Thanks. This is spot on!

True! I just referenced this in a previous comment -- that was a slip by me thinking ahead while I speak (and of course now it's out there on the video). The local population spoke Celtic languages. The English-Latin connection I was referencing in the video is the blend of Anglo-Saxon with the Latin the Romano-British population were speaking, which happened much later.

Yeah, that's true. Also noticed this.

@@mrclatin753 again wrong, it was the adoption of the Latin version of Christianity by the English that resulted in a large influx of Latin words into their language. The conquered local population mostly spoke Celtic.

This makes total sense, though I admit I had never thought of that connection too deeply before. Very interesting! I am by no means an expert, so if you have any resources to share on that topic, I'd be very interested. Thanks again!

Inversement, des millions de Français ont des noms allemands et pas seulement en Alsace ou en Lorraine mais dans toute la France. Les invasions germaniques n'ont donc jamais cessé?😃Ma femme a un nom allemand, mais ne parle que le français. Son père était alsacien et parlait le français avec un fort accent germanique. Quand à ses grands-parents, ils ne parlaient que l'allemand. Ils étaient nés avant que l'Alsace-Moselle ne redevienne française en 1919. Vivant à la campagne, ils n'avaient jamais éprouvé le besoins d'apprendre la langue nationale. Tout cela a bien changé maintenant. Les dialectes germaniques sont moribonds, aussi bien en Alsace qu'en Moselle. Même chose en Bretagne, Flandre, Corse, Pays basque, Occitanie...C'est dommage, toute cette diversité qui disparaît.😨

Very interesting! I will admit, I don't know anything about those languages, but I have always been intrigued by them and wish I knew more. Thanks for sharing!

Glad it helped! I am by no means an expert, so if this is a topic you find interesting I would highly recommend you look more deeply into it!

Salve, amice! Glad you enjoy them

It's a great question! I would not be the expert on this, so I'd have to do some research. I can tell you that yes there were a variety of Italic Languages and Latin was one of them (others that I've heard of are Umbrian and Oscan, for example). Back when I learned this, I had learned that we usually refer to a Proto-Italic version of Indo-European. Latin was an offshoot branch of that Proto-Italic origin, while (unless I am mistaken!) Oscan and Umbrian were a separate branch, though sharing that same origin. If I remember right, Latin was originally connected to another Italic language from southern Etruria (the name is escaping me at the moment). From that Archaic Latin you end up with Classical Latin. I am not sure there is a totally agreed upon "origin" for Latin apart from the idea that it was an Indo-European language brought to the Italian peninsula through migration. Just some thoughts off the top of my head. Either way, it definitely is a fascinating topic to explore in more detail!

I might be misunderstanding your question, but Latin and the Italic languages are a branch of Indo-European, so its roots would be the same as other I-E languages. The other Italic languages such as Umbrian and Oscan would have assimilated into Latin over time. Again, I may just be misunderstanding your point!

@@mrclatin753I'd expected more about the Italic languages, as the title was Where does Latin come from. But OK I see your point.

@ Got it -- I wish I could provide more for you, but that sort of dive into the Italic languages would be beyond my skills!

I thought the same thing, it’s a misleading thumbnail. I believe the italic speaking peoples migrated into the peninsula from the Balkans and were responsible for introducing horses and iron work to Italy.

@@stevenquestionseverything4445 Yeah, good points.

Thanks for pointing that out!

Very true. Just me slipping and thinking ahead while I speak! The "English" I was referencing here is Anglo-Saxon -- not the Celtic languages of the native tribes the Romans encountered. The blending was of the Latin brought by the Romans, which the Romano-British population would speak, and the later Anglo-Saxon English.

@@mrclatin753 Even that's not right. While some Latin indeed took root, particularly in the south-east, it did not survive, whereas the Brittonic Celtic language that was there before the Romans did, and became Welsh, Cumbric, Cornish and Breton. They are/were certainly influenced by Latin. But the Latin influence on English did not come from the era of the Roman occupation. There was first a set of vocab that English brought with it from the continent that had come from Latin, generally for material culture like street, wine, cheese, wall. There was then a new influx in the Anglo-Saxon period due to Christianisation mostly for religious things. But by far the greatest Latin influence on English was much later, in the Renaissance period as you mentioned. To be precise it began at the end of the 16th century. It really has nothing to do with the Roman presence in the country 1200+ years earlier.

Hi John, I think we might be making different points. I am not saying English is more related to French than German. English is, at its heart, a Germanic language. I am simply saying that through the Norman conquest, English was introduced to French (which comes from Latin). Some linguists have claimed that about 25% of English words come from Latin through French. Words such as "peasant," "vassal," "armor," "regime," and "beef" come to mind off the top of my head. So I would still say that linguistically the connection between English and French is indisputable. What you seem to be referencing is modern language, which would be a different discussion. I would not doubt that it is easier to understand modern French if you speak Spanish. I don't speak Spanish, so I would defer to you on that!

English is a mixed language consisting of Anglo-Saxon and old French. That's why you have couples of words from the two languages that meant the same thing initially, but eventually acquired slightly different meanings: freedom/liberty, worth/value, work/labour, feeling/sentiment and so on.

Latin actually spread through conquest. Greek, before Latin, spread, by colonisation, trade and conquest (Alexander the great). Greek and Latin influenced European languages through civilization. Can you spot the differences between Greek and Latin in the following couples of words?: democracy/republic, ethics/morals, philanthropy/charity, erotic/amorous, physical/natural, sympathy/compassion.

@@DemetriosKongas Well, the substrate of English is purely Germanic, no doubt. On top of that came the French/Latin dictionary.

To be perfectly honest, English is etimologically LATIN... not Germanic. The usual association was a political choice made a few centuries ago, and pushed from the US's strongly Germanic origin population in line with Germanicist ideologists such as those of the Volkisch movement. We need to be very careful about understanding the true story here... The dislike between catholics and protestants, which is still present today... and is merely a makeover of TRIBAL ISSUES... ie. Celts vs Saxons, in an updated format.

Sanskrit and Latin have a common ancestor, but Latin is not derived from Sanskrit (and certainly not all languages, either)

Not wrong

I appreciate the passion! You aren't wrong, though you might have caught in a previous response that the Germanic in Britain comment was just a slip by me thinking ahead while speaking that I didn't notice. Don't worry -- for over 10 years my students have known the Britons were speaking a Celtic language!

@@mrclatin753 Well, in your video you clearly state that the Romans arrived to "find germanic languages". No. They did not. That is the reason I thought it worthwhile pointing it out. I'm sure it's a mistake, and it's obviously your call whether you want to correct that. There would be several other bones of contention which are more centred on points of view and not facts. We'll leave those for another discussion.

You're not quite right in everything you say there.

@@MatthewMcVeagh Ipse dixit... Why not explain yourself... or are you expecting me to just deconstruct my understanding just because you said so? Point to the specifics and I will happily either explain myself, and if your opinion / facts are indeed more precise than mine, I will happily press UPDATE (not into "winning", but rather being precise).

@@culturaypasion 1. It wasn't the Romans who displaced the Celts to Wales and Scotland, it was the Anglo-Saxons. And even they did not so much displace them as absorb them in England. 2. Wales and Scotland, and Ireland retain their Celtic languages but only as minorities. A majority in each country speaks English as a first language, and an overwhelming majority in Scotland and Ireland. 3. Celtic languages are absolutely related to Germanic ones because they are two branches from the same family, Indo-European. The 'Celtic' nations of the British Isles are also full of Germanic ancestry and DNA, because Anglo-Saxons, English, Norse, Normans have all mixed with their peoples. 4. The Germanic peoples who arrived 400 years after the Romans did not speak a massive variety of languages, but a set of closely related dialects. Even the Old Norse which came over with the Vikings and which is deemed a different language was close enough for speakers of it and Anglo-Saxon to largely understand each other. Even if there was some difference between West and East Old Norse by that time they would have been mutually intelligible as well. 5. Beowulf was not an attempt to give Old [correct spelling] English a claim to fame, it was just a poem that recounted a legend. Its significance has been seen with hindsight, largely because it's a major work in Old English when there are so few about. It certainly had nothing to do with Middle English which began in 1100, and which had several significant works written in it such as Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. 6. British Latin almost certainly died out within a century of the departure of the Roman legions, and did not survive to anything like 700 even in small pockets - unless you know different? 7. French does not equal Latin, so the Normans bringing in French as an official language did not mean Latin was spoken again. We should also note it was Norman-French rather than the dialect of the French court in Paris; in fact as the English monarchy diverged from the Duchy of Normandy it became what is called 'Anglo-Norman'. 8. Certainly some key documents were written in Latin, but it was never the language of the aristocracy any more than the peasantry, and most official documents were written in the aforementioned Anglo-Norman French. Later there was 'Law French' which adhered to the Parisian standard more than the earlier Norman period, and from Edward III's time were the beginnings of making English the official language. And that's just England, but if you are talking about all the official documents of *Britain* you would also have to include the Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh etc. that was used. 9. We do not really think of 'Anglo-Saxons' as existing long after the Norman Conquest; rather they were now the 'English', and they mixed with the Normans and ultimately absorbed them. The Anglo-Saxons' own Germanicness was limited because they were largely descended from the Britons who the original Anglo-Saxons invaded and mixed with. The Britons' earlier genes/ancestry survived more, but the Anglo-Saxons' culture did, including language. It's a mistake to think of the people the Normans conquered as 'Germanic' just because their language was, and similarly to think that they were still Anglo-Saxons and Germanic centuries after that conquest. 10. Old English was gone and transforming into Middle English by 1100; Middle English therefore did not take until 1400 to get established. Chaucer et al. did not 'standardise' it either.

touch grass bozo 👹👹👹

This has been addressed in previous comments (and my own description for this video, though you might not have seen it) -- just a slip of the tongue by me. Sorry you found the video so upsetting, but thanks for watching!

@@mrclatin753 the thing is, I am not teaching people but you do. English is my third language, I am not trying to teach people English. If you publish stuff publicaly, you must be aware you are going to be judged. there was not my intention to offend you. Anyway, there was not only issue with your film, I pointed it out in another comment: "again wrong, it was the adoption of the Latin version of Christianity by the English that resulted in a large influx of Latin words into their language. The conquered local population mostly spoke Celtic." I am neither linguist nor historian, when I could find so many errors, what would expert say about you work? Again, respect for your enthusiasm and obviously you got the talent to do such materials.