebruik van de thuistaal gaf het volgende resultaat:[bron?]

  • 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]

  • 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...
 
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.

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.

Kaartfransvlaanderen.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 

This thread has been viewed 64596 times.

Back
Top