adopted from the language of the Teutonic conquerors of Gaul
is large (guerre = werra; laid = laidh; choisir = kausjan). The
words were imported at different periods of the Teutonic supremacy, and consequently show chronological differences in their
sounds (haïr = hatan; français = frankisk; écrevisse = krebiz;
échine = skina). Small separate importations of Teutonic words
resulted from the Scandinavian settlement in France, and the
commercial intercourse with the Low German nations on the
North Sea (friper = Norse hripa; chaloupe = Dutch sloop; est =
Old English eást). In the meantime, as Latin (with considerable
alterations in pronunciation, vocabulary, &c.) continued in
literary, official and ecclesiastical use, the popular language
borrowed from time to time various more or less altered classical
Latin words; and when the popular language came to be used
in literature, especially in that of the church, these importations
largely increased (virginitet Eulalia = virginitātem; imagena
Alexis = imāginem—the popular forms would probably have been
vergedet, emain). At the Renaissance they became very abundant,
and have continued since, stifling to some extent the developmental power of the language. Imported words, whether
Teutonic, classical Latin or other, often receive some modification at their importation, and always take part in all subsequent
natural phonetic changes in the language (Early Old French
adversarie, Modern French adversaire). Those French words
which appear to contradict the phonetic laws were mostly introduced into the language after the taking place (in words already
existing in the language) of the changes formulated by the laws
in question; compare the late imported laïque with the inherited
lai, both from Latin laicum. In this and many other cases the
language possesses two forms of the same Latin word, one
descended from it, the other borrowed (meuble and mobile from
mōbilem). Some Oriental and other foreign words were brought
in by the crusaders (amiral from amir); in the 16th century,
wars, royal marriages and literature caused a large number
of Italian words (soldat = soldato; brave = bravo; caresser =
carezzare) to be introduced, and many Spanish ones (alcôve =
alcoba; hâbler = hablar). A few words have been furnished by
Provençal (abeille, cadenas), and several have been adopted from
other dialects into the French of Paris (esquiver Norman or
Picard for the Paris-French eschiver). German has contributed
a few (blocus = blochūs; choucroute = sūrkrūt); and recently a
considerable number have been imported from England (drain,
confortable, flirter). In Old French, new words are freely
formed by derivation, and to a less extent by composition; in
Modern French, borrowing from Latin or other foreign languages
is the more usual course. Of the French words now obsolete
some have disappeared because the things they express are
obsolete; others have been replaced by words of native formation,
and many have been superseded by foreign words generally
of literary origin; of those which survive, many have undergone
considerable alterations in meaning. A large number of Old
French words and meanings, now extinct in the language of
Paris, were introduced into English after the Norman Conquest;
and though some have perished, many have survived—strife
from Old French estrif (Teutonic strīt); quaint from cointe
(cognitum); remember from remembrer (rememorāre); chaplet
(garland) from chapelet (Modern French “chaplet of beads”);
appointment (rendezvous) from appointement (now “salary”).
Many also survive in other French dialects.
(b) Dialects.—The history of the French language from the period of its earliest extant literary memorials is that of the dialects composing it. But as the popular notion of a dialect as the speech of a definite area, possessing certain peculiarities confined to and extending throughout that area, is far from correct, it will be advisable to drop the misleading divisions into “Norman dialect,” “Picard dialect” and the like, and take instead each important feature in the chronological order (as far as can be ascertained) of its development, pointing out roughly the area in which it exists, and its present state. The local terms used are intentionally vague, and it does not, for instance, at all follow that because “Eastern” and “Western” are used to denote the localities of more than one dialectal feature, the boundary line between the two divisions is the same in each case. It is, indeed, because dialectal differences as they arise do not follow the same boundary lines (much less the political divisions of provinces), but cross one another to any extent, that to speak of the dialect of a large area as an individual whole, unless that area is cut off by physical or alien linguistic boundaries, creates only confusion. Thus the Central French of Paris, the ancestor of classical Modern French, agrees with a more southern form of Romanic (Limousin, Auvergne, Forez, Lyonnais, Dauphiné) in having ts, not tsh, for Latin k (c) before i and e; tsh, not k, for k (c) before a; and with the whole South in having gu, not w, for Teutonic w; while it belongs to the East in having oi for earlier ei; and to the West in having é, not ei, for Latin a; and i, not ei, from Latin ĕ+i. It may be well to denote that Southern French does not correspond to southern France, whose native language is Provençal. “Modern French” means ordinary educated Parisian French.
(c) Phonology.—The history of the sounds of a language is, to a considerable extent, that of its inflections, which, no less than the body of a word, are composed of sounds. This fact, and the fact that unconscious changes are much more reducible to law than conscious ones, render the phonology of a language by far the surest and widest foundation for its dialectology, the importance of the sound-changes in this respect depending, not on their prominence, but on the earliness of their date. For several centuries after the divergence between spoken and written Latin, the history of these changes has to be determined mainly by reasoning, aided by a little direct evidence in the misspellings of inscriptions the semi-popular forms in glossaries, and the warnings of Latin grammarians against vulgarities. With the rise of Romanic literature the materials for tracing the changes become abundant, though as they do not give us the sounds themselves, but only their written representations, much difficulty, and some uncertainty, often attach to deciphering the evidence. Fortunately, early Romanic orthography, that of Old French included (for which see next section), was phonetic, as Italian orthography still is; the alphabet was imperfect, as many new sounds had to be represented which were not provided for in the Roman alphabet from which it arose, but writers aimed at representing the sounds they uttered, not at using a fixed combination of letters for each word, however they pronounced it.
The characteristics of French as distinguished from the allied languages and from Latin, and the relations of its sounds, inflections and syntax to those of the last-named language, belong to the general subject of the Romanic languages. It will be well, however, to mention here some of the features in which it agrees with the closely related Provençal, and some in which it differs. As to the latter, it has already been pointed out that the two languages glide insensibly into one another, there being a belt of dialects which possess some of the features of each. French and Provençal of the 10th century—the earliest date at which documents exist in both—agree to a great extent in the treatment of Latin final consonants and the vowels preceding them, a matter of great importance for inflections (numerous French examples occur in this section). (1) They reject all vowels, except a, of Latin final (unaccented) syllables, unless preceded by certain consonant combinations or followed by nt (here, as elsewhere, certain exceptions cannot be noticed); (2) they do not reject a similarly situated; (3) they reject final (unaccented) m; (4) they retain final s. French and Northern Provençal also agree in changing Latin ū from a labio-guttural to a labio-palatal vowel; the modern sound (German ü) of the accented vowel of French lune, Provençal luna, contrasting with that in Italian and Spanish luna, appears to have existed before the earliest extant documents. The final vowel laws generally apply to the unaccented vowel preceding the accented syllable, if it is preceded by another syllable, and followed by a single consonant—matin (mātūtīnum), dortoir (dormītōrium), with vowel dropped; canevas (cannabāceum), armedure, later armëure, now armure (armātūram), with e=ə, as explained below.
On the other hand, French differs from Provençal: (1) in uniformly preserving (in Early Old French) Latin final t, which
