too rough and careless to substitute the Roman grammatical system for their own, in spite of the close resemblance between the two. Men in a low state of civilization see distinctions sooner than resemblances. They differentiate more readily than they generalize. The difference between their own language and that of the Romans[1] struck them forcibly, while it has been reserved for a much later generation to discover the fundamental unity of both. They therefore not only made havoc of the inflectional terminations of the Latin language,—in doing which they were doubtless aided by the tendency already beginning to develope itself among the Romans themselves towards an analytical form of speech,—but they also rejected such Latin words as they found any difficulty in pronouncing, substituting for them their own German words. It must also be remembered that for centuries before her fall Rome had been propped by foreign spears. Briton, Spaniard, and Gaul had fought in her legions, and guarded the palaces of her capital. Juvenal’s "barbara quæ pictis venit bascanda Britannis" is only a type of a large class of words familiar to the later Romans, but which were quite unknown to writers of the Augustan age."[2] Just as we English have borrowed loot,
- ↑ The word "Romans" here does not mean inhabitants of Rome. In the ages immediately succeeding the German invasion, all the conquered races of France, Spain, and Italy, whether they were Gauls, Italians, or Iberians, were called Romans, in distinction from the conquering tribes of Teutons.
- ↑ A few examples are:
Classical Latin. Vulgar Latin. French. verberare batuere battre pugna batalia bataille osculari basiare baiser felis catus chat edere manducare manger ignis focus feu vertere tornare tourner iter viaticum voyage aula curtis cour Some of these words, as focus, viaticum, are in use in classical Latin, but not in the sense in which they are employed in French.
