Talk:Old French

message: In the article you state that 200 words have a Celtic origin and 15% comes from Germanic/Frankish.  Are these figures accurate?  I have read -- I admit in an linguistic book from the 1960s -- that only around 40 words still remain from Gaulish and 400 from Frankish.  Also-  how many words does 15% represent?
:The 200 word claim is repeated in the secion on the French lexicon in "The Romance Languages", (Harris and Vincent, eds.), .  IIRC, the 15% claim (for the total lexicon of Old French) comes from Pope's "From Latin to Modern French," which I don't have in front of me.  Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some populist works put the number much higher, but reputable scholarly works give 150 or so. Delamarre lists 167 words in Old, Modern, and Dialectal French that come from Gaulish  (each with a separate entry) with shorter lists for words that entered Provençal/Occitan, Italian, Catalan, Spanish and Romanch. So, I have edited '200' to '167' and given a reference. --Nantonos 16:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaulish loanwords

message: I was about to add the reference to Delamarre (see above) and then realised this would be the only reference in that article! I went ahead and did it anyay, but it highlights the lack of references in this otherwise promising article. --Nantonos 17:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References?

message: *I for one think that an article on French words of Gaulish origin and French words of Frankish origin are in order here.  I might do it myself if I can track down the Pope book.  As an amateur etymologist I would use this list my self, especially when those words made it into English in some form.  And if arguments arise as to which language a word traces to, alternate theories with appropriate links (where applicable) could be noted in the interest of fairness/completeness.Hraefen 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article?

message: It has been proposed that Languages of Oïl be renamed and moved to Langues d'Oïl. Comments and votes on Talk:Languages of Oïl, please, if you're interested. Man vyi 09:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: :It is important to distinguish however words which came from Germanic initially, via Frankish, and those that were introduced later, via the Normans in the 10th century.
This needs explanation.  Why did words from the Normans not enter French before the 10th century?  It is particularly confusing given the opening paragraph, which associates Old French with the area ‘roughly corresponding to the northern part of modern France’, which would seem to include Normandy.  Widsith 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded that sentence.  It seemed to want to say that more Germanic words arrived with the Norse invasions of Normandy. Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normans 

message: Since when does Classical Latin have the diphthongs AE (pronounced as y in my) and OE (pronounced as oy in boy)? The both digraphs (that's how these are called, not diphthongs!) AE and OE were pronounced /e/, as in bed in the Classical period. In the Archaic period (Archaic Latin), yes, AE=/ai/ and OE=/oi/ but not in the Classical period!
--85.206.191.128 10:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for that?  There seems to be controversy as to when the various sound shifts took place.  AAR, it's probably an issue that more properly belongs at Vulgar Latin than here specifically. - Smerdis of Tlön 11:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In every Latin book I have ever read, AE and OE are called diphthongs. 70.81.81.203 03:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Latin 

message: Can someone make this sentence below clearer so that the reader doesn't have to guess at the meaning?
:A number of other Germanic peoples, including the Burgundians, were active in the territory at that time; the Germanic languages spoken by the Franks, Burgundians, and others were not written languages, and at this remove it is often difficult to identify from which specific Germanic source a given Germanic word in French is derived.
Were active? In what way? At this remove? Does that mean 'on this account', or 'for this reason'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRabbit1983 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence

message: According to any reference book one might choose, Vulgar Latin had seven simple vowels, not nine as shown on the chart.
There were three back vowels: lower and higher O, and U. Short Latin U (e.g. bucca) developed into the VL higher O, as did Latin long O. 
There were three front vowels: lower and higher E, and I. Short Latin I (e.g. fide) developed into the VL higher E, as did Latin long E.Jakob37 (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, at some time in Vulgar Latin (a term which refers to a broad range of time and place of spoken Latin)there was a leveling between /I/ and /e/ , and between /U/ and /o/. This didn't happen all at once, and probably not necessarily everywhere Latin was spoken. Perhaps the table should say "/I/, later /e/" and "/U/, later /o/".  Also, I'm curious as to how in some Latin words, short i seems to be preserved across many languages, such as tristis and facilis. These don't seem to have ever been *treste or *facele. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.171.146 (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consult the Wikipedia article on Vulgar Latin, and try to arrange the vowel chart here to be compatible with the information in the chart there. As to the gradual change of one vowel into another: 1) there is no general linguistic principle about how fast or slow such things happen; unless you have some specific time-related evidence to introduce (which would also make the discussion rather more complicated), the chart we see in your chart already implies that "there was a leveling between /I/ and /e/" etc. 2)We might want to distinguish between a Vulgar Latin system which distinguished the vowels by quality and which co-existed parallel to the "Classical" pronunciation based on quantity, but that really belongs in the Vulgar Latin article, not here. If you want, you could refer to the reduced seven-vowel system as "Italo-Western-Romance" since it does not apply to all of Latin's descendants. As for words such as "tristis", have you considered the difference in development between stressed and non-stressed vowels? Jakob37 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vulgar Latin clearly had 9 vowels, at least in the early period -- this is the only way to account for the differing developments in Sardinian, Romanian and Italian.  As you yourself point out, the 7-vowel system is the system of Proto Western Romance (PWR).  As for tristis and facilis, tristis had a long i in Latin, not a short one, and facilis is a learned borrowing. Benwing (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Altho a certain kind of logic does lead to "Vulgar Latin clearly had 9 vowels", the fact remains that in much scholarly literature, Sardinian and Romanian are left out of the picture, with the result that what is technically "Proto-Western Romance" (or Italo-Romance) is often equated with Vulgar Latin in terms of the phonological system. As for the 9-vowel system, "The Romance Languages" (ed. Harris, Vincent 1988) refers to this as "Transitional Late Latin" (p.32) or even just "Latin" (p.33-chart). The only difference with Classical Latin, in terms of contrasts, is the loss of distinction between two kinds of "a", and one wonders how late Classical Latin actually shows evidence for the long vs. short "a". I would also think the actual number of contrastive vowels is perhaps a little too abstract a concept: Sardinian only shows five contrasts, Balkan Romance shows six contrasts (divying up the pie in quite a different way), and PWR shows its seven. Was there simultaneously a super-system of nine contrasts spread over the whole Roman empire to account for these three systems? I'm not sure.Jakob37 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  errors in Vulgar Latin vowels 

message: Where does the addition of the epenthetic e before initial s before another consonant occur in this chronological list of sound changes? I've searched and searched but I can't find it, but I know it shoudl be there somewhere. Also, I have often seen words quoted in etymologies as being Old French ending with -u (nouns derived from latin second-declension). Is this just an orthographic phenomenon, or was there a sound change from /o/ back to /u/ before the loss of final vowels?
This list could also use some cleaning up. There are some changes that are listed twice, and it's not clear if they're meant to have occurred twice or not. There are also some lapses in consistency of notation. I'd try cleaning it up myself, but I'm afraid of basing a change on a misinterpretation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.171.146 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the cleanup.  The epenthetic /e/ was added during the Vulgar Latin period, and should be listed at the very beginning; properly it was a short /i/ added before the Romance vowel changes, which changed it to an unstressed /e/.  The final /u/ in etymologies is simply the Vulgar Latin /u/ resulting from the Latin -um ending, prior to the Romance vowel changes; it was deleted in the Gallo-Romance period. Benwing (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound changes 

message: A number of years ago, I read that there is a part of the British coronation ceremony which incorporates Old French.  Does anyone have any information on the subject, which could be included here and in the coronation page.  ButtonwoodTree (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be thinking of Anglo-Norman.  The Jade Knight (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Old French/British Coronation

message: From the section on sound changes:
:'rs' > 'ss' when originating from Old Latin 'rtt', but retained when originating from Old Latin 'rct' (thus dorsum > Modern French dos, but ursus (compare Greek arktos) > Modern French ours).
This looks highly dubious, considering that sound change has no memory. It would mean that a distinction had been maintained between two different kinds of rs all the way from Old Latin through Vulgar Latin to Old French. --Schuetzm (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's obviously bogus, and I took it out. Benwing (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, the 'rs' in 'ursus' in no way derives from "Old Latin 'rct'".  The 'ct' vs. 's' difference exists because the word had a thorn cluster in PIE, i.e. '*Hrtkos'; cf. Hittite 'hartagga' "wild beast". Benwing (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound change rs > ss 

message: The phonetic system seemed pretty spread-out and hard-to-find in this article, so I have added a couple of IPA charts based on late-12th-century OF.  They are based on a couple of sources, as referenced.  I'm not sure where exactly they should go in the article, perhaps they ought to be either higher up (to introduce the language) or lower down (to summarise the sound changes as explained).  Diphthongs/triphthongs also need to be added.  Widsith (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA charts 

message: Most of this article, quite rightly, is about one of the langues d'oïl; but the lede text makes it sound like the article will be about the langues d'oïl taken collectively. (The term "Old French" is often used in reference to the langues d'oïl collectively, and the article should probably address that, if only in a hatnote. But as long as the article itself is about Old French specifically, the lede needs to match.) —RuakhTALK 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede text doesn't match article. 

message: I do not see any treatment of the Old French adjective: how it is inflected, placement, comparisons/superlative construction, etc. Leasnam (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start, we should mention somewhere that most other parts of speech are invariable (adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions for a start). Something on pronouns would be good, do we already have anything? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: CapnPrep's summary doesn't quite work - povre doesn't fit in anywhere as the feminine does end in -e, but not an extra -e (not povree) and the stem doesn't change. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reproduced Moignet's (simplified) criteria for a three-way classification, but I'll add the necessary complications from Zink and other sources. CapnPrep (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjective 

message: "Category:Old French loanwords" (English words derived from Old French via Middle English) contained the articles listed below.  The category is being deleted per this CFD.
* Auburn hair
* Baron
* Cabin
* Connoisseur
* Faubourg
* Fountain
* Invective
* Mallard
* Marquess
* Marquis (disambiguation)
* Marriage
* Mountain
* Parliament
DexDor (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former contents of loanwords category 

message: The article states this : the Burgundian of Burgundy, then an independent duchy whose capital was at Dijon; without giving sources to support this.
As far as I know, the Kingdom of Burgundy was defeated by the Franks, divided in two parts, the duchy being part of the frankish realm as early as the 6th centruy. From the 9th century onwards, the duchy of Burgundy had always been an appanage (i.e. reserved for one of the french king's sons) even when Burgundy sided with England against the French king.
So what are the sources for this statement and what are the justification to insert such a piece of information?
90.127.13.52 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burgundy ? 

message: If there is any non-circular evidence to support the Gaulish hypothesis as opposed to the more straightforward /ps/ > /ss/ > /s/ and /pt/ > /tt/ > /t/, it needs to be presented. Internally to Latin > French, the modern outcomes of /s/ rather than /z/ in caisse and /t/ rather than null in chétif align perfectly with assimilation, and Italian cassa and cattivo, clearly assimilations, argue in favor of the assimilation hypothesis, not against it. See also septe > Fr. [sɛt], Italian sette. 96.42.57.164 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about the diphthong in caisse? CodeCat (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: caisse is a bit of a mess. The first giveaway that something's awry is the obstruent /k/, which "should be" /ʃ/. Sure enough, the "organic" French form is châsse, with the palatal, and caisse is supposedly a borrowing from Provence. That just pushes the question of the origin of ai over to that language, though, with the same inconclusive results. But the main point is that there's nothing to suggest the intermediate stages *kaxsa,*kaxtivus other than the Gaulish argument, which is presented circularly in the article. The possibility of Gaulish causation can certainly be mentioned, but it's speculative, far from being a certainty, and it's irresponsible scholarship to claim that it is. 96.42.57.164 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is the diphthong, which you still haven't addressed. Yes, caisse is from Old Occitan caissa. In Old French, chasse (the expected form) and casse (from Old Northern French) are both attested, but the diphthong in Occitan caissa still remains to be explained. As does the diphthong in Old French chaitif ~ caitif and Old Occitan caitiu. The only explanation is Gaulish interference (compare Proto-Celtic *kaxtos). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaulish and capsa > *kaxsa > caisse, captīvus > *kaxtivus > OF chaitif 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Old French. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617111122/http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/latin/index.html to http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/latin/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm certain I recall reading that in some few cases, the Masculine Genitive Plural ending -orum from Latin, survived (albeit in a truncated form) into Old French as a kind of adjective. Typically, Romanor "of the Romans" was the only common example of this. Yet I don't see it covered here.
Nuttyskin (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of four: ancienor, christienor, francor, paienor. Einhorn covers this in Old French: A Concise Handbook. Really no need to cover it here. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Survival (Masculine Genitive Plural) 

message: Technically untrue, as c and ç are spelled the same in Old French, ç is a transcription of c before a, o and u in modern editions. But there is a third, which is ts (usually written z, but not always). Renard Migrant (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  /ts/ had three spellings 

message: Wouldn't Anglo-Norman have been the predominant tongue of the Normans in Ireland, Scotland and Wales? Alongside Latin and soon after, English and Irish. Hadn't Anglo-Norman diverged from Old French in England before any sort of migration into Wales, Scotland and Ireland, especially in anything approaching considerable numbers? However the infobox implies Old French was spoken in parts. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland, Scotland and Wales