In any case, linguistics already has a reliable way of distinguishing between inherited and borrowed words, which makes use of sound laws demonstrated by means of the comparative method. Sound changes are regular. For instance, the Latin ct regularly corresponds to ch in Spanish, pt in Romanian, and tt in Italian in inherited words. The Latin no ct em is no ch e in Spanish, noa pt e in Romanian, no tt e in Italian, and n uit in French; o ct o corresponds to o ch o, o pt , o tt o, and h uit ; co ct us corresponds to co ch o,    , co pt , co tt o, and c uit ; fa ct us corresponds to he ch o, fa pt , and fa tt o;  and pe ct us corresponds to pe ch o, pie pt , and pe tt o.
The base vocabularies of German and English, though similar, present significant differences. For instance, compare the German personal subject pronouns ich, du, er, sie, wir, Sie, sie, with the English "I, you, he, she, we, you, they. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Cortez claims German and English are very close, when many of the differences Cortez cites in favor of the supposed non-Latin origin of the Romance languages also exist in English and German.
For instance, cases, genders, and word order, all aspects which Cortez cites in favor of Romance being extremely different and hence not descended from Latin, are also very different in English and German. German also has separable verbs and one-word infinitives, neither of which exist in English. If German and English are "very close", despite all this, then by the same token Latin and Romance are as well.
Let us examine these more closely. Cras exists in Portuguese as an archaic term , Spanish also as an archaic term  , and Sardinian,   and demain and domani come from the Latin de mane or de e mane , which are attested in Martial and the Vulgate. Hence many of the words alleged to be exclusive to Latin do exist in Romance, either as a word or a morpheme, and many of the alleged "non-Latin" Romance words actually are derived from Latin, albeit often via borrowing.
The fact that Cortez managed to get such a large number of etymologies so spectacularly wrong does not inspire confidence in his scholarship or linguistic knowledge. What Cortez is doing is the equivalent of saying that the verb "to begin" is anfangen in German, while neglecting to mention that German also possesses the verb beginnen. As for the words that have not survived in Romance, it is to be expected that some words would disappear or be created over the centuries. There are several ways lexical replacement or creation could happen.
Latin may have had several synonyms for the same concept, and some of these survived while others fell into disuse. Some words may have undergone semantic shift. But the principles that they represent are by no means confined to the fringe of language. They are thoroughly mainstream. We can see similar cycles, for instance, with postpositions that first merge with the noun to become case endings, are then chiselled away altogether, and then a new round of postpositions can begin the process all over again. And ditto with auxiliaries, which are squashed on to the verb to become tense endings, then drop off completely, only to make place for a new wave of fusions.
There are in short other possible explanations as to the origin of these words that do not require assuming the existence of a completely new mother language and discarding a relationship which is amply supported by many sound correspondences. In addition, with such an argument one could argue against any language being descended from any other language. One could list Germanic words that exist in various Germanic languages but not in English to "prove" that English isn't a Germanic language.
German and English, which Cortez holds up as examples of "extremely similar" languages, have several conjunctions and prepositions that are very different as will be shown below shortly. Even if we assume Romance is not descended from Latin, Proto-Romance must have either possessed or lacked these words, meaning that the daughter languages lost or created them, respectively — the same type of lexical change Cortez is arguing could not have happened. It is interesting to note that Cortez does not provide the Latin equivalents this time. If he did, many of them would be very similar to the French words listed, such as dormir , venir , vivre , voir , and so on.
Cortez's conclusion also seems to be based on a fairly small sample size; it is hardly possible to extrapolate from Germanic, Hellenic, and Romance to all language families. Cortez earlier cherry-picked dissimilar words in Latin and Romance to show how very different they are, and now he is cherry-picking similar words in English and German to show how similar they are and to emphasize the very unusual nature of the large differences between Latin and Romance. The flaw in this is obvious. One could just as well selectively list words that are the same in Latin and Romance, and extremely different in English and German, and conclude that therefore there is a universal tendency for languages to change and that Romance and Latin are unusually similar, as in the following two lists:.
If you will recall, Cortez himself earlier provided an example of exactly that phenomenon: Arabic. Closer to home, there is always French. In colloquial French, the conjunction donc so is usually replaced by the phrase du coup. The vocabulary and even grammar of formal written English can differ from that of colloquial speech. Consider, too, the sentence "They're gonna be in a lotta trouble if they don't fess up," which contains numerous colloquial elements that are not used in formal writing, such as the contractions "They're", "don't", "gonna", and "lotta" whose full form "a lot of" is also informal , and the phrasal verb "fess up".
A formal "translation" of this sentence might be, "They will be in a very difficult situation if they do not confess," or, more freely, "They will be obliged to face the dire consequences of their actions if they do not confess. In summary, Cortez's arguments are that Romance cannot be descended from Latin because Romance's basic vocabulary has words not found in Latin and vice-versa, and because other related languages German-English, Ancient Greek-Modern Greek are more similar to each other than Romance is to Latin.
The first argument suffers from the fact that many of the words Cortez claims not to be present in Romance actually are, and can be demonstrated to be inherited through sound correspondences. But even ignoring those mistakes, and focusing only on those words that really are exclusive to Latin, the argument is unconvincing. If this argument were valid, no language could be descended from any other, since words disappear or are replaced as a consequence of the natural processes of linguistic evolution.
The second argument is based on cherry picking. Cortez lists Romance and Latin words that are different, and German and English words that are similar, and declares that therefore as a whole , Romance and Latin are different, while German and English are similar. As noted previously, one could list words to attempt to "prove" the exact opposite. There are many examples of languages losing both cases and genders, as well as developing articles.
Sur Les Traces Du Pourquoi Pas by Dardel Genevieve - AbeBooks
Among the Romance languages, Old French did indeed have a case system albeit a very reduced one , consisting of subject and oblique cases. A similar phenomenon may happened on the Iberian Peninsula. Italian and Romanian preserve Latin neuter gender nouns in a way that French does not; these are conventionally described as 'masculine in the singular, feminine in the plural'; e. Asturian , likewise, preserves a neuter gender.
Spanish preserves a relict of a neuter pronoun in "lo" which can be interpreted as the dative or accusative form i. In addition, there are several examples in the Germanic languages of loss of cases and gender. The gradual disappearance of case and gender in English is well documented. Indeed, Cortez even mentions the fact that English, unlike German, has no cases, but, bizarrely, makes nothing of it.
Old English had three genders, four cases, and dual personal pronouns. Another example would be Bulgarian. Modern Bulgarian is unusual among the Slavic languages in that, unlike all other Slavic languages, it has definite articles, no infinitive, and lacks cases. However, this was not true of Old Bulgarian, a much more typical Slavic language, with 7 cases, an infinitive, and no articles. In Middle Bulgarian, we see these features eroding, with "a general confusion of letters, inflexions, forms", the loss of the dual number, and the development of the definite article. Also, Old Persian had seven cases and three genders, while modern Persian has neither cases nor genders.
In addition, Cortez notes that in other language families, there is variation in the types and presence of articles. In Scandinavian, definite articles are added to the ends of words, German has declined articles, and English has undeclined articles. Bulgarian has suffixed definite articles, while Russian has none. Since there are so many possible ways for articles to evolve within the same family, it is therefore improbable that Latin evolved in exactly the same way across all the entire Romance area.
Rather, the language Old Italian that was spread across Europe already contained articles and did not evolve them. In actual fact, the amount of variation of articles within Germanic and Romance is roughly the same. If you take Old French into account which did decline its articles , then both Germanic and Romance have suffixed articles, declined articles, and undeclined articles.
Even ignoring Old French as Cortez does , the argument makes no sense. Germanic has three types of articles declined, non-declined, and suffixed , Slavic has two suffixed or none at all , and Romance also has two suffixed and non-declined , so therefore Romance articles are not as diverse? This is a very strange line of reasoning, and it is unclear how it is supposed to prove anything , let alone Romance not being Latin. Linguists say nothing of the sort. While laymen may express opinions to the effect that words shifting semantically or new expressions and phrases coming into use is degradation for example, in the 18th century, one author decried the developing use of "you" to refer to only a single person as being "corruption" and "debasement" of the English language ,  linguists vigorously criticize such opinions as being unscientific.
In Western Romance "b" did not "become" "r". The explanation is a bit more complex.
Western Romance initially tacked a conjugated form of the auxiliary "to have" onto the infinitive e. This development is amply attested in written documents, and is exemplified in Old Spanish sentences where the future tense is expressed as the infinitive followed by a conjugated form of aver , such as Matarlos emos a todos modern Los materemos a todos ; "We will kill them all". In addition, the loss of the future tense is also implied by Cortez's theory, since the mentioned Western Romance future tense suffixes do not exist in Romanian.
According to A History of the Spanish Language : . Actually, Latin's word order was a bit more flexible than SOV although it was the general trend. This is because its extensive inflection system did much of that work - a speaker or reader would always know if a word was a subject or an object based on how it inflected, not where it was in the sentence a modern example of this type of grammar would be Russian. Old French preserved the SOV order in some situations, such as subordinate clauses and prepositional phrases. The word order patterns observed in Old French remind us of those in today's German or Dutch.
Also, the Oaths of Strasbourg , the oldest Romance document, are far more similar to Romance than they are to Latin:. In addition, Latin itself was conservative; the Latin of Plautus, writing in B. Languages' basic vocabulary and grammar never change rapidly. There are many examples of languages changing in relatively short time frames, one of which Cortez has himself mentioned: English. Cortez cherry-picks an intelligible text in Middle English, but Old English, which predates it by just a few centuries, was completely different.
No modern English speaker could make heads or tails out of a text like: .
As mentioned previously, Old English lost its cases, genders, and was radically transformed in general, over a period of just a few hundred years — about the same as the posited development of Latin into Romance. Since then, however, English has remained more or less stable especially in its written form if one disregards major pronunciation changes like the Tudor vowel shift , remaining essentially the same. In other words, English changed completely in a relatively short period of time, then stabilized and remained mostly unchanged for centuries — exactly the scenario hypothesized for Latin and Romance.
There are other examples of radical language change. Bulgarian developed articles and lost its 7 cases and infinitive over a period of approximately years. It might seem reasonable to take the attested conservatism of Romance and extrapolate a thousand years earlier to antiquity, but there are very good reasons to believe that, like English, Romance underwent a period of rapid transformation before settling down and becoming more conservative, in a manner reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould 's punctuated equilibrium.
Furthermore, time is only one factor in language change. American English is much more similar to British English than Brazilian Portuguese is to European Portuguese, despite the fact that both separated from each other roughly the same time ago. Contact with other languages — all Romance languages encountered previous non-Latin speaking populations as well as later non-Romance immigrants and conquerors — also tends to speed up language change through loanwords and influence on pronunciation.
This is thought to be the reason for the simplification of Afrikaans. And, of course, Romance itself and Cortez's proposed caseless Old Italian contradict the idea that all languages evolve at roughly the same rate, since they are both more different from Proto-Indo-European than any of the other Indo-European languages Cortez mentions. In addition, there are two significant problems with Cortez's reference to and interpretation of the Oaths of Strasbourg. First, the quoted extract contradicts one of the points he made in the previous section.
Cortez claimed that pre-noun complements do not exist in Romance, but the cited passage from the Oaths of Strasbourg which he does claim to be Romance does indeed exhibit this feature in the phrase Pro Deo amur for the love of God. There are very good reasons to believe travail is derived from tripalium. For one thing, the semantic evolution from "torture" to that of "work" is well documented. In Old French, travail could mean "torture," "pain," "labor" as in pain of childbirth , "fatigue," and "effort. For another thing, the phonetic development is an expected outcome of Latin-Romance sound changes.
Consider the Latin word and its equivalents in Romance: trip alium , trav ail , trab ajo , trab alho.
As it happens, there is a similarly pronounced word in Latin, alium , which means "garlic. A similar phonetic shift can be found in ali enus, aj eno, alh eio. Cortez describes several examples which he believes demonstrates linguists' unflinching and irrational impulse to find a Latin origin for French words. He considers pice to be based on the root PS; PS is a modified form of PT, which in all Indo-European languages is used to describe food, such as in the words pizza , pie , and the Russian pit' to drink.
Similarly, the word "trivial" is not derived from trivium three ways , but from T-RB, meaning something that is excluded from noble work. This method of taking consonants and inventing roots, of course, is Cortez's invention. It fails on several grounds. And what about words like "rabble", "rabid", "rabbit", "ribbit", "rob", "rub", "rib", or "arbitrary"? Furthermore, following Cortez's methodology, one could make any word be related to pretty much any other word.
In reality, phonetic and semantic shift mean that a word may change radically in sound and meaning. This objection is irrelevant, since words that share no sounds can be related. In addition, it ignores the historical evolution of the word. The Old French form of the word was egua ,  so Cortez's whole structure collapses. Cambire is attested in Apuleius' Apology :    . Some of the words listed do exist in Latin, and those that don't are not uniformly present in all Romance languages. It is also not unusual for words to be borrowed across a very large area by many different languages.
For instance, the word "interesting" is very widespread, and is found in Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Baltic, and even Turkic languages. Borrowing tends to occur more frequently with languages that have "contact", i. The attested history of Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire makes language contact a very plausible scenario and we should expect words to be borrowed frequently through most of Europe as there were intensive trade, scientific and military contacts across language and political borders.
In addition, Romanian does have a neuter gender, and cases exist in both Romanian and Old French. First of all, the noun aide help is derived from aider , which is in turn from the Latin adiutare. Furthermore, Old French is not only closer to Italian, but, as mentioned previously, it preserves a number of Latin features that do not exist in other Romance languages, including Italian. This supposed "universal law" was made up by Cortez on the basis of a very small number of cherry-picked examples. As explained earlier, linguistic evolution can be both slow and gradual and in fits and starts.
Earlier, Cortez objected that "whoever heard of people using some words for speaking and others for writing? Jump to: navigation , search. De Or. The only Ciceronian speech known to have been delivered from a written script is his Oratio Post Reditum in Senatu, which was his first after his return from exile and thus required special care Planc.
From what we can gather, it was extremely rare for senators to bring with them a prepared text, and then only on important occasions: for instance, Pompey in 57 Sest. What can be more offensive than this, that no woman believes in her own beauty unless she has converted herself from a Tuscan into a Greekling, or from a maid of Sulmo into a true maid of Athens? They talk nothing but Greek, though it is a greater shame for our people to be ignorant of Latin.
Their fears and their wrath, their joys and their troubles—all the secrets of their souls—are poured forth in Greek; their very loves are carried on in Greek fashion. All this might be pardoned in a girl; but will you, who are hard on your eighty-sixth year, still talk in Greek? That tongue is not decent in an old woman's mouth. When you come out with the wanton words [Greek], you are using in public the language of the bed-chamber. Carressing and naughty words like these incite to love; but though you say them more tenderly than a Haemus or a Carpophorus, they will cause no fluttering of the heart—your years are counted upon your face!
How long will you deprive yourself of the chorus of praise that awaits you, and us of the pleasure of reading them? Do let them be borne on the lips of men and circulate through all the wide regions where the Roman tongue is spoken. People have long been eagerly looking forward to your publishing them, and you really ought not to cheat and disappoint them any longer. Quousque et tibi et nobis invidebis, tibi maxima laude, nobis voluptate? Sine per ora nominum ferantur isdemque quibus lingua Romana spatiis pervagentur.
Magna et iam longa exspectatio est, quam frustrari adhuc et differre non debes. But this little ufan was not considered nearly sturdy enough, so it was reinforced by another preposition, be 'by', to give a beefier be-ufan 'by on up'. But before long, be-ufan was assaulted by the forces of erosion, and ended up as a mere bufan.
Naturally, the syllabically-challenged bufan had to be pumped up again, this time by the preposition an 'on', to give an-bufan 'on by on up'. Later on, anbufan was ground down by erosion, and — to cut a long story short — ended up as the modest above. But it seems that a mere above doesn't soar nearly high enough nowadays, so we sometimes feel the need to reinforce it with 'up', to give up above — literally 'up on by on up'.
- Search EBRD French site.
- You Are Never Too Old to Be Spanked.
- Make Poverty Personal (ēmersion: Emergent Village resources for communities of faith): Taking the Poor as Seriously as the Bible Does?
- Sans traces de pas sur la neige (French Edition)?
So perhaps the easiest way of understanding these cycles of piling up, fusion and erosion is to imagine the forces that work on language as a kind of tireless compressing machine. Erosion keeps pounding at words, making them shorter and shorter. But shortened words are piled up into longer expressions, and the same forces of erosion then hack away at the pile, fuse the words and condense them into a more compact word once more.
And so a new cycle begins all over again. It is clear that spoken Latin could function perfectly well without paradigms devoted to the expression of future time.
"traces de pas" in English
Et ab Ludher nul plaid nunquam prindrai qui meon uol cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit. The two were originally quite similar, but between the classical period and the Middle Ages, the written standard remained frozen, while the spoken register underwent significant grammatical and lexical changes, such as the loss of its case system and the postpositive conjunction -que , among other things, transforming from a synthetic language into a vastly different analytic one "synthetic" here does not mean "artificial"; see Synthetic language and Analytic language.
Cortez, on the other hand, claims that Classical Latin is not a formal written register of a spoken vernacular think of the difference between written academic English and colloquial English , but rather a separate branch of Italic. He believes that Romance specifically, its ancestor, which he calls Old Italian underwent the synthetic-to-analytic transformation gradually during a millennia-long period prior to the classical period, with Latin being a separate, synthetic, Italic language that coexisted with Romance for a time, but died out in the classical era before ever becoming analytic.
Essentially, historical linguists hold that Romance changed dramatically in less than a millennium, while Cortez claims that this process took place much more slowly over many thousands of years. For instance, as a result of Portuguese merchants traveling far and wide to sell oranges, many languages call not only the fruit, but also the color orange some form of the word "Portugal"! How do you know the ancient works mentioning Caesar refer to an actual person and not a myth? Are there any surviving manuscripts of these works dating to Caesar's time?
If so, how do you know they're not forgeries? If not, how do you know they weren't really works of fiction written centuries later? Odds are, you can't answer any of these questions. That does not, however, mean there do not exist people who can. The xkcd comic "Period Speech" is also relevant. Could you tell the difference between, or produce, non-anachronistic English sentences with features characteristic of the 15 th and 17 th centuries? The literary languages were as a rule Arabic or Persian; Turkish was used more rarely and chiefly for poetry.
Bonnard, Am. Salmon, pages Lockwood, page Mladenova, pages 4, Cary Davis, Hispania, Vol. Namespaces Page Talk. Views Read Edit Fossil record. Support Donate. Community Saloon bar To do list What is going on? External links Twitter Facebook Discord. This page was last modified on 3 May , at Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Great and terrible Books. On our shelf:. Cortez argues that Latin died out as a spoken language around the 1st century B. In support of this claim, he cites a quote by Naevius from approximately B. These lines are quote mining. Cortez cites statements by various modern authors to the effect that the works of certain Roman authors contain "barbarisms" errors due to imperfect knowledge of a foreign language or "are full of archaisms" and "imitate Virgil".
Cortez says, "None of this could be explained if Latin was not a dead language that writers knew imperfectly. Cortez consistently ignores the profound conservatism of written language. English limps by with a ghastly orthography systematized in William Caxton's day, and mostly carven in stone by Samuel Johnson. Instruction in Latin grammar was always conducted according to the rules set down by grammarians like Priscian and Donatus, and concentrated on the intensive study of Roman authors of the first centuries BCE and CE.
No wonder written Latin was conservative, while the spoken language underwent large changes. Its written norm marks grammatical distinctions that once figured in the spoken language and got into its official spelling, but which are seldom or never observed in the current spoken language. From the 2nd century B.
"traces de pas" English translation
Various quotes are cited to the effect that educated Romans were expected to know both Greek and Latin. This implies that Latin, just like Greek, was a foreign language that Romans did not speak natively. The fact that Romans had Latin as part of their education does not mean it was not their native language. Anglophone schools and universities offer courses and degrees in English, in addition to other languages, but this is not because English is a dead or foreign language. When an Australian say is studying to receive a degree in English, they are not learning a language they do not know, but rather are taught the literature of, and composition and writing in, their native language.
One could just as well argue that the availability of both English and Spanish majors at Harvard University shows that both are foreign to Americans. In one of his Satires, Juvenal notes that, "it is a greater shame for our people to be ignorant of Latin. The fact that the non-Roman language of Greek was so influential and widespread in the Roman Empire must indicate that it, like Latin, was a foreign language to Romans. In the latter case, the Romans' use of Greek instead of Latin would simply mean switching one foreign language for another.
Greek was widely used by Romans, despite being a foreign and conquered language, because of its prior prestige. There are many other examples of conquering peoples making wide use of the languages of the conquered. For example, when the Goths conquered Italy and Iberia, they, despite their dominance, assimilated into the culture of their subjects and did not impose Gothic, because Latin was more prestigious. The Visigothic Code , for instance, was written in Latin. The Franks and Bulgars assimilated into the cultures of those they ruled.
The Turkic Timurid dynasty generally wrote in the prestigious languages of Arabic and Persian, and only rarely in Turkish. Cortez notes that Suetonius "Tells us that Julius Caesar organized in Rome 'different shows: gladiator fights and plays performed in all the neighborhoods of Rome by actors who spoke the three languages. Cortez says, "So then was Oscan still around during the time of Caesar, and did the people attend theater in Oscan?
Is there a single mention in Latin literature of Oscan being spoken in Rome at that time? In reality, it is probable that only the educated Roman elite could understand Greek and Latin, and the people spoke a different language. The Council of Tours of use the term lingua romana rustica to refer to Romance. The only explanation for the fact that the noun is in the singular and that the language is referred to as "Roman" rather than "Latin" is that Romance was fairly homogenous and not descended from Latin. In Algeria people speak dialectal Arabic, but if future archaeologists were to excavate Algeria, they would find only inscriptions in Classical Arabic and French.
They would then conclude that 21th-century Algerians spoke Classical Arabic and French, when in reality they spoke neither. In Algeria, Classical Arabic and French are written, but almost nonexistent as vernaculars. Similarly, if future archaeologists excavated in Latin America, they would find no trace of the widely used indigenous languages of Quechua and Guarani. Furthermore, we do have a wealth of graffiti and other written sources of the language the lower classes actually spoke and they — including their misspellings — tell us a great deal about the pronunciation and vocabulary then in common use.
Cortez notes that the apparent similarity of Romance to Latin does not necessarily prove descent, since lexical similarity can be due to borrowing. He notes that due to borrowing, "The Romance languages have thousands of Latin words, but these are almost never words used in everyday life. Old Italian and Latin were very similar, but this is due to their common Indo-European origin, just as English and German are similar because they are both Germanic. Of course, Proto-Indo-European itself had many cases. Later in the book, Cortez acknowledges that his proposed Old Italian must have undergone enormous changes in the transition from Proto-Indo-European to Old Italian, but, in accordance with his idea that languages evolve slowly, suggests that this period lasted approximately 20, years rather than just a few centuries.
Loanwords have two main characteristics: most of them belong to a developed area of activity, such as law or philosophy, and they are mostly unaffected by phonetic or semantic changes that is, they are almost identical to the original language from which they came. He notes that these words are almost identical generally the last syllables of these words are different and almost all of them have literary, technical, or educated connotations.
Cortez does not give any indication that he has ever even heard of the comparative method, which is extremely strange, given the fact that it is linguists' basic tool for establishing genetic relationships and the foundation upon which the field of historical linguistics is based. Similar words in Latin and Italian may be due to their having a common Indo-European origin, and do not prove that Italian is descended from Latin.
The base vocabularies of English and German are much more similar than those of Romance and Latin; "How is it possible for German and English, which are 'sister languages', to be closer to each other than Latin and Italian, which have a relationship of direct descent? In any case, if it were true that German and English were lexically more similar than Romance and Latin, this this is irrelevant to questions of linguistic descent. German and Dutch are "sister" languages and are extremely similar; Old English is the "mother" of English, but the difference between the two is enormous.
Whether two languages are related by direct descent or familial ties so to speak does not necessarily have any hard-and-fast implications as to their similarities or differences. Cortez describes a threefold classification of Romance words: Indo-European words words that are essentially the same in all Indo-European languages ; borrowings from Latin words that are the same in Romance and Latin, but appear in no other Indo-European groups ; and inherited words from Old Italian words that are found in Romance but not Latin. In order to explain the existence of Romance words not found in Latin, Cortez assumes there must be some non-Latin mother language from which these words—and languages—sprang.
In other words, because Romance and Latin do not coincide exactly as far as their lexicons are concerned, they must therefore not have a relationship of descent. But one could apply this reasoning to any and all languages. For instance, the words boy, girl, and hike are all of unknown origin, and are not attested in Old English.
For those emergency situations when you've lost your mind completely and forgotten to stop by the bakery before it closes. The baguettes are slightly undercooked before being put in the machine, then the machine finishes them off and pops them out them crisp and warm. Genius or sacrilege? Isn't it common knowledge that cheese is meant to be eaten with crackers? Well okay, maybe the French can have this one. There really is nothing better than some creamy camembert paired with a perfect crunchy-on-the-outside, fluffy-on-the-inside baguette. Photo: Nutella. Leave it to the French to break the Guinness World Record for longest baguette , at a whopping meters.
Actually, they had some help from the Italians too. And of course the massive baguette was promptly smothered in Nutella. So have we missed something? What's the weirdest thing you've seen a French person do with their baguette? Use it as a back scrubber? Malta may be a small island but size can be deceiving. France's news in English Search. News categories Marseille Lyon Toulouse More…. Membership My account Gift voucher Corporate Help center. Jobs in France Browse jobs Post a vacancy.
Email newsletters Newsletter sign-up Edit my subscriptions. Other pages Noticeboard. Baguettiquette: Weird things the French do with bread The Local. Share this article.
Translation of "pas de trace" in English
Don't stand between a French woman and her baguette. Photo phb. The French do a lot of things that foreigners just don't get, and some of their strangest habits have to do with their beloved baguette. We've compiled a list of the bizarre "baguettiquette", some of which we admit have won us over. Never put it on a plate At your first French dinner party you were probably bewildered by the fact that French people never set the bread on their plate, but rather right next to it on the table.
Clean their plates with it Many French households will do without a dishwasher or even washing up liquid because they use baguettes to clean the plates. Carry it under their armpit Given the baguette's rather unwieldy shape, it can be tricky to transport. Photo: CYAN Put lumps of chocolate in it For most foreigners chocolate and bread just don't go together unless Nutella is involved, but the French take it to a new level. Eat it with absolutely everything Would you like some bread with your bread? Eat it with cheese Isn't it common knowledge that cheese is meant to be eaten with crackers?
Make the world's longest one Photo: Nutella Leave it to the French to break the Guinness World Record for longest baguette , at a whopping meters. By Katie Warren. Popular articles Five reasons English speakers struggle to learn foreign languages 'Deadly' tiger mosquitos have now colonised half of France Brexit: 'Withdrawal Agreement or nothing' - EU deals new blow to rights of Britons Seven French phrases to help you understand what the cool kids are on about How Paris public transport works could disrupt your summer.
Become a Member or sign-in to leave a comment. From our sponsors Five unusual things you can do in Malta Malta may be a small island but size can be deceiving. Five ways expats can benefit from international health insurance. How and why learning a new language messes with your old one. More news Who's the French billionaire who has just bought Sotheby's auction house?
Revealed - the hot French dining trend that's delicious, traditional and cheap. Quiz: How well do you know your French food? Roquefort: The story of the year-old mouldy French cheese that heals wounds. Striking French workers blockade world's largest Nutella factory. Why do French women and some men inhale their 'oui'? Top French chef reveals the secret weapon behind his 20 Michelin stars.