The mother tongue of my people 😂. I was taught this dialect as a child but forgot it when I started school 😢. Thank you for bringing me back to my roots. It was nice to hear this dieing language again. Surprisingly, I still got the jist of what was being said. I guess you never forget... It brought me to tears. Tears of joy. Thank you! Watching from Australia 🇦🇺 ❤
Some French feelings like /y/ and nasal vowels, and also some Italian feelings like trilled r, ci/gi sounds, and the amount open syllables, exist in one language! Interesting.
" i diferenzi piscinin ", vale a dire le piccole differenze di pronuncia e di vocabolario a seconda dei luoghi sono come i diversi cru di un buon vino, di terroir da scoprire. Hanno tutti un aroma autentico
If I didn’t know anything about the dialect and I heard it on the street, it sounds Italian with a subtle hint of a Portuguese dialect. If a native Portuguese speaker had spent the majority of their lives in Italy, I imagine it might sound something like this. Historically there was a Portuguese movement to northern Italy; however, I don’t know if it influenced the modern Lombard dialect or any other northern dialects. Either way, it’s lovely and I enjoyed listening.
Originally, back in the dim and distant past, Lombard was an Allamanic dialect of Burgundian/East Franconian, spoken by the Langbeardas ((Lombards), a Germanic people, who occupied NW Italy after Rome fell. This language bears no resemblance to what it would have been, except perhaps for a certain, faint germanic quality to some of its sounds.
@@barbellvgo2424 Yes. They were a Germanic people who over time became Italisised/Romanised, and the name changed over time to Lombarda. Same people, changed language, changed pronunciation, changed spelling. It’s what languages do.
@@Twittler1 Longobards are not the same people as modern people from Lombardy. They were merely the ruling class who conquered the region, but they were always a minority of the population who got assimilated by the Latin speaking majority. They never replaced the people who had been living there before the invasion. Just like how Anatolia was conquered by Turks from central Asia, but modern Turkish people clearly resemble their Mediterranean and Middle Eastern neighbors more than people from central Asian steppes, given the original population was never replaced.
@@onironauta1303 I absolutely understand that. But for a while they were the elite. They gave the region their name. They influenced the local dialects. But modern Lombards are the descendants of the local, mostly Italic, tribes with a bit of ancient Langbeardas inheritance. The cultural influence of the invaders didn’t have the same effect as it did in other places. I would be very surprised if any of the peoples around the entirety of the Mediterranean had no historic links with everyone else. And they are/are named now mostly has no or little connection to what they are, for the most part, historically and ethnically. As you mention, few modern Turks have any ethnic connection to the Central Asian Turkic people who came and then mostly left. Modern Slavic Bulgarians are not actual Bulgars, who arrived, were driven out, and returned to what is now east-central Russia. The incoming Slavs kept the name though, as that’s what the mass of the people they assimilated still called themselves and the land they inhabited. A bit of a 50/50 that ‘conquest’. Once invaders arrive, it’s always been a bit of a toss-up as to how things will end up. But mostly they seem to have come out on top, sometimes not. And that was always what happened in one way or another. The Germanic tribes invaded, conquered and then ruled over and drove out Brythonic language and culture, but most of the Celtic Britons stayed where they were, and in this case became culturally Germanic. The Celts who invaded Ireland were much smaller in number than the isolated groups of neolithic people already there, but they took over and everyone became Irish, culturally, eventually (if they knew what was good for them!). The Celts were culturally very warlike and aggressive, very organised militarily, and were utterly fearless fighters, even among themselves (the quickest and most common path to chieftain-hood in most Celtic cultures was to assassinate the incumbent), and were ruthless in the art of forced mass assimilation to their ways. But as a result, there is no distinct Irish ethnicity, and by extension, Scottish. The Germanic Franks took over what became north and western France, but they became French, and gave their name to the country. They also left their mark on the language, which is a bit of an outlier among Romance languages as a result. But the Gallo-Romance dialects of France also influenced what is now Flemish/Nederlands(Dutch). I’m not including later admixtures of people in this. I could go on. Everyone who knows and reads about this stuff knows this. It is nearly always a small elite that ‘takes over’ - there has rarely been mass migration. They manage to do it as they’re usually better armed, better at war and conquest, more disciplined, and united in their aims. They were on a mission. The natives rarely knew what hit them and were unprepared/complacent/disorganised/etc.
@@Twittler1 You can go on, but it seems that you don't know the full story. The invaders were few and the previous population was majority, so the Lombard invaders (who were not all Germanic, because other peoples of different origins had also joined in during the armed migration) gave their name, first to the whole of Italy and then, only to the region now known as Lombardy, but in the language currently spoken in this region there are only a few borrowings from the Germanic Lombard (as there are also in Tuscan and even in Apulian, which is a southern idiom). The native language spoken in Lombardy by these persons is Neo-Latin of the Gallo-Italic subgroup.
@@masterjunky863 They are not the same language. Lombard is not a dialect of Italian, exactly like Neapolitan (for example). They belong to different linguistic families that have in common the fact that they descend from Latin. In fact the standard Italian used today is the form of Vulgar Latin that was spoken in Florence (Tuscan). Otherwise Lombard was the variety of Latin spoken in Lombardy at the time, and therefore had a Celtic substratum. They are not the same language, since they developed simultaneously and independently. Exactly like French, the langue d'oc, Catalan etc. In this matter, the Massa-Senigallia line is of particular interest. The northern Italian languages (as the southern ones) are something else than Italian (even if the last ones belong to the same family), as said by UNESCO and the Council of Europe. Milanese and bergamasco are dialects, not Milanese and Tuscan
@masterjunky863 and @dadep85, Lombard is a Gallo-Italic language within the Gallo-Romance branch of languages. Gallo-Italic includes Lombard as well as some of the other northern Italian languages like Piedmontese, Ligurian, and Emilian-Romagnol. Along with said languages in the Gallo-Italic branch include the northern French languages (d'oil) and the southern French languages (Occitan and Catalan), together to form the Gallo-Romance branch. Gallo-Italic is a sub-branch of Gallo-Romance. So yes, Lombard is closer to the local languages of northern Italy than it is to French, but it is relatively still close to French.
@@barbellvgo2424Exactly. It's the case for a lot of Romance languages, it seems. Named for the original people of the region who often spoke either a Celtic or Germanic language. Like Galician and Gallo which are both named for the Gauls, Gaulish being an ancient Celtic language spoken throughout what is now France-named for the Franks, a Germanic people-as you alluded to.
@@Louisianish@Louisianish İ would agree with your statement that the Celtic groups inhabited a lot of the, now majority Romance speaking regions in Western Europe before their asimilation and settlement of large swats of population from elsewhere in their home turf, but the Germanic groups were not the "original peoples" neither in Gaul nor in İtaly, the same stands for Every other Germanic group that dispersed across the continent aswell as across North Africa out of Northwest Germany, the lowlands and Scandinavia. The names of Germanic İnvaders that migrated to Roman controlled regions in the Early middle ages during the great migration period like the Lombards and the Franks alongside those that dominated much of Northwest Europe during the high middle ages like the Normans still remain in reference to certain regions and peoples because they formed the rulling class in those regions. The reasons that their languages did not survive in those regions are complex and many but can be boiled down to few crucial factors; the fact that they were never the majority in those regions but mostly a military elite made mostly of men which would mean intermariages with the Locals and because child rearing has traditionaly been the women's duty, you can see why the children wouldn't be fluent or may not even speak the language at all, it is not for nothing that the consept of a "first language" is often considered synonymous with the concept of "mother language" by most people. Another important reason is that mostly because of Latin's prominence, being association with the Western Church their languages never became the high prestige language of those regions, almost every written record was kept in Latin, this association with high prestige activities ofcourse did not stop at the theological level, there are many uses to the prominent usage of the lingua Franca in that specific period from trade to academia (the latter of which was again, based mostly on theology). The names of previous rulers being associated with specific regions is very common, i guess it wouldn't be wrong to assume that you are from the US state of Luisiana, in that case you would be aware of the fact that the name of your native soil derives from that of a precious French King, altough the situations in which the names of the afforementioned regions were coined is different from one in which your home state was named, i hope this example will highlight the fact that this is not at all out of ordinary (altough i agree that it may sound a bit misleading to some people)
I can absolutely hear the closeness to Catalan.
I speak Catalan and it doesn't sound that close. A few morphemes here and there, but I hear way more of the Italian proximity. Perhaps in the accent.
a very prominent ü /y/ sound that i can hear for sure!
yeah it's interesting how much it stands out!
like Occitan
To pinpoint the exact location, this is the variety of Lombard spoken around the town of Varese.
Where my ancestors are from.
The mother tongue of my people 😂. I was taught this dialect as a child but forgot it when I started school 😢. Thank you for bringing me back to my roots. It was nice to hear this dieing language again. Surprisingly, I still got the jist of what was being said. I guess you never forget... It brought me to tears. Tears of joy. Thank you! Watching from Australia 🇦🇺 ❤
Sounds to me like French spoken in Italian.
occitan french absolutely, oïl (standard french) probably not
Pazzesco, bellissimo video, bellissimi discorsi. Servirebbero i sottotitoli per stranieri/italiani di altre regioni.
my people!
I'm from southern Ticino and the dialect is practically identical to the one we speak. There are only some very minor differences
eh peró lü l'ha di da no😅
@@elenalassini1247 A gh'è di diferenz minim col dialett dal lüganees e dal mendrisiott. Ciarament paes che ti vet, dialett che ta trövet 😅
Some French feelings like /y/ and nasal vowels, and also some Italian feelings like trilled r, ci/gi sounds, and the amount open syllables, exist in one language! Interesting.
Non trilled r is recent in French.
Il y a une bonne note de français, notamment au niveau de l'accent.😊
I’m from northwest Italy too and I cannot notice. Mais c’est la même chose je crois pour les italiens du Sud
Mmh, buona questa cadrega!
first time I listen to Lombard! greetings from Chile!!
Thanks for watching!
For non italians: this is very close to the native language of the city of Milan. Few kilometers northwest here but almost the same
O nome Milan é lombardo !
Grazie mille! La mia infanzia à casa di mia nonna. Sono Francese e ho parlato il dialetto prima del italiano.
" i diferenzi piscinin ", vale a dire le piccole differenze di pronuncia e di vocabolario a seconda dei luoghi sono come i diversi cru di un buon vino, di terroir da scoprire. Hanno tutti un aroma autentico
If I didn’t know anything about the dialect and I heard it on the street, it sounds Italian with a subtle hint of a Portuguese dialect. If a native Portuguese speaker had spent the majority of their lives in Italy, I imagine it might sound something like this. Historically there was a Portuguese movement to northern Italy; however, I don’t know if it influenced the modern Lombard dialect or any other northern dialects. Either way, it’s lovely and I enjoyed listening.
No es un dialecto es una lengua reprimida como el occitano el piamontes etc.
Que bel video bagaj
yeah it is a varese dialect cuz im from Merate and it is a bit different from the brianzolo dialect
SOunds more like portuguese, french, catalan, than italian
Que peca que questa lingua, l’è mia un dialet, la se parla più, peca
Originally, back in the dim and distant past, Lombard was an Allamanic dialect of Burgundian/East Franconian, spoken by the Langbeardas ((Lombards), a Germanic people, who occupied NW Italy after Rome fell. This language bears no resemblance to what it would have been, except perhaps for a certain, faint germanic quality to some of its sounds.
Those are called Longobards, the modern romanised people are called Lombards
@@barbellvgo2424 Yes. They were a Germanic people who over time became Italisised/Romanised, and the name changed over time to Lombarda. Same people, changed language, changed pronunciation, changed spelling. It’s what languages do.
@@Twittler1 Longobards are not the same people as modern people from Lombardy. They were merely the ruling class who conquered the region, but they were always a minority of the population who got assimilated by the Latin speaking majority. They never replaced the people who had been living there before the invasion.
Just like how Anatolia was conquered by Turks from central Asia, but modern Turkish people clearly resemble their Mediterranean and Middle Eastern neighbors more than people from central Asian steppes, given the original population was never replaced.
@@onironauta1303 I absolutely understand that. But for a while they were the elite. They gave the region their name. They influenced the local dialects. But modern Lombards are the descendants of the local, mostly Italic, tribes with a bit of ancient Langbeardas inheritance. The cultural influence of the invaders didn’t have the same effect as it did in other places.
I would be very surprised if any of the peoples around the entirety of the Mediterranean had no historic links with everyone else. And they are/are named now mostly has no or little connection to what they are, for the most part, historically and ethnically.
As you mention, few modern Turks have any ethnic connection to the Central Asian Turkic people who came and then mostly left. Modern Slavic Bulgarians are not actual Bulgars, who arrived, were driven out, and returned to what is now east-central Russia. The incoming Slavs kept the name though, as that’s what the mass of the people they assimilated still called themselves and the land they inhabited. A bit of a 50/50 that ‘conquest’.
Once invaders arrive, it’s always been a bit of a toss-up as to how things will end up. But mostly they seem to have come out on top, sometimes not.
And that was always what happened in one way or another. The Germanic tribes invaded, conquered and then ruled over and drove out Brythonic language and culture, but most of the Celtic Britons stayed where they were, and in this case became culturally Germanic.
The Celts who invaded Ireland were much smaller in number than the isolated groups of neolithic people already there, but they took over and everyone became Irish, culturally, eventually (if they knew what was good for them!).
The Celts were culturally very warlike and aggressive, very organised militarily, and were utterly fearless fighters, even among themselves (the quickest and most common path to chieftain-hood in most Celtic cultures was to assassinate the incumbent), and were ruthless in the art of forced mass assimilation to their ways. But as a result, there is no distinct Irish ethnicity, and by extension, Scottish.
The Germanic Franks took over what became north and western France, but they became French, and gave their name to the country. They also left their mark on the language, which is a bit of an outlier among Romance languages as a result. But the Gallo-Romance dialects of France also influenced what is now Flemish/Nederlands(Dutch).
I’m not including later admixtures of people in this.
I could go on. Everyone who knows and reads about this stuff knows this. It is nearly always a small elite that ‘takes over’ - there has rarely been mass migration. They manage to do it as they’re usually better armed, better at war and conquest, more disciplined, and united in their aims. They were on a mission. The natives rarely knew what hit them and were unprepared/complacent/disorganised/etc.
@@Twittler1 You can go on, but it seems that you don't know the full story. The invaders were few and the previous population was majority, so the Lombard invaders (who were not all Germanic, because other peoples of different origins had also joined in during the armed migration) gave their name, first to the whole of Italy and then, only to the region now known as Lombardy, but in the language currently spoken in this region there are only a few borrowings from the Germanic Lombard (as there are also in Tuscan and even in Apulian, which is a southern idiom). The native language spoken in Lombardy by these persons is Neo-Latin of the Gallo-Italic subgroup.
Can people in Florence understand what they said？
Most of it
Not everything, they can understand some words. The connection is like the one existing between castillan and Catalan or French and occitan
@@ApeP2574 I don't think so. It's more like the difference between two different Catalan dialects, they are the same language (Italian is Tuscan).
@@masterjunky863 They are not the same language. Lombard is not a dialect of Italian, exactly like Neapolitan (for example).
They belong to different linguistic families that have in common the fact that they descend from Latin. In fact the standard Italian used today is the form of Vulgar Latin that was spoken in Florence (Tuscan). Otherwise Lombard was the variety of Latin spoken in Lombardy at the time, and therefore had a Celtic substratum. They are not the same language, since they developed simultaneously and independently. Exactly like French, the langue d'oc, Catalan etc. In this matter, the Massa-Senigallia line is of particular interest. The northern Italian languages (as the southern ones) are something else than Italian (even if the last ones belong to the same family), as said by UNESCO and the Council of Europe. Milanese and bergamasco are dialects, not Milanese and Tuscan
The closest languagese are the local languages of northern Italy, not French. French is as close as Italian or maybe less.
Lombard is closer to French than to Italian, it's a Gallo-Romance language.
Gallo-Italic.
@masterjunky863 and @dadep85, Lombard is a Gallo-Italic language within the Gallo-Romance branch of languages. Gallo-Italic includes Lombard as well as some of the other northern Italian languages like Piedmontese, Ligurian, and Emilian-Romagnol. Along with said languages in the Gallo-Italic branch include the northern French languages (d'oil) and the southern French languages (Occitan and Catalan), together to form the Gallo-Romance branch. Gallo-Italic is a sub-branch of Gallo-Romance.
So yes, Lombard is closer to the local languages of northern Italy than it is to French, but it is relatively still close to French.
@@czechistan_zindabad It's obviously closer to the other Northern Italian languages, but still closer to French than to Italian (Tuscan)
Catalan .occitano.lombard
Casi lo mismo..la misma familia..
They are all part of a language continuum.
Thought it was going to be Germanic.
That’s called Longobardic
Like Frankish and French
@@barbellvgo2424Exactly. It's the case for a lot of Romance languages, it seems. Named for the original people of the region who often spoke either a Celtic or Germanic language. Like Galician and Gallo which are both named for the Gauls, Gaulish being an ancient Celtic language spoken throughout what is now France-named for the Franks, a Germanic people-as you alluded to.
P.S. I corrected my spelling
@@Louisianish@Louisianish İ would agree with your statement that the Celtic groups inhabited a lot of the, now majority Romance speaking regions in Western Europe before their asimilation and settlement of large swats of population from elsewhere in their home turf, but the Germanic groups were not the "original peoples" neither in Gaul nor in İtaly, the same stands for Every other Germanic group that dispersed across the continent aswell as across North Africa out of Northwest Germany, the lowlands and Scandinavia. The names of Germanic İnvaders that migrated to Roman controlled regions in the Early middle ages during the great migration period like the Lombards and the Franks alongside those that dominated much of Northwest Europe during the high middle ages like the Normans still remain in reference to certain regions and peoples because they formed the rulling class in those regions. The reasons that their languages did not survive in those regions are complex and many but can be boiled down to few crucial factors; the fact that they were never the majority in those regions but mostly a military elite made mostly of men which would mean intermariages with the Locals and because child rearing has traditionaly been the women's duty, you can see why the children wouldn't be fluent or may not even speak the language at all, it is not for nothing that the consept of a "first language" is often considered synonymous with the concept of "mother language" by most people. Another important reason is that mostly because of Latin's prominence, being association with the Western Church their languages never became the high prestige language of those regions, almost every written record was kept in Latin, this association with high prestige activities ofcourse did not stop at the theological level, there are many uses to the prominent usage of the lingua Franca in that specific period from trade to academia (the latter of which was again, based mostly on theology). The names of previous rulers being associated with specific regions is very common, i guess it wouldn't be wrong to assume that you are from the US state of Luisiana, in that case you would be aware of the fact that the name of your native soil derives from that of a precious French King, altough the situations in which the names of the afforementioned regions were coined is different from one in which your home state was named, i hope this example will highlight the fact that this is not at all out of ordinary (altough i agree that it may sound a bit misleading to some people)
caught it at 666 views!!