Why don't all of the former Roman lands speak a romance language today?

English is a germanic language that uses lots of romance words

sup, eternal anglo

>Because Romans didn't settle in these lands
Most of these places had a Romance speaking populace in Late Antiquity.

WE

English and it's pronunciation could be brought more in line with the rest of Romance if -y endings in nouns but not the adjectives were replaced by a simple -i making it more like -ia. Really -ance and ancy endings are synonymous.
There was already a move to correct spellings in the past in words such as 'reflexion' to match the original Greek and Latin spellings and in the American dialect to shift away from the French -our endings in FAVOR of -or. Some modern romance languages have basically retained medieval Latin spelling conventions and or pronunciations.

He's right stupid nigger, look at Dalmatian and the african romance

>look at Dalmatian

This sure proved your point.

>Most of these places had a Romance speaking populace in Late Antiquity
No

>Dalmatian and the african romance

PURE SPECULATION

Just like the so called Brito-Romance, these are speculation made on the assumption that, like the people in Gallia/Iberia/Dacia, they spoke a Roman language.

But the people who made these assumption fail to notice that the native people of these lands(Gallia/Iberia/Dacia) contrary to the other roman lands fought more violently with the Romans and lost far more men than the others, they also fail to notice that these lands were more heavily colonized by the Romans than other lands.

If Romania, the non-Roman part of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and France speak a Romance language today these are mainly because they are the descendants of Roman colonists.

>pure speculation
>there was literally people speaking dalmatian in the 19th century

Italia, Hispania, Galia were heavily romanized. Greek and Thracia too, but that was the greek speaking part of the empire. Dacia remained as a roman cultural redoubt relatively unattached to the Byzantines and Slavs.

Also, Visigoths and Franks were "advanced" germanic tribes in comparison with the others and were also massive cultural romanboos, so they adopted, to a point, the roman cultural heritage, including christianity, and preserved it whereas others, less civilized, like anglo-saxons or vandals just overrun it and looted.

Africa was also heavily romanized and could have perfectly been another romance speaking region, but the arab conquest imposed itself culturally, linguistically and religiously.

Linguistic evidence is quite clear.
1) Dalmatian, which went extinct in the 19th century
2) Varieties of Romanian are spoken in Istria and Greece. (Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian)

Also, Dacia was not romanised during the Roman Empire. Romanian was spoken initially in modern-day Bulgaria, they only later migrated to Dacia. Bulgars and Slavs later migrated to Bulgaria.

we had a village historian that spoke old dalmatian language
its extinct now i am pretty sure

One could also mention the Rhaeto-Romance languages, which are a relic of the vulgar Latin spoken by the Romanized peoples of the Alps.

The German Rhineland also had some Romance speaking enclaves until the 10th century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moselle_Romance

Lexicon doesn't make a language.

This.
If you use the "English is a romance language" argument on other languages, Finnish and Estonian are both Germanic and Votic and Izhorian are Slavic. Even though they are all part of the same family.

This fucking post.

There were Dalmatian speakers in the 19th century and African Romance was a documented language up until the middle ages.

Roman "colonisation" is a fucking meme and had nothing to do with the adoption of the Latin language, which, as with every single language throughout history, typically occurs because of the dominance and prestige of a single language speaking group.

Some cultures also survived and didn`t forget their language. Like the Illyrians wich is the only example I can currently think of.

Fine then explain why there is no trace of Celtic languages in France and Spain while it survived in Britain ?
By the way Celts were all blond haird, while Romans dark haired

How do you explain the racial difference ?

>Roman "colonisation" is a fucking meme

No

>history, typically occurs because of the dominance and prestige of a single language speaking group.

Your confusing the Anglo Saxons that conquered Britain with the Romans

>Fine then explain why there is no trace of Celtic languages in France and Spain while it survived in Britain?

Because Latin continued to be dominant in both of those regions due to the power of regional leaders like bishops and warlords and so over the centuries wiped both Gaulish and Iberian languages out. In Britain Latin never acquired the same level of prestige due to it being far more rural and with less urban Latin speaking people. Latin died out quickly amongst the rich urban classes who literally vanished within the space of 410-500 AD. Celtic survived because the English kingdoms weren't strong enough to completely crush their Celtic neighbours until well into the 1st millenium by which time they had become ingrained in the more solid Christian centralised culture of the middle ages.

>By the way Celts were all blond haird, while Romans dark haired

But that's fucking wrong. Even ignoring the fact that the Roman ethnicity, as you seem to be interpreting it, vanished as a thing essentially in the 3rd century BC long before Rome acquired a massive overseas empire.

>How do you explain the racial difference ?

Clearly this is a joke post.

>No

The number of Italian colonies across the empire numbers barely a few dozen. They were absorbed into the mass of local populations pretty much instantaneously.

>Your confusing the Anglo Saxons that conquered Britain with the Romans

No i'm not. English became totally dominant because it was a rural language, and if you didn't speak it you were a second class citizen. In the Roman Empire a 90% of the British rural population didn't speak more than a few words of Latin and certainly couldn't write in it. English penetrated far more than Latin ever did, because Latin was a language of the cities, of learning and Christianity. In England all of that vanished during the sub-Roman period.

>Italian
No such thing there were Roman colonies
>barely a few dozen

You clearly have no knowledge about the Romans

>But that's fucking wrong. Even ignoring the fact that the Roman ethnicity, as you seem to be interpreting it, vanished as a thing essentially in the 3rd century BC long before Rome acquired a massive overseas empire.

Nice denial

The fact is that

Celts = Blond
Romans = Darl haired

>You clearly have no knowledge about the Romans

Your map is of cities granted the status of colonia you silly nonce. Colonia doesn't literally mean that colonies were set up there, it was primarily a title granted to the city as a sign of the emperor's favour.

>the rest of your post

Idiot.

Nope it does not

My city is included in it, and was directly built and settled by Romans on the ruins of a Celtic city

No need to say that all Celts were killed or sent to slavery

>My city is included in it, and was directly built and settled by Romans on the ruins of a Celtic city

You think that's the rule, and not the exception?

>No need to say that all Celts were killed or sent to slavery

What?

>You think that's the rule, and not the exception?
No i thing that there are various casess

Romans genocided the Dacians and the Celtberians too but other were not genocided and replaced since they kept their language

>What?

>Rushing back from Italy at phenomenal speed and reaching Sens, Caesar reached Cenabum by forced marches and did not even need to besiege it. On his approach, its population attempted to flee via a wooden bridge linking the two banks of the Loire and, as it collapsed, the Romans scaled the ramparts, massacring all the inhabitants and pillaging and burning down the town.[5]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenabum

How did Rome have so many colonies in the ocean? Were they underwater?

>genocide
>in the pre-modern era

Fuck off kid.

There were still "Free Dacians" and Romano-Dacians within Roman territory after the conquest.

The Celtiberians were fine.

>other were not genocided and replaced since they kept their language

What are you blathering on about? Nobody in antiquity was "genocided and replaced". Do you know how hard it is to massacre millions of people without industrial methods and machine guns?

You really think that Romans exterminated the millions of people in Gaul and replaced them wholesale with "Roman" people. Are you fucking insane or just incredibly stupid?

>Caesar's Gallic Wars
>as a source

The guy had a political motivation for trying to say he single handedly exterminated the entire population of Gaul. Never trust him on any of it. Plus, exterminating the entire population of a town wasn't the Roman way. They tended to resettle the survivors in a less defensible location nearby.

So your arguments are

>fuck off kid
>CAESAR IS LYING I SWEARZ

I think you should fuck off instead

You did not any of my arguments whatsoever, and you sounds like the typical liberal

>You really think that Romans exterminated the millions of people in Gaul and replaced them wholesale with "Roman" people. Are you fucking insane or just incredibly stupid?

It took centuries but yes

AND I'M NIOT THINKING BUT AKNOWLEDGING the fact that Celts and Dacians were all blond/germanic looking while modern ROMANce speakers are typically Roman in features

Romans were frog-men. Where do you think the French come from? Recessive frog genes brought out by chronic inbreeding.

>You did not any of my arguments whatsoever
You did not refute any of my arguments whatsoever

>AKNOWLEDGING
ACKNOWLEDGING

Genocide was the norm back in the day. You capture a city? You kill every male and enslave every female. Enslaving defeated enemies was considered the HUMANE option.

My argument is that Caesar is distorting the facts, which is itself, an indisputable historical fact and accepted by basically every single scholar that has ever commented on the De Bello Gallico.

>you sounds like the typical liberal

Fuck off /pol/. I'm right-wing. I'm not just an idiot that thinks the Romans exterminated potential taxpayers.

>It took centuries but yes

Do you even know what genocide is? Gallic people were still speaking Gaulish when the Roman Empire collapsed in the west in the 5th century AD. Does that suggest that there was even a hint of what you're saying happened?

>fact that Celts and Dacians were all blond/germanic looking

Pure nonsense. I've fucked Celtic women and I know that isn't true. Do you honestly think language and ethnicity have any link whatsoever?

>modern ROMANce speakers are typically Roman in features

But that doesn't make any god damn sense. There were blonde Romans. There were even blonde Greeks who are the swarthiest motherfuckers in the Mediterranean. Even Alexander the Great was supposed to be blonde.

Half of what was Gaul was occupied by Germans, so your language theory is bizarre.

>Genocide was the norm back in the day.

I think we're confusing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Most cities were allowed to continue in peace. If they kept fighting, they were usually destroyed but it didn't happen to many. Even the Roman army didn't have the capacity to siege dozens of settlements simultaneously, with each siege usually demanding a fuck load of time and resources. Anyway my point is that wiping out the odd city is not the same as exterminating millions of people and wholesale replacing them.

Language =/= ethnicity =/= race.

Because Britain was the absolute fringe of the empire. It's like asking why the Philipines didn't adopt Spanish.

>I've fucked Celtic women

It would be pretty hard because all True Celts aka Gauls disapeared (either by genocide or absorbation by the more numerous Romans)

>Do you honestly think language and ethnicity have any link whatsoever?
Yes
Language is is the product of Race

>There were blonde Romans. There were even blonde Greeks. Even Alexander the Great was supposed to be blonde.
WE

You've got to go back.

>true celts aka gauls
This is based on what?
Celts were spread throughout Europe. All the Continental Celts are extinct. The only ones survived on the British-Irish isles. The Bretons migrated to Brittany much later. Their language is closely related to Welsh and Cornish.
Gaulish and Breton/Welsh/Cornish do share some linguistic features, such as original *kw becoming "p". So "son" in Irish is "mac", in Welsh/Cornish/Breton "mab", and in Gaulish "mapos".

Language and ethnicity have a link initially, but that link often disappears or is blurred.

>This is based on what?

On the fact that the Celts were the Inhabitants of Gallia Celtica

>Celts were spread throughout Europe

It is the contrary Gauls were spread through Europe

Celts refer only to a peculiar branch of Gauls that lived in Gallia Celtica

>The Bretons migrated to Brittany much later. Their language is closely related to Welsh and Cornish.

These are Brythonic not Gallic

>On the fact that the Celts were the Inhabitants of Gallia Celtica
You're referring to a relatively small fraction of the large family of Celtic languages, which had populations across Western and Central Europe, the British Isles, and even as far east as Anatolia.
The entire language group is called the Celtic languages.
>It is the contrary Gauls were spread through Europe
>Celts refer only to a peculiar branch of Gauls that lived in Gallia Celtica
>Gaul (Latin: Gallia) was a region of Western Europe during the Iron Age that was inhabited by Celtic tribes, encompassing present day France, Luxembourg, Belgium, most of Switzerland, Northern Italy, as well as the parts of the Netherlands and Germany on the west bank of the Rhine.
>The Gauls were Celtic peoples inhabiting Gaul in the Iron Age and the Roman period (roughly from the 5th century BC to the 5th century AD). Their Gaulish language forms the main branch of the Continental Celtic languages.
You have it backwards user. Gauls are a subset of the celts, not the other way around.

All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third.

we grew up

I think you're arguing with that "Franks weren't germanic" retard. I wouldn't bother if i were you

Moors and Germans

Yes, Caesar and other Romans at that time called the tribes which inhabited that part of gallia the Gauls. However, they call themselves Celts. Roman scholars such as Pliny the Elder noted that Self-identifying monikers such as Celtae and Celtici were common throughout tribes in gaul, and Iberia, and other areas inhabited by celtic language-speaking populations. The Romans noted this in their designation of certain Iberian tribes using these monikers as Celtiberians.
Of course, any discussion of Roman ethnonyms for various barbarian tribes is simply a deflection from the fact that The term Celtic has expanded to encompass an entire family of surviving and extinct languages and ethnic groups in the modern day. A similar comparison would be the usage of the term Germanic to refer to another family of languages and ethnic groups far widespread from modern Germany.

tl,dr Caesar and other Romans used both terms interchangeably, but it doesn't matter what Caesar called them anyways since we classify inhabitants of Gaul as gauls, and classify their language as a subset of the Celtic family.

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU PIECE OF SHIT. YOU LITERALLY CANT HAVE A SINGLE CONVERSATION ABOUT SOMETHING INTERESTING IN HISTORY RICHARD THE LIONHEART SPEAKING FRENCH WITHOUT INE YOU LITTLE CRAP EATING KEKOLD FAGGOTS SPAMMING 'WE WUZ'. IT COMPLETELY RUINS THE TOPIC AT END AND ONLY COMES OFF AS FAGGOTY YOU FAGGOT REDDIT BROWSING /pol/TARD.

T. Wrong stupid head

Genocide is the intentional extermination of a people or their culture, that certainly applies to ancient warfare.

ACKSHUALLY, "gaul" refers to the subroman Latin-speakers of Roman Gallia, and is a term applied to them by the Franks. It's resemblance to Gallia is coincidental, "gaul" is from the same root as "wales" and means the same thing (foreigner, specifically "romanized Celt"). So if you want to be extra pedantic, using "gaul" was a bit of blunder.

>gaul" refers to the subroman Latin-speakers of Roman Gallia

Gaul is a word borrowed from the French Gaulois and it mean Gallic, the equivalent of walhaz in French is Wallon/Wallois, as for English it is Welsh

Wrong, gaul is from walhaz. The modern version of Gallia is Jaille, which is used in placenames in France.

Gaul is from Gaulois, Gaulois is from Gallus

>The modern version of Gallia is Jaille

Hell no

The equivalent of Gallia in French is Gaule

As for Jaille it is literally a slang for garbage (pic related)

>all of modern scholarship on the subject is clear it's from walhaz, but I'm going to simply repeat my moronic claim to the contrary!

Opinion disregarded.

Make one sentence with Romance inherited words only in that case

Make one sentence with Germanic inherited words only in that case

>but I'm going to simply repeat my moronic claim to the contrary!
Go see the French article about Gallia on wikipedia and how it is named

And type "Jaille" on Wiktionary too

>all of modern scholarship

muh ad autoritam

I don't care, evend you can had a PhD i would still not care. When you're wrong, you're wrong no matter your (((degree))).

I like apples.

Can you give me another undertaking?

Oops I made two.

Oops three.

>Make one sentence with Romance inherited words only in that case

Here you go :

Saint Louis save Richard

>Richard
>using a Germanic name
Even when you tried to cheat using names you failed

looks pretty unscientific

Richard is borrowed from the French Richard

But if you want to act like that then :

Roman save Emily

Roman grope Emily

Roman judge Julian

As you can see, the part of the English tongue that comes from latin does not make up enough for basic speech.

much of Austria Switzerland, was romance speaking until Charlemagne.
They spoke a language similar to the Romansch language of Switzerland.

youtube.com/watch?v=n7fJBUH1JCE
youtube.com/watch?v=LAnWWcSrTFU

Spain has the only pre indoeuropean language of Europe. Basque, and in Roman times half of it still spoke pre Indoeuropean languages.

>TheGermanic first orgiven name Richard derives from German, French, and English "ric" (ruler, leader, king, powerful) and "hard" (strong, brave, hardy), and it therefore means "strong in rule"

It's Germanic. And nice job using shitty basic sentences that rely on names and verbs. It's almost like you can't use pronouns or else you'd end up using germanic words

How is determining lexical distances non-scientific? It's an accepted method in linguistics, and much more reliable than relying solely on vocabulary.

City people use important energy quantities

Notice how all these romance sentences are shit? It's like the core of the English language is Germanic.

they did until you killed it you fucking yanks

City guards abhor dragons

>Guard
Germanic

>Notice
>romance
>sentences
>core
>language
>Germanic

I wonder how your sentence would look without these Romance words
Face it, tons of verbs/adjectives/nouns (words that give its sense to a setence) are French/Latin originated
Remove them and your sentences are just meaningless shitfests of pronouns and prepositions

>From early Middle French or late Old French (circa 14th cent) guarder (“to keep, ward, guard, save, preserve, etc.”),

Nah, they speak tagalog. Yanks just changed the colonial cultured language.

Troops move 'round le country

English is almost like a creole of Old English and French.
I dont think it can be called Germanic or Romance. Two different things gave birth to a new one.

This will always generate such butthurt

And look at where the French got it from

Look at how all these Romance statements are shit? It's like the heart of the English tongue is Germanic.

Couldn't change two specific names. Not that bad.

Great thread

No.
Completely false.
English grammar is almost completely Germanic. There are some unique aspects (like do-support) theorised to be Celtic influence though.

There is no meaningful Romance influence outside of vocabulary.

Also, there's a theory that English is an Old English-Old Norse creole:
anglistika.upol. cz/fileadmin/kaa/emonds/vikings2014.pdf

That book is not arguing that English is a creole, but is literally descended from Old Norse.

because ethey're cucks with no cultural heritage so they have to resort to we wuz and muh ancestors

>Illyrians got shoah'd by the Slavs.
Illyrians went extinct by the Romans some 1000 years before a Slav set foot there.

>Dacia was not romanised during the Roman Empire.

What is Dacia Ripensis

>Romanian was spoken initially in modern-day Bulgaria, they only later migrated to Dacia.

Magyar shit eater pls

Dacia Ripensis is almost completely in modern-day Bulgaria though.

>Dacia Ripensis is almost completely in modern-day Bulgaria though.

Kys please