Talk:Frankish language

message: OK, I created the original page, since there seemed to be many links referring to the subject. It is quite hard to find good information to include, though, since there are so few reliable sources. Ideallay, this page should include some information of how Frankish differed from other West Germanic languages of the same time, and how Frankish and other Germanic languages affected Old French. (I believe Old French also was affected by Old Norse, but since that was a distinct North Germanic language, I think these words should be relatively easy to distinguish.) I believe most of the sources the Franks left were written in Latin, though, so it isn't of much help for finding info about their language.
:Hmmm, this page contains a few reconstructed likely frankish words, borrowed into old french and later english... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=frankish&searchmode=none
:: I had the sae feeling; e.g. the English word Garden is afaik not from a (direct) Germanic root. According to some other wiki topics on Germanic languages, English Garden comes from French Jardin. But in turn French Jardin does have a Germanic root, We(h)r(da). (protect/fortify. The walling of of the garden from wilderness).  This article is not incorrect, but seems to suggest that Jardin derives from Garden instead of the other way around. 88.159.64.210 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: Do I understand correctly that this article deals with an entirely unattested language, guessed at from loanwords? Otherwise, it would have to be merged with Old Low Franconian. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally created the page, since there were links regarding it, but no article. Isn't there many other language articles on the Wikipedia with little or no attestation, anyway? 惑乱 分からん 18:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not objecting to articles about unattested languages, I was asking if this language is identical to Old Low Franconian. It does seem, however, that this is about the unattested predecessor of Old Low Franconian, so the article is perfectly fine on its own. dab (ᛏ) 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's the point and focus of it. Thank you for clarifying. 惑乱 分からん 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article scope

message: In modern French, there is no such verb (graper). I never heard it (I'm French) and it's not in my dictionary, a famous French dictionary (Robert).
HTH.
:I found the words "gripper" and "grappin" in my Swedish-French dictionary from the 50's, though I have no idea if the words are common in modern French, or if they're directly derived from Frankish. 惑乱 分からん 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Le Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, "gripper" is probably derived from Frankish, so I change the page accordingly. 惑乱 分からん 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's "grijpen" in modern Dutch (which is pronounced with the ij sounding like the "ie" in "field" in Old Dutch) , comparable afaik English "Grasp".
88.159.64.210 (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm French myself, and i confirm that the verb "graper/grafer" exist in Old French(See dictionnaire de l'ancien français, Larousse), furthermore, in  Modern French there are agripper and agrafer. --90.20.51.248 (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  graper ? 

message: f. the OED:
:aphetic a. OF. estandard, -art, -estendard, -art (mod.F. étendard) = med.L. standardum, -us, standarium, etc. Pr. estandard, -art, Sp., Pg. estandarte, It. stendardo; according to most scholars f. com. Rom. estend-ere (L. extend-re to stretch out: see EXTEND v.) + -ARD; a parallel synonymous formation with different suffix is It. stendale, late OF. estandale, -deille (med.L. standale, -lis). The Fr. word has passed into all the living Teut. langs.: MHG. stanthart (by popular etymology, as if ‘stand hard’), later standart, standert (mod.G. standarte), MDu. standaert (mod.Du. standaard, standerd), Da. standart, Sw. standar.
:The origin of sense 9 (‘standard of measure or weight’), whence the other senses in branch II are derived, is somewhat obscure. It appears in AF. (estaundart) and Anglo-L. (standardus) in the 13th c., two centuries earlier than our earliest vernacular instance. It has not been found in continental OF.; the use of Du. standaard in this sense is believed to be imitated from English. It is noteworthy that in early instances the standard of measure is always either expressly or by implication called ‘the king's standard’, an expression which belongs to the older sense 1. It seems probable that sense 9 is a fig. use of sense 1; the king's standard being the point of reunion of the army, and the centre from which commands are issued.
:The senses grouped as branch III are of doubtful, probably of various and in some instances of mixed origin. The notion of ‘something conspicuously erected’, involved in sense 1, would account for several of them; others may be referred to the idea of ‘something permanent, fixed, or stationary’, generalized from sense 9. Etymological association with STAND v. has, however, certainly affected the whole group, and it is possible that in some uses the word should be regarded as an alteration of STANDER. The senses of this branch are almost confined to English: OF. has estandart some kind of torch (rare1), and WFlem. has standaart mill-post (De Bo; standaert, Kilian); but the relation of these to the English uses is obscure.] 
--VKokielov 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The form from which most Romance languages adopted was that of Medieval Latin, which clearly shows the stem vowel as "a" (standardum). Earliest French forms also show "a" (1100 estandart; cf 1678 estendart. Italian, true to form, borrows the later French form as wont). Though standards can certainly be "stretched out", as many other things as well, the concept of extending or stretching is by no means the defining or distinguishing feature conveyed by a standard. As a result, there is certainly no concensus on derivation from a form of extendere. Also, the suffix -ard poses a problem at this point in time: in Old French, this was still a fremd suffix, being borrowed as part of the whole-unit word, and was not part of Old French derivational morphology (it is, however, part of Middle and Modern French derivational morphology, being appended to words of any origin). This further points to the word as a germanic loan. Lastly, according to French authorities, Académie Française in particular, the word derives from Low Frankish standhard. Leasnam (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "standard" 

message: I think this not entirely true. There are a few snippets in the Lex Salica and in 1996 a sword sheath was found from 425-450 or so with 4 words on it (in runes!) near Bergakker. Interestingly there already seem to be some characteristics deemed typical for the later Old Dutch on it. Jcwf (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: not attested

message: just a few words about the table. it is important to realize that words given under GERMANIC COGNATES are intended as a basis of comparison, so additions like "Du reiger" under HERON and Du trog/G Trog "trough" under TROENE are over-reaching and needless.  the point is not to give a full etymological recounting.  reiger and trog are NOT directly related to the headword. please avoid making excessive additions.
and second, in this discussion i have seen references to the oxford english dictionary.  know simply that the OED is intended for mass appeal and a wide distribution and does not represent the work of etymological specialists.  like many other things, the older the edition is, the more mistakes it has, and as such, is in particular need of updating and better research.  Check out instead Webster's Third International Dictionary (a gigantic book), Chambers Etymological Dictionary, or the Etymological Dictionary of Germanic Languages. further, the Online Etymology site also has a number of errors (mainly un-updated entries) that are the result of ignoring specialist litterature on the subject.
Flibjib8 (talk)
Flibjib8 has a curious opinion of English dictionaries: the Oxford English dictionary is a multivolume work begun in the mid-19th century by a large team of researchers, and is being constantly revised and updated by present-day experts on etymology, semantics etc. It has aways attamepted to include all words used in English sice circ 1100 AD and gives thier full meanings, etymology and usage.  To say that it is a `work for mass appeal' and to place it lower in authority and intellectual level than Webster's or Chambers', which are works of much narrower scope, is mistaken. Possibly Flibjib8 has compared a school edition or the concise OED with the other dictionaries. I have no connection with the OED except as a satisfied user. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  some comments 

message: I've tagged this article for cleanup because the majority of the text of it falls into two sections ("The sword sheath of Bergakker," and "The impact of Old Frankish on modern French"), the latter of which is simply a giant list which could just as well be its own article and not dominate the entirety of this one. The list part in particular should, IMO, be condensed or split off into its own article entirely. RobertM525 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I am not sure whether the frk code by ISO is actually meant to indicate Old Frankish. Reasons are:
*Ethnologue includes it. (Ethnologue only includes extinct languages if their date of extinction is after 1950)
*It says "Bible portions: 1758–1827", which can't be true if only four words are attested to begin with.
*It indicates Latin as the script used. (weak argument, but still).
I think it is trying to refer to some modern Franconian dialect which became extinct, rather than Old Franconian. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code 

message: Would someone please add a mention of the purpose of the asterisks preceding some words, for the rest of us ? It seems that those are always prefixing a Frankish word in this article, and it also seems like some kind of convention in etymology, but can it be spelled out, please ? I mean, what the hell?, i keep running into those all over Wikt, but i have yet to see them explained ; i'm beginning to wonder if there's been a bunch of COPYVIO copy+paste from elsewhere, or what. TIA, --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In historical linguistics the asterisk is used to indicate a reconstructed form, i.e. a word-form that has not been documented but is theorized to have existed at a certain time. See Asterisk, Linguistic reconstruction. Iblardi (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend/caption 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Frankish language, based on the support of three editors. Only one person favored a move to Old Franconian. It seems there was a spectrum of related languages and you could choose to draw the dividing lines in different places. For other views you could see how the same topic is treated in the French and German Wikipedias: :fr:Langues franciques and :de:Fränkische Sprachen. But it would be strange for there to be Old Frankish if there is no Frankish language. Also the ISO code argument appears strong. We do include ISO-639 code 'frk' in the infobox and that means 'Frankish.' There is now a page Frankish language (disambiguation) and another page Franconian languages which tries to cover the same material as this one. It is up to editorial discretion how to resolve any duplication.  EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The nomenclature difficulties involving this article seem to be rooted in the fact that philologists do not seem to deal adequately enough with the very earliest forms of old Dutch, and present very little information about the language spoken by the Franks.  Probably this is because there is not enough evidence. The Old Dutch article barely looks at it at all. 
This article was apparently started under the name "Old Frankish" by someone who wanted to record the Franconian origins of French words, and for some reason did not feel comfortable putting it into the article on "Old Dutch". 
This article should be integrated with "Old Dutch".
Schildewaert (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: Throughout the article we find the notion that the Middle Franconian dialects may not have descended from Frankish, or even that this connection is "speculative". While it is of course true that the details of mediaeval language development are not entirely certain, it is commonly accepted, at least in German linguistics, that the Franconian dialects have indeed a Frankish basis. And there is of course solid evidence for this (not just the Rhenish fan, but also the loss of n before spirans, loss of h before s, and other things). Since I know that there is a certain tendency in Dutch linguistics to separate Dutch as much as possible from German and German dialects, I'm wondering if that's the reason for this odd notion, that "frank"ly I have never heard of in this explicit form.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.166.79 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is rather bizarre, we'll have to dig up what happened in its history. Clearly at some point it was hijacked by some kind of ethnic ideological obsession and it is now mostly  hand-waving about ethnic concepts behind the terms "Frankish", "Franconian" or "Dutch" instead of about the language itself. There is certainly room for an article surrounding the meaning of "Frankish" vs. "Franconian"; but surely this is not the place to do it. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch linguistic separatism or what is it? 

message: The article states
:Frankish had significant influence on the Romance languages spoken in Gaul. As a result, many modern French words and placenames (including the country name "France") have a Germanic origin.
I am not sure this is entirely accurate (I'd be interested to see a source that would back this up). You can find a lot of the Germanic words that are in French also in Spanish and other Romance languages (e.g. blanc / blanco, bloc / bloque, etc.). Certainly Germanic words that refer to innovations of the later Middle Ages very well may be Frankish in origin. But the older ones not so much.
-- MC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, French is overwhelmingly Latin-derived and has relatively little to do with Frankish. There are definitely a good number of Old French words that can be traced back to a Germanic and thus likely Frankish origin but "many" still gives the wrong idea. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic influence 

message: The Salian Franks have nothing to do with the Dutch nor the Dutch language. The zone where the Salian Franks settled is between the Loire and the Carbonarian Forest according to the Salic Law, thus, outside of the Dutch-speaking area. Furthermore, the zone where the Salian Franks settled match the Langue d'Oïl area. 
In the north the Franks, led by Clovis, occupied an area stretching from the Rhine to the Loire by the end of the century. They proved to be the most successful of the invaders, establishing dominance over the Burgundians and the Visigoths by the end of the sixth century. They were also the most important group from a linguistic point of view. Their original area of settlement corresponds very approximately to the region of the Langue d'Oïl, the group of northern dialects which emerged in the early medieval period(see Map2). 
Hilary Wise, The Vocabulary of Modern French: Origins, Structure and Function, Page 34-35  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.63.88.92 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, nowhere is it implied that the Salian Franks have anything to do with the Dutch people. This has nothing to do with the subject of the article either. The Frankish language, however, does have much to do with the Dutch language. This is supported by plenty of sources given throughout this article and that of Old Dutch. Second of all, the existence of Salland and the tribe name's resemblance to the old name of the IJssel are the most convincing evidence of their once having lived in what is now the eastern central Netherlands, but that's only a convincing theory. What we actually know for sure is that the Salians at some point lived in the southern Netherlands and eventually today's Belgium. Zosimus in his book Historia Nova writes repeatedly that during Caesar's time they had settled on and near the Rhine. He writes that they were pushed from their lands by Saxons and settled on the isle of Batavia. Ammianus Marcellinus later writes in Roman History that the Salii had "ventured with great boldness to fix their habitations on the Roman soil near Toxandria. But when he had reached Tongres, ..." And yes, they later went to the area around Tournai that is now French-speaking, but what you're forgetting is that this wasn't always so. These now-French territories were only ceded to France during the Middle Ages. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch and Salian Franks 

message: the word "etyma" is linked to the article on etymology but does not appear there.  I suggest some other word be used.  I am a reasonably intelligent reader, but the context here does not let me figure out what this word means.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "etyma"