How intelligible is Latin with Spanish and other modern Romance languages?

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Indeed. Languages, even Sardinian, change. For instance, English(pre William I) used to sound more like other Germanic languages, Spanish had grammar more like Portuguese, Arabic had syllables now rarely heard outside reciting the Quran, and China ironically spoke a language more like modern Tibetan at one point.

The Great Vowel Shift was more extensive in English in other Germanic languages such as Dutch and German, that contributed as well along with the massive influx of Romance loan words after the Norman conquest. Also English for some reason became a very synthetic language (German and Dutch are highly inflected), which according to most theories was a result of the Norse invasion and settlement of England.

As a native English speaker, I can barely understand Middle English, however I can't understand Old English at all (apart from some words)
 
I can tell you that with French, definitely not. From Cogito ergo sum (Latin) to Je pense, donc je suis (French) is a long distance.

I don't think any of the Romance languages are close to Classical Latin from a grammatical standpoint, but some have kept closer to Latin in terms of vocabulary.



That's not from ancient times but from the Oaths of Strasbourg (842).
Not exactly: "Je suis" ("I am") is close to "sum". "Nous sommes" ("we are") is close to "sumus". "Ils sont" ("they are") is very close to "sunt" (basically change one letter to better pronunciate it in French). And if "cheval" (horse) is actually an evolution of a gallic word, the latin word "equus" is used in French to describe everything related to horses. And what about "aimer" (to love) which quite close to "amare", "cogito" is used in French ("cogiter" which a familiar way to say "to think").
I've studied latin during highschool for 6 years and I can tell you that a fracking lot of French words, even slang terms, come from latin. Take one adjective in French and you have 80% chances to discover it's a twisted latin word.
 
Not exactly: "Je suis" ("I am") is close to "sum". "Nous sommes" ("we are") is close to "sumus". "Ils sont" ("they are") is very close to "sunt" (basically change one letter to better pronunciate it in French). And if "cheval" (horse) is actually an evolution of a gallic word, the latin word "equus" is used in French to describe everything related to horses. And what about "aimer" (to love) which quite close to "amare", "cogito" is used in French ("cogiter" which a familiar way to say "to think").
I've studied latin during highschool for 6 years and I can tell you that a fracking lot of French words, even slang terms, come from latin. Take one adjective in French and you have 80% chances to discover it's a twisted latin word.

All that you have mentioned have very little to do with mutual intelligibility and natural evolution of the language. For instance, "cogiter" and "équin" are what we call cultisms, late borrowings from Latin present in most Western European languages (we have the word equine in English, e.g.). IIRC around 40% of English vocabulary is of French and/or Latin origin and that number by itself doesn't means anything from a linguistic point of view.
 
Umm... /ʃɥi/ is super different from /sʊm/.


But in spoken French most people would say « on est » instead of « nous sommes. »
All that you have mentioned have very little to do with mutual intelligibility and natural evolution of the language. For instance, "cogiter" and "équin" are what we call cultisms, late borrowings from Latin present in most Western European languages (we have the word equine in English, e.g.). IIRC around 40% of English vocabulary is of French and/or Latin origin and that number by itself doesn't means anything from a linguistic point of view.
Still there is some similarities and same "roots" with twisted words which show that a latin word was progressively modified century after century. Again "aimer" and "amare". "Timoré" and "timere". "Pectus" and "Pectoral". "Labeur" et "labourer" with "laborare". "facilement" ("easily") and "facile"
That English uses these words is partly due to French (old and middle french) influence, itself greatly influenced by latin for many words, this influence beginning after 1066 and lasting at least until the early XVth century.
Of course, mainly french words with latin roots were also created in the XIVth-XVIIth centuries period because "French needed to be as noble as latin". But still, take a French/latin Gaffiot dictionnary and will be amazed that almost every latin word has given a French version (adjective, adverb, nouns etc).
But I agree that intelligibility needs more or less the same grammar (or at least similarities). In this regard, French differs a lot from latin (with the total absence of declinations to begin with).
 
All that you have mentioned have very little to do with mutual intelligibility and natural evolution of the language. For instance, "cogiter" and "équin" are what we call cultisms, late borrowings from Latin present in most Western European languages (we have the word equine in English, e.g.). IIRC around 40% of English vocabulary is of French and/or Latin origin and that number by itself doesn't means anything from a linguistic point of view.

I agree with this.

I think most of the discussion is way off and missing the importance of grammar and/or phonetics that are the most appropriate ways to see if there are degrees or levels of mutual intelligibility.

Lexicology and etymologies are not good to seek differences. Since Latin and all romance languages share lexical similarities.

And English and any comparison being made with it not a good sample, period. At least use Romanian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Sardinian, or any Romance language as examples or make an argument.

Sorry for being blunt on this point.
 
I see your point. But you're pretty much affirming that French is a Romance language, I don't think that anyone is denying that. There isn't a single perfect method to analyze languages, but, as a French speaker myself (I consider myself a bilingual - Portuguese and French - and personally I don't consider myself an English speaker not even as a foreign speaker), I personally think that French is the most divergent Romance language from Latin by any standard that I can think of, still, I have to confess that I know very little about Romanian.
 
I see your point. But you're pretty much affirming that French is a Romance language, I don't think that anyone is denying that. There isn't a single perfect method to analyze languages, but, as a French speaker myself (I consider myself a bilingual - Portuguese and French - and personally I don't consider myself an English speaker not even as a foreign speaker), I personally think that French is the most divergent Romance language from Latin by any standard that I can think of, still, I have to confess that I know very little about Romanian.

Sorry I meant several examples that have being posted and indulge in etymology.

I am Spanish speaker myself and I also think French is very divergent. :biggrin:
 
I see your point. But you're pretty much affirming that French is a Romance language, I don't think that anyone is denying that. There isn't a single perfect method to analyze languages, but, as a French speaker myself (I consider myself a bilingual - Portuguese and French - and personally I don't consider myself an English speaker not even as a foreign speaker), I personally think that French is the most divergent Romance language from Latin by any standard that I can think of, still, I have to confess that I know very little about Romanian.

Except for languages of the New World which have mixed various African based tongues such as Igbo, with that of French or Spanish, etc...
 

samcster94

Banned
The Great Vowel Shift was more extensive in English in other Germanic languages such as Dutch and German, that contributed as well along with the massive influx of Romance loan words after the Norman conquest. Also English for some reason became a very synthetic language (German and Dutch are highly inflected), which according to most theories was a result of the Norse invasion and settlement of England.

As a native English speaker, I can barely understand Middle English, however I can't understand Old English at all (apart from some words)
It is more like a mildly Norsified Frisian.
 

samcster94

Banned
I agree with this.

I think most of the discussion is way off and missing the importance of grammar and/or phonetics that are the most appropriate ways to see if there are degrees or levels of mutual intelligibility.

Lexicology and etymologies are not good to seek differences. Since Latin and all romance languages share lexical similarities.

And English and any comparison being made with it not a good sample, period. At least use Romanian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Sardinian, or any Romance language as examples or make an argument.

Sorry for being blunt on this point.
English is too Germanic to really be involved. Even Romanian is a better candidate.
 
Except for languages of the New World which have mixed various African based tongues such as Igbo, with that of French or Spanish, etc...

Yes, the Creoles. But that's a somewhat misleading label. For instance, as a Portuguese speaker, I understand 95% of spoken and written Papiamento (which is ironically often labeled as a Spanish Creole) and, as a French speaker, I can only get a handful of words of spoken or written Haitian Creole.
 
Yes, the Creoles. But that's a somewhat misleading label. For instance, as a Portuguese speaker, I understand 95% of spoken and written Papiamento (which is ironically often labeled as a Spanish Creole) and, as a French speaker, I can only get a handful of words of spoken or written Haitian Creole.

That being said, if you were to listen to Louisianais Kreyol, wound you be able to pick up the phrase ‘mo sé (or zê)’ without knowing? In my experience, it is far divergent from French or Spanish.

Mind you, Créole is a misleading term for the Latin based Kreyol. I prefer Kreyol to differentiate the terms and to better give representation of sounds used in Latin based Kreyol.
 
That being said, if you were to listen to Louisianais Kreyol, wound you be able to pick up the phrase ‘mo sé (or zê)’ without knowing? In my experience, it is far divergent from French or Spanish.

Mind you, Créole is a misleading term for the Latin based Kreyol. I prefer Kreyol to differentiate the terms and to better give representation of sounds used in Latin based Kreyol.
French-based or Spanish-based Creoles aren't actually Romance languages, so they aren't actually very relevant.
 
(Classical) Latin is unintellegible to modern Italian speakers (and Sardinian almost btw), but reading Latin one can relatively easily get the meaning of a great number of words, possibly even a majority. Grammar structures have completely changed however as did the actual meaning of many important words, especially things like the basic verbs needed for everyday life.
Anyways an example, the Lord's Prayer, wher you can also notice that Sardinian has itself a very different syntax from classical Latin:

LATIN
Pater Noster qui es in cælis:
sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum;
fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in cælo, et in terra.
Panem nostrum cotidianum
da nobis hodie;
et dimítte nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus
debitoribus nostris;
et ne nos inducas in tentationem;
sed libera nos a malo.
Amen.


SARDINIAN (Logudurese)

Babbu nostru chi ses in sos chelos,
santificadu siat su nomene tou,
benzat su regnu tou,
siat fatta sa voluntade tua,
comente in chelu gai in terra.
Dae nos su pane nostru 'e cada die,
perdona nos sos pecados nostros,
comente nois perdonamus a sos depidores,
e no nos lessas ruere in sa tentascione,
libera nos dae su male. Amen.

ITALIAN

Padre nostro, che sei nei cieli,
sia santificato il tuo nome,
venga il tuo regno,
sia fatta la tua volontà, come in cielo così in terra.
Dacci oggi il nostro pane quotidiano,
e rimetti a noi i nostri debiti
come noi li rimettiamo ai nostri debitori,
e non ci indurre in tentazione,
ma liberaci dal male.
Amen.

SPANISH

Padre nuestro, que estás en los cielos,
santificado sea tu nombre;
venga a nosotros tu reino;
hágase tu voluntad
así en la tierra como en el cielo.
El pan nuestro de cada día dánosle hoy;
perdona nuestras deudas
como también nosotros perdonamos a nuestros deudores;
y no nos dejes caer en la tentación,
mas líbranos del mal.
 
That being said, if you were to listen to Louisianais Kreyol, wound you be able to pick up the phrase ‘mo sé (or zê)’ without knowing? In my experience, it is far divergent from French or Spanish.

It's "I am ..."? I presume it's the equivalent of "Moi c'est ...", It's bad grammar but understandable to an extent. However, when we sum up all these irregularities in a sentence it can be quite confusing. In my experience, French Creoles are particularly divergent from its European counterpart, probably because French isn't a very regular language in the first place.

French-based or Spanish-based Creoles aren't actually Romance languages, so they aren't actually very relevant.

I don't agree. What makes something a language or not a language? At the end of the day Creoles are languages with their own grammar and vocabulary, terms such as language, dialect, creole, etc. are sociocultural categories without any scientific meaning.
 
Yes, I mean certainly there is no doubt that most of the vocabulary of French is of Latin origin, but the language has gone through such large phonological differences that their pronunciation (and spelling) is often very different. And then there is the grammar, which is simply very different from that of Latin. I have never studied Latin, and while I might be able to guess the meaning of some words in a sentence, without knowing the grammar I can't usually understand what the sentence means.

Regarding Haitian Créole, I find it to be a similar experience: I can figure out individual words but the word order, prepositions, conjugations etc. are different and it's hard to make sense of the whole sentence.
 
Last edited:
It's "I am ..."? I presume it's the equivalent of "Moi c'est ...", It's bad grammar but understandable to an extent. However, when we sum up all these irregularities in a sentence it can be quite confusing. In my experience, French Creoles are particularly divergent from its European counterpart, probably because French isn't a very regular language in the first place.



I don't agree. What makes something a language or not a language? At the end of the day Creoles are languages with their own grammar and vocabulary, terms such as language, dialect, creole, etc. are sociocultural categories without any scientific meaning.

Yes, you did as I would have imagined. Mo zê is equivalent to je suis, typically.

-Nouzòt Popá, ki dan syèl-là
Tokin nom, li sinkifiyè
N’ap spéré pou to
Roiayann arivé, é n’a fé çé
T’olé dan syèl; paréy si la tèr
Donné-nou jordi diplin tou lè jou,
É pardon nouzòt péshé paréy nou pardon,
Lê moun ki fé nouzòt sikombé tentacyòn-là,
Mé délivré nou depi mal.


Vs

-Notre père, qui es aux cieux,
Que ton nom soit sanctifié,
Que ton règne vienne,
Que ta volonté soit faite sur la terre comme au ciel.
Donne-nous aujourd’hui notre pain de ce jour
Pardonne-nous nos offences
Comme nous pardonnons aussi à ceux qui nous on offensés
Et ne nous soumets pas à la tentation,
Mais délivré-nous du mal.
 
I personally think that French is the most divergent Romance language from Latin by any standard that I can think of, still, I have to confess that I know very little about Romanian.

Historically, I think you are right. I remember reading that French started to diverge from Latin about 400 years earlier than Spanish did.
(Classical) Latin is unintellegible to modern Italian speakers (and Sardinian almost btw), but reading Latin one can relatively easily get the meaning of a great number of words, possibly even a majority.

As a fluent, but non native Spanish speaker, I agree in principal. I would, however, add that the ability to understand a significant portion of written Latin seems to be dependent on the modern speaker knowing the context of the Latin material, and then making a concentrated effort to read and decipher it. In short, casual reading of unfamiliar Latin material will probably yield far less comprehension.
 
Last edited:
Historically, I think you are right. I remember reading that French started to diverge from Latin about 400 years earlier than Spanish did.


As a fluent, but non native Spanish speaker, I agree in principal. I would, however, add that the ability to understand a significant portion of written Latin seems to be dependent on the modern speaker knowing the context of the Latin material, and then making a concentrated effort to read and decipher it. In short, casual reading of unfamiliar Latin material will probably yield far less comprehension.
Even if you know the context you can often connect wrong dots or translate words to words with similar meanings but not exactly correct, all in all it would take effort to start to get some on the spot ability to understand, plus we are not even talking about the oral aspect of it we can't exactly test, with all the Latin->Romance consonants shifts(hard Cs, V being /w/, I being /j/ and so on)
 
Top