[wideawake]

The article raises an interesting point: most people assume that languages spread by conquest, but that doesn't seem to hold so well.

The Romans conquered the Greeks, but the Greeks still speak Greek and probably more Romans learned Greek than Greeks learned Latin.

Likewise, the Gauls maintained their language for centuries after Caesar's conquest, but lost it after they successfully conquered back territory.

The Germanic Franks conquered Romanized Gaul, but wound up speaking a language more Roman than German.

[Pharmboy]

Excellent points (as Carson used to say "I did not know that..."). I know a bit about biology, but not much on linguistics, though I find it fascinating. Any more insights or examples you can offer would always be appreciated on any of my athropology-related threads.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

However, some languages are replaced. Celtic was largely replaced by Anglo Saxon. Aztec by Spanish. English will be replaced by Spanish in the USA.

[epluribus_2]

the reason the greeks still speak greek is that they never sacked rome. The Celts and the Carthaginians did and the former were decimated and the latters were "delenda est".

[unread]

And we defeated Mexico, but we are going to end up speaking mexican for sure!!

[ZULU]

"Likewise, the Gauls maintained their language for centuries after Caesar's conquest, but lost it after they successfully conquered back territory."

When did the Celts ever conque territory back from the Romans? Rome fell to invading Germainc barbarians,not to Celtic invasions.

[Cronos]

The article raises an interesting point: most people assume that languages spread by conquest, but that doesn't seem to hold so well. The Romans conquered the Greeks, but the Greeks still speak Greek and probably more Romans learned Greek than Greeks learned Latin. Likewise, the Gauls maintained their language for centuries after Caesar's conquest, but lost it after they successfully conquered back territory. The Germanic Franks conquered Romanized Gaul, but wound up speaking a language more Roman than German.

There are differences in each 'example' you raise --
The Greeks -- the Romans admired the Greeks and held them to be the founts of Culture, so the GReek language held sway as it was considered the language of culture.
The same thing happened for hte Franks and the Normans.
Int he case of hte Gauls, the Roman culture was more advanced so was adopted. Also, it was the language of Empire, of commerce and even more so, because Caesar carried out what was practically a genocide of the Gauls in the years 55 to 44 BC.

[man of Yosemite]

Perhaps the language of the conquering males is adapted to the language of the conquered females, especially those engaged in prostitution.

[Celtic Conservative]

The article raises an interesting point: most people assume that languages spread by conquest, but that doesn't seem to hold so well. The Romans conquered the Greeks, but the Greeks still speak Greek and probably more Romans learned Greek than Greeks learned Latin. Likewise, the Gauls maintained their language for centuries after Caesar's conquest, but lost it after they successfully conquered back territory. The Germanic Franks conquered Romanized Gaul, but wound up speaking a language more Roman than German. 3 posted on 07/01/2003 8:58:08 AM EDT by wideawake

Culture plays a big part in The adoption of language. the normans invaded Ireland in the 10 and 11th centuries. rather than the irish becoming like the normans, the normans became "quo hiberniam ipso hibernes" e.g. more irish than the irish themselves. Any modern irish with the prefix "fitz" in their name can trace their lineage to the normans, as fitz comes from the latin speaking norman "fils" meaning "the son of"

CC

[RightWhale]

What about the Albanian? Also one of the surviving branches of the IE.

[WoofDog123]

or even more curiously, the romans conquered britain started about a century after caesar's conquest of gaul, yet the brytonic branch of gaelic survived as the british language in non-saxon areas, not the provincial latin that must have been spoken by some in towns.

The only possible contribution I have read about the Franks to provincial latin was that their population density might account for the distinct pronunciation of french in the nothern part of france compared to the signature sound of other roman tongues (spanish/italian/romanish/portugues/catalan).