French Linguistics in "The Great Flame of France"

I haven't replied yet to this thread, but i think, like many others, that there won't be so many changes in the french (which was only one of the languages spoken in "France" at that time). The only question is knowing WHO will speak it. As Paris is the capital of France, it seems quite obvious that it will be its language who will eventually be predominant.

Perhaps you can imagine a TL where as it is larger, France isn't so centralized and therefore French won't be used everywhere (like Spain with Basque and Catalan and Galician) and that the situation could stabilize otherwise.

Anyway, the real strong decline of regional languages is after the Revolution, when regional languages were considered as reactionnary, backward. This led to its progressive systematical destruction by the power (but only a century later with Jules Ferry).

You can't modify the structure of the language spoken with your POD.
Either you have to go much later (making France to recognize and promote regional language with a Revolution POD), or much earlier (more or less at the epoch of Franks)

As said by many linguists and proven since many years, the myth of "francien", the dialect of Paris which eventually became THE french, is wrong and outdated. No matter where the capital is, Paris, Boulogne or Zanzibar; the standard french was elaborated from the french (and other gallo-roman languages) dialects with a major importance for the economical and cultural centers. OTL, it was mainly the Norman-Picard and the Tourangeau; ITTL it could be with a more important part of Lorrain and Wallon, with main influence in the vocabulary (economical critically) from Rheinlander and Flemish.

For the decline of non-french languages and french dialects, its far more recents, final XIX and beggining of XX (traditionally with the WW1 at the end). Of course, among the elites, classical french was used since XV in all the territory (making the standard french quite stable at the XVII), but the popular languages and dialects still existed, with a certain vitality until the end of XIX.
 
Pronounciations are superficial changes, that doesn't change the grammatical and lexical base.

In some cases, yes - but changes in the phonological system could affect some areas of the morphology. If the OTL phonetic (not phonemic) distinction of French between short and long vowels were extended to a phonemic distinction, for example, then the morphological system - as well as a good portion of the lexicon - would have to be somewhat adjusted to take it into account.

Again, it's not that deep, as these times exists in french but have a more litterature use. It's a possibility tough, but i don't see how it could happen in the cadre of this TL.

The trick here is essentially keeping the Middle/Classical French system as normal. That means transforming the "literary" tenses from its current OTL use as being in academic or literary contexts and use it in TTL as one where it can be used for day-to-day conversation - the latter being the situation in Spanish, more so in Latin America.

Would be quite hard to do on a great scale. French litterature (medieval and Renaissance) took the use to copy latin usages, that doesn't have these compuding style. But why not, with a huge germanic influence that's the TL doesn't show us, for now.

Yeah, but that's using written language - written language tends to be more conservative than spoken language. If a spoken language had German-style compounding of words, it would take a while for the written language to catch up but it can be done.
 
Political center : How do you will manage that? After all, Paris was one of the major towns of western Europe, only comparable to italian cities. It was a demographic, an economical, an intellectual (universities), a religious center that I don't see how the monarchy would change the place without making sort of medieval/Renaissance Versailles, with the consequences that would make.

True. But then again, there's the (modern) situation in Québec. Montréal is the commercial/economic, demographic, intellectual, and cultural centre of the province, yet Québec City (which has less people than Montréal) is the political and (traditionally) the religious centre. Québec City used to be the intellectual centre historically (indeed, up until WW2 the dialect of Québec City was considered to be the standard pronunciation for French in its formal register, due to multiple factors but one of them being that the clergy spoke the Québec City dialect as the Archbishopric was located in Québec City), but that eventually shifted westwards as Montréal's stature ascended. So, it could be possible to have a capital city that is not the economic centre - which opens up possibilites for alternatives to Paris. Dijon, for example.
 
For the decline of non-french languages and french dialects, its far more recents, final XIX and beggining of XX (traditionally with the WW1 at the end). Of course, among the elites, classical french was used since XV in all the territory (making the standard french quite stable at the XVII), but the popular languages and dialects still existed, with a certain vitality until the end of XIX.

For the non-french languages, from what i know, the decline was more post WWII. In Alsace, my grandparents still speak Alsatian more easily than French, and my parents speak French and Alsatian with equal fluency. The influence of television, more important population movement (for work or holidays) and longuer education is not to underestimate.
 
For the decline of non-french languages and french dialects, its far more recents, final XIX and beggining of XX (traditionally with the WW1 at the end). Of course, among the elites, classical french was used since XV in all the territory (making the standard french quite stable at the XVII), but the popular languages and dialects still existed, with a certain vitality until the end of XIX.

It's exactly what i said.
But this decline organized in the late XIX and after the WWI came from the revolution, even if it was only done nearly 100 years after. When i spoke of the revolution, i didn't speak of the event of the decline, but of the reasons that led to this. Like most of the ideals of the revolution, it's only during the IIIrd republic that they were really done.

So if you want to make a POD for these languages (if you want them being alive), you have to go back to the revolution or even before.

ITTL it could be with a more important part of Lorrain and Wallon, with main influence in the vocabulary (economical critically) from Rheinlander and Flemish.
Yes, but on the other hand it could divide even more France between north and south. (and therefore increasing the oïl/òc division)
 
In some cases, yes - but changes in the phonological system could affect some areas of the morphology. If the OTL phonetic (not phonemic) distinction of French between short and long vowels were extended to a phonemic distinction, for example, then the morphological system - as well as a good portion of the lexicon - would have to be somewhat adjusted to take it into account.
Indeed, this is a possibility. But by lexical base, i was talking -by exemple - on the formation of the words from gallo-roman, and the rules of adoption of foreign words. Not phonology nor morphology. Beware, it would need many changes for change morphology, but it's indeed an interesting possibility.

Dan1988;4727808The trick here is essentially keeping the Middle/Classical French system as normal. [I said:
That[/I] means transforming the "literary" tenses from its current OTL use as being in academic or literary contexts and use it in TTL as one where it can be used for day-to-day conversation - the latter being the situation in Spanish, more so in Latin America.
Why not, but the french cultural elites have already began to institutionlize the french, because of the linguistic disparity of the kingdom. Of course, Renaissance increased greatly this tendance, and by modifying French Renaissance, who knows?

Yeah, but that's using written language - written language tends to be more conservative than spoken language. If a spoken language had German-style compounding of words, it would take a while for the written language to catch up but it can be done.
Except that i don't see how, outside written language, german compouding of words could be adopted in a day-to-day use. Have you some ideas or clues about it?

True. But then again, there's the (modern) situation in Québec. Montréal is the commercial/economic, demographic, intellectual, and cultural centre of the province, yet Québec City (which has less people than Montréal) is the political and (traditionally) the religious centre. Québec City used to be the intellectual centre historically (indeed, up until WW2 the dialect of Québec City was considered to be the standard pronunciation for French in its formal register, due to multiple factors but one of them being that the clergy spoke the Québec City dialect as the Archbishopric was located in Québec City), but that eventually shifted westwards as Montréal's stature ascended. So, it could be possible to have a capital city that is not the economic centre - which opens up possibilites for alternatives to Paris. Dijon, for example.
Except we're talking about the end of Middle-Ages here. If Québec could rivalize with Montréal économically and comercially (without beating it and having a secondary role) and critically having an historical importance for the development of québécois culture, it's not the case with Dijon which can't rivalize with Paris at all at these times, demographically, economically, culturally. The "great" Dijon was issued from the rise of Bourgogne, likely butterflied here.

For the non-french languages, from what i know, the decline was more post WWII. In Alsace, my grandparents still speak Alsatian more easily than French, and my parents speak French and Alsatian with equal fluency. The influence of television, more important population movement (for work or holidays) and longuer education is not to underestimate.
By decline, i meant not the death of a language, but the moment where it become more convenient to use french and not alsacien/occitan/breton. By the time where the cultural production became slower, poorer. It correspond grosso modo (with the local differences, Alsace having been part of Germany for 45 years) to the end of XIX, beggining of XX.
 
Great discussion!
LSCatilina said:
As said by many linguists and proven since many years, the myth of "francien", the dialect of Paris which eventually became THE french, is wrong and outdated. No matter where the capital is, Paris, Boulogne or Zanzibar; the standard french was elaborated from the french (and other gallo-roman languages) dialects with a major importance for the economical and cultural centers. OTL, it was mainly the Norman-Picard and the Tourangeau; ITTL it could be with a more important part of Lorrain and Wallon, with main influence in the vocabulary (economical critically) from Rheinlander and Flemish.
Yes, you've convince me that the best thing to do ITTL is have French form with much heavier influence from the Lorrain and Walloon dialects (like you say here) with Germanic vocabulary influence. This will make a very interesting and cool French, in my opinion.
Just to clarify, Paris will certainly remain the French capital ITTL, and be the most important city in France economically and culturally as well. However, France will not be as centralized as OTL, with a political structure more resembling federalism than the unitary nature of the French state that exists in OTL. Other cities will maintain very important places and be cultural centers, think along the lines of Germany today for what I have in mind here. As for the Burgundian territories, I mean that they will remain personal union with the crown but not be as incorporated into the French administrative structure as say, Champagne of île de France, and preserve some autonomy and there own Estates, subject to the Estates-General in Paris, which which will have jurisdiction over the entire kingdom and evolve into something of a Parliament ITTL.
Scipio
 
Great discussion!
As for the Burgundian territories, I mean that they will remain personal union with the crown but not be as incorporated into the French administrative structure as say, Champagne of île de France, and preserve some autonomy and there own Estates, subject to the Estates-General in Paris, which which will have jurisdiction over the entire kingdom and evolve into something of a Parliament ITTL.
Scipio

The problem here is that, technically, Burgundy always was part of the royal domain (as concieved as large as the kingdom) and it wouldn't be accepted by the Paris parliment or even the university.
As you want to make the royal administration accept (even forcelly) an Etats Généraux rising power, it would better to make some compromises. Burgundy would be part of royal administration, but it would be forced to accept a third power within.

And, for the linguistic, it would be far more interesting to make the burgundians part of a royal administration where they could influence the transcriptions or the administration language, making a different classical french; than making both french developping on the previous royal domains (making the changes more hard to do) and a distinct lorrain-jurassien dialect.
 
It's exactly what i said.
But this decline organized in the late XIX and after the WWI came from the revolution, even if it was only done nearly 100 years after. When i spoke of the revolution, i didn't speak of the event of the decline, but of the reasons that led to this. Like most of the ideals of the revolution, it's only during the IIIrd republic that they were really done.

As a counterpoint to that, Canadian French from Québec and points north and west only really got standardized when you got people from different regions living together - hence why it has a distinctive sound during the koinéization process, even in formal registers. Acadian French is somewhat of an exception, as it had different settlement patterns (some of Acadian's characteristics are similar to that found in Poitevin) and was largely left out of the standardization process in Canada proper. In the case of Canada, the sub-regional dialects are still somewhat strong, though since WWII European French has started to have some influence and thus effectively replaced the Québec City dialect as the standard register - and that's without a revolution!

So if you want to make a POD for these languages (if you want them being alive), you have to go back to the revolution or even before.

Not necessarily - you could have a POD during the Middle/Classical period to change French (i.e. the change of /r/ from an alveolar trill to a uvular could be avoided), whether in Europe or *New France or both, or some massive changes in the lexicon and grammar.

Indeed, this is a possibility. But by lexical base, i was talking -by exemple - on the formation of the words from gallo-roman, and the rules of adoption of foreign words. Not phonology nor morphology. Beware, it would need many changes for change morphology, but it's indeed an interesting possibility.

I perfectly understand. What I'm taking for this is a wholistic approach - phonological, morphological, syntactic, and lexical. And with the lexical base, I perfectly understand what you are talking about - due to contact with Aboriginal languages and English, as well as having more input from regional languages transplanted to the New World, Canadian French developed it slightly differently, so to a degree I'm probably talking from a North American POV.

Why not, but the french cultural elites have already began to institutionlize the french, because of the linguistic disparity of the kingdom. Of course, Renaissance increased greatly this tendance, and by modifying French Renaissance, who knows?

Of course. :cool: Particularly since, for those who want to slavishly imitate Latin, (Classical/Ecclesastical) Latin essentially uses synthetic forms for verbs - so that could help in entrenching forms like the passé simple into normal speech, i.e. by prestige borrowing.

Except that i don't see how, outside written language, german compouding of words could be adopted in a day-to-day use. Have you some ideas or clues about it?

Long-term exposure to Germanic languages, perhaps at first, but over time it is used as a quick way of forming new words, i.e. "assurance-maladie".

Except we're talking about the end of Middle-Ages here. If Québec could rivalize with Montréal économically and comercially (without beating it and having a secondary role) and critically having an historical importance for the development of québécois culture, it's not the case with Dijon which can't rivalize with Paris at all at these times, demographically, economically, culturally. The "great" Dijon was issued from the rise of Bourgogne, likely butterflied here.

I only mention Dijon as an example of moving the capital out of Paris using existing cities; it doesn't have to be exclusively that. After all, if the British wanted to after 1763, the provincial capital of Québec French could have been moved to Trois-Rivières (whose mauricien dialect is slightly more archaic than "normal" Canadian French), but they didn't because of the prominence of Québec City (and, to use your words, both Montréal and Québec City have had a historical importatnce in the development of Québécois culture).

The end of the Middle Ages is also important for the development of French in the New World, if France decides to repeat it in TTL, as in OTL Canadian French largely follows from the Middle/Classical period (in preserving archaisms that died out in France, some of which [like moé and toé for standard moi and toi] are considered informal or slang nowadays) as well as from the regional languages that form Canadian French's lexical base, as well as language-internal adaptations such as (for example) "embarquer" and "débarquer" as a modern way of saying "to get into a car" and "to get out of a car", respectively, instead of equivalents in European French. To quote Wiki (from their History of Québec French article, though it is generally true of most Canadian French dialects, including the moribund New England dialects in the US and the Métis French dialects, with the possible exception of Acadian):

Although Quebecisms like moé and toé are today considered substandard slang pronunciations (joual), these were the pronunciations of Early Modern French used by the kings of France, the aristocracy and the common people in many provinces of France. After the French Revolution, the standard pronunciation in France changed to that of the bourgeois class in Paris, but Quebec retained many pronunciations and expressions shared with modern Oïl languages such as Norman, Gallo, Picard, Poitevin and Saintongeais. Speakers of these languages of France predominated among the settlers of New France. Quebec French was also influenced by the French spoken by the King's Daughters who were of the petit-bourgeois class from the Paris area (Île-de-France) and Normandy.

Thus, whereas it was 18th century bourgeois Parisian French that eventually became the national, standardized language of France after the French Revolution, the French of the Ancien Régime kept evolving on its own in Canada. Indeed, the French spoken in Canada is closer idiomatically and phonetically to Belgian French despite their independent evolution and the relatively small number of Belgian immigrants to Quebec (although it is to be remembered that the influence of the Walloon language in Belgium has influenced the language in the same way as the presence of the Oïl speakers in Quebec).

---

Between 1627 and 1663, a few thousand colonists landed in New France, either in Acadia or Canada. The provinces that contributed the most to these migrations were those in the northern and western regions of France. The migrants came from Normandy, Aunis, Perche, Brittany, Paris and Île-de-France, Poitou, Maine, Saintonge, and Anjou, most of those being regions where French was seldom spoken at the time (see article Languages of France). According to Philippe Barbaud (1984), the first colonists were therefore mostly non-francophone except for the immigrants from the Paris area, who most likely spoke a popular form of French; and the following dialect clash (choc des patois) brought about the linguistic unification of Quebec. Among the speakers of Norman, Picard, Aunis, Poitevin, Saintongeais and Breton, many might have understood French as a second language. Gradually, a linguistic transfer towards French occurred, leading to the linguistic unification of all the ethnic groups coming from France.

According to Henri Wittmann (1997) (based on earlier work of his), the overwhelming similarities between the different varieties of Colonial French clearly show that the linguistic unity triggering dialect clash occurred before the colonists exported their French into the colonies of the 17th and 18th centuries; and that the koine-forming dialect clash must have occurred in Paris and other related urban centers of France.

In any event, according to contemporary sources, the Canadians were all speaking French natively by the end of the 17th century, long before France itself outside its large urban centers. [1: For a bibliography on that issue, see Dulong, Gaston (1966). Bibliographie linguistique du Canada français. Paris: Klincksieck, 168 p.]

Hence my suggestion of looking at Canadian French as a counterpoint to what French could have been like.
 
Great discussion!

Yes, you've convince me that the best thing to do ITTL is have French form with much heavier influence from the Lorrain and Walloon dialects (like you say here) with Germanic vocabulary influence. This will make a very interesting and cool French, in my opinion.

Well, as I've already said, Canadian French could interesting to explore for ideas - as would some of the regional languages, like Picard. (Much of the literature on Canadian French linguistics is in French only, but it would still be worth exploring.)
 
I have searched yesterday in my books, and found a map of the estimated % of people speaking french in 1800/1836 and 1865.
And i maintain : the decline began as soon as 1800.


Originally Posted by Inarius
So if you want to make a POD for these languages (if you want them being alive), you have to go back to the revolution or even before.


Not necessarily - you could have a POD during the Middle/Classical period to change French (i.e. the change of /r/ from an alveolar trill to a uvular could be avoided), whether in Europe or *New France or both, or some massive changes in the lexicon and grammar.
I don't say its wrong. I just said that, IMHO, the last possible date for a POD with surviving "minor" languages in France was the French revolution. After that, the damage is done in minds.


About cities, at that epoch the greatest cities were Rouen and Lyon, after Paris. It is often forgotten, but Lyon could have a greater destiny that what it had had, especially if France had moved more to the south than to the east. The Rhône was THE trade corridor at that time.
 
Last edited:
I don't say its wrong. I just said that, IMHO, the last possible date for a POD with surviving "minor" languages in France was the French revolution. After that, the damage is done in minds.

OK, now I see where you are coming from.

After browsing the French Wikipedia, here's their article on the "choc des patois" already mentioned in the clip I got from the English Wiki. Very interesting to read, IMO, particularly as it could be paralleled in the development of French in TTL.
 
I have searched yesterday in my books, and found a map of the estimated % of people speaking french in 1800/1836 and 1865.
These map doesn't show how many people speak the local languages, but how meany speak french. At best, it can confirm that the situation of bilinguism extended itself from XVIII to XIX. And before you said that there are not bilinguism in France, i precise that i talk about institutional french and day-to-day other*


I don't say its wrong. I just said that, IMHO, the last possible date for a POD with surviving "minor" languages in France was the French revolution. After that, the damage is done in minds.
In fact, this is a view propaged by the III republic, that the "souveraineté populaire" wanted and applied the linguistic policy of the Revolution.
This one was, first unapplied and unappliying and the revolutionary propaganda was made in local dialects and languages too, as the archives can proof it. I concede that the French Empire have institutionallized some aspect of these policy, and it would be the hardest to change it, but nothing eventually impossible.


About cities, at that epoch the greatest cities were Rouen and Lyon, after Paris. It is often forgotten, but Lyon could have a greater destiny that what it had had, especially if France had moved more to the south than to the east. The Rhône was THE trade corridor at that time.
It's true : having Lyon a southern pôle of economy and perhaps culture (maybe Renaissance "lugdumnists"?) could give some changes to french. Nevertheless, even with their own prosperity, Paris was a red point in the Kingdom and all northern Europe.
 
Top