Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

General discussion about learning languages
User avatar
reineke
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3570
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
Languages: Fox (C4)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
x 6554

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby reineke » Sat May 20, 2017 2:16 am

« Nos ancêtres les Gaulois » : ils sont fous ces historiens !

http://m.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos- ... riens.html
1 x

User avatar
reineke
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3570
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
Languages: Fox (C4)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
x 6554

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby reineke » Sat May 20, 2017 3:45 am

Iversen wrote:Well, the Gauls did switch - after Cesar had murdered a tenth of the population, enslaved another tenth, mutilated a sizeable portion of the rest and totally razed all their cities and stolen their gold. Even the Roman senators thought that Cesar had been somewhat heavyhanded in his treatment of the Gauls. I have seen references to a few Celtic inscriptions from the ensuing centuries, but nothing seems to indicate that the Gaulish language was in common use anywhere in this period - not even among the illiterate populace.

And when the Western Roman empire crumbled you didn't see the reemergence of a Celtic speaking population in modern-day France in the same way as a transformed Anglosaxon reemerged as Middle English in Great Britain. People there all spoke a late variant of 'Vulgar' Latin -only their place names were still Celtic.

I acknowledge that the ensuing use of the carrot permit you to see a semblance of voluntary adoption of the Roman ways, but without the heavy stick used by Cesar during the occupation the change would in all likelihood not have occurred. Dacia (modern Romania) got the same harsh treatment as the Gauls in Gallia, and the same happened: Dacian disappeared almost completely, apart from a few place names. If you treat a population sufficiently brutally and in the same time lure it with freedom and social status if it switches allegiances then you can do big things to the original language and culture of a people, and this can happen in a surprisingly short time.

One area that conserved its language is of course the Hellenic world, but the Romans seems to have had a higher opinion of Greek than than of any other foreign language. And Great Britain to some extent also preserved the Celtic language even in the Eastern and Southern areas, but only until the Anglosaxons took over.


Iversen wrote:Maybe there was a silent and largely undocumented undercurrent of Celtic speech in Gallia for at least some time after the conquest, but we can't prove it - the few Celtic words in later sources may be an expression of the knowledge level of a few persons rather than a proof of a connection to a surviving use of Celtic (like when we use Roman quotes for fun in modern English). At the end of the day it probably comes down to your perception of the mindset of the conquered Gauls - and I think they chose the easy way: to become second class Romans - which at least brought them the promise of a safe existance within the framework of a new Roman-style society.

I do however acknowledge that there were some rebels that may have used the Celtic language as one element in their uprisings - see for instance the WIkipedia article about the Bagaudean rebellions in the 3. century:

"In the later Roman Empire, bagaudae (also spelled bacaudae) were groups of peasant insurgents who arose during the Crisis of the Third Century, and persisted until the very end of the western Empire, particularly in the less-Romanised areas of Gallia and Hispania, where they were "exposed to the depredations of the late Roman state, and the great landowners and clerics who were its servants". (...) The name probably means "fighters" in Gaulish. C.E.V. Nixon assesses the bagaudae, from the official Imperial viewpoint, as "bands of brigands who roamed the countryside looting and pillaging". J.C.S. Léon interprets the most completely assembled documentation and identifies the bagaudae as impoverished local free peasants, reinforced by brigands, runaway slaves and deserters from the legions, who were trying to resist the ruthless labor exploitation of the late Roman proto-feudal manorial and military systems, and all manner of punitive laws and levies in the marginal areas of the Empire"

This does however not prove that the participants in the rebellions actually were able to speak the Gaulish language.

Speaking about Wikipedia, the article in the English version about the Gaulish language:

"Gaulish was supplanted by Vulgar Latin and various Germanic languages from around the 5th century AD onwards."

So late? Why switch to a Roman dialect after the Roman rule has ended and a Germanic tribe called the Franks has taken over? This claim is totally absurd, and without a lot of corroborating evidence I simply don't believe it.


You are looking at ancient history through modern and cynical eyes.

History of the French Language

"Gauls spoke a wide variety of Celtic languages (Indo-European family) that have all disappeared. It should be kept in mind that Gaulish was not a uniform language; it varied somewhat, depending on where it was spoken.... Northern Gauls—such as the Morini, Atrebates, Ambiani, and Nervii—understood each other from village to village. The same was true for the Vasates, Satiates, Tarbelles, and Ausci in the south, but an Ambiani from the north could not communicate with a Tarbelle from the south."

Between 58 and 50 B.C., Julius Caesar conquered all of Gaul, which covered modern France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Western Germany. Though the Roman conquest was completed quickly militarily (despite the revolt under Vercingetorix), it was much slower in terms of civilization. The Romans implemented their administrative system everywhere they went and profoundly changed the conquered peoples. They didn't exactly impose Latin on them—they simply ignored the "barbaric" languages and made it so that Latin became essential. "

Individuals who sought the full rights of Roman citizenship had to adopt the habits, lifestyle, religion, and language of Rome. Such were the conditions of enjoying all the advantages of Roman citizenship, which was vital to those who wanted to climb the social ladder. Roman currency was used throughout the Empire and Roman finances were administered in Latin only. Because an incredible number of lower-ranking collectors and employees was required, "indigenous" Gauls who wanted these positions learned Latin. The army was another powerful means of spreading Latin. The vanquished had to pay a heavy tribute to the Romans in military troops, who were commanded in Latin.

The advent of Latin schools gave a boost to the Roman alphabet and writing and had quite an adverse effect on the Gaulish oral tradition, which was unable to resist the powerful Latin language. The vehicular language of the Gaulish nobility could only be Latin or Greek."

As payment for services rendered, numerous Romans received free land. These Roman settlements played an important role in spreading Latin to the countryside. The Romans also built a vast network of paved roads, which provided quick access to the Empire's most remote regions. These roads were used to transport military troops, goods, and the imperial post, but were also an effective way to spread Latin.

The whole of Gaul underwent a long period of Latin-Celtic bilingualism, which began in the towns and gradually spread to the countryside. Latin unilingualism was achieved in the fifth century, and the Gaulish languages all disappeared. Only the vassal ethnic groups associated with defending the Empire were able to preserve their languages—the Gauls in Great Britain, the Basques in Spain, the Berbers in Africa, the Armenians, the Albanians, and the Jews in the East. Before becoming extinct, Gaulish passed on some 150 words to Latin (which were then passed on to French). They included terms designating plants (flora), animals (fauna), and objects relating to agriculture and daily life. For example, alouette ( < alauda), bouleau ( < betulus), cervoise ( < cervesia), druide ( < druida), lieue ( < leuga), arpent ( < arepennis), char ( < carru), barde ( < bard), chêne ( < cassanus), mouton ( < multo), sapin ( < sappus), valet ( < vasso), etc.

Latin spoken and spread in the fifth century was not that of Caesar and Cicero, but rather the Latin of public servants, soldiers, Roman settlers, and assimilated indigenous populations. This form of Latin gradually became distinct from the classical language of the first century. While the classical version was reserved for the aristocracy and schools, a popular form of Latin with major regional variations developed as a result of contact between the conquerors and the conquered.

Over time, this very different form of Latin drawn from daily life was even used by clerks and scribes to write official documents and a host of religious and civil documents. In fact, after the collapse of the enormous imperial structure, vulgar Latin would go on to permanently triumph over classical Latin.. "

https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=french_history
4 x

User avatar
IronMike
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2554
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 6:13 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Languages: Studying: Esperanto
Maintaining: nada
Tested:
BCS, 1+L/1+R (DLPT5, 2022)
Russian, 3/3 (DLPT5, 2022) 2+ (OPI, 2022)
German, 2L/1+R (DLPT5, 2021)
Italian, 1L/2R (DLPT IV, 2019)
Esperanto, C1 (KER skriba ekzameno, 2017)
Slovene, 2+L/3R (DLPT II in, yes, 1999)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5189
x 7265
Contact:

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby IronMike » Mon May 22, 2017 5:05 pm

Political linguistics, one of my favorite sub-fields!
0 x
You're not a C1 (or B1 or whatever) if you haven't tested.
CEFR --> ILR/DLPT equivalencies
My swimming life.
My reading life.

Daniel N.
Green Belt
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:44 pm
Languages: Croatian (N), English (C1), German (beginner)
x 733
Contact:

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby Daniel N. » Thu May 25, 2017 9:19 am

mcthulhu wrote:It's later than your chosen period, but you could look at how Serbo-Croatian became BCS, not to mention Montenegrin. Politics and the Balkan wars had something to do with that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8520466.stm

Unfortunately, people sometimes portrait things as if the history started in 1990. or 1945. The story started much earlier. The whole 19th century, there were various "language wars" in the Habsburg Empire, mainly what language will be used in public administration and schools, but in some regions, also what script, and what will be the name of the language, what language will be used in the army etc. (e.g. http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/135135)

Just to mention several names of language used in the Parliament of Croatia-Slavonia, during the 19th century, in a chronological sequence:
  • Illyrian
  • Yugoslavian (i.e. "South Slavic")
  • Croatian or Serbian
Use of languages, their names, script used etc. were always a part of politics in some parts of the world.

Also, think about Catalan and Basque in Spain during the Franco regime. Today, discussions about script - Cyrillic or Latin - in Serbia. These are all political questions, actually.
5 x
Check Easy Croatian (very useful for Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian as well)


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], s_allard and 2 guests