Erminia, this is really dumb, and I assume you're just being argumentative
for the fun of it. They're both Indo-European languages, so of course
they're syntactically similar compared to say Japanese.  And because Latin
and French were for centuries the vehicles for scholarship and law the
similarities are most apparent in texts like Robin's, and for that matter
the one I'm writing at the moment: learned terms in English have tended to
be latinate  (there are of course also scholarly loan-words from German,
but they are much more recent and less fully integrated).

Because of its long connection to mainland Europe English adopted words
from Latin and the Romance languages. But it treats them syntactically as
if they were native. That's why for instance the imperfect in Latin
or  Romance languages is marked by endings containing a v or b and in
English it isn't.

As to word order, both English and Romance languages independently lost
most of the case endings of nouns that characterize, on the one hand, the
other Germanic languages, and on the other Latin; that loss limits the
possibilities  for word placement. There remain, as your text demonstrates,
significant differences in the ordering of noun-adjective combinations and
pronouns.

It's a question of different morphologies.

Linguists classify languages according to their core syntax and vocabulary.
Despite its multitude of borrowings English remains Germanic.

You might want to take a look at Grimm's Law.

Mark

At 09:38 PM 5/29/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>On Wed, 29 May 2002 18:21:06 +0100, Robin Hamilton
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >there's no way anyone can deny that --
>NON C'E'MODO DI NEGARLO --
>
>but the impact is on the level
>MA  L' IMPATTO E' SUL LIVELLO DEI
>
> >semantic borrowing.
>PRESTITI SEMANTICI.
>
>It (to   use   an  old-fashioned term)   "enriches"    the
>   (PER   USARE UN  VECCHIO      TERMINE) "ARRICCHISCE' LA
>
> >language.
>   LINGUA.
>
>But this    doesn't mean     that Latin
>MA  QUESTO NON SIGNIFICA     CHE  IL LATINO
>and   French  stand   in any  sort of
>E IL FRANCESE STIANO  IN UNA  SORTA DI
>
> >genetic            or 'paternal' relationship to English.  #
>RELAZIONE  GENETICA O  PARENTALE            CON L'INGLESE
>
>
>(oH, NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!)
>
>
>
>Scandinavian,   where,    for a
>LO SCANDINAVO, LADDOVE, PER UN
> >relatively long period,
>PERIODO RELATIVAMENTE LUNGO
>
>
>you have a +closely+ related      linguistic community
>S'E' AVUTA UNA COMUNITA' LINGUISTICA STRETTAMENTE CORRELATA
> >co-existing with English,
>CO-ESISTENTE CON L'INGLESE
>
>  had,      it's been argued,      a   much more profound  influence
>  HA AVUTO, E' STATO ARGOMENTATO , UNA MOLTO PIU' PROFONDA INFLUENZA
> >in the reduction a      grammatical classes.
>NELLA   RIDUZIONE DELLE  CLASSI GRAMMATICALI.....
>
>
>(SO, NOW PLEASE, PROVIDE ME WITH A SIMILARLY CLOSE TRANSLATION IN SCANDINAV
>OF THE ABOVE ENGLSIH SENTENCE THAT CLOSELY I HAVE RENDERED IN ITALIAN -
>BOTH FROM A SYNTHACTICAL POINT OF VIEW AND A SEMANTICAL ONE...
>
>
>AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THE RESEAMBLANCES WITH ITALIAN - AND LATIN - ARE
>FRIGHTNIGLY EVIDENT.....HERE
>
>
>ERMI
>
>
>
>   But even there, where
> >there's an impact on syntax rather just vocabulary, it probably simply
> >accelerated changes that would have taken place anyway.
> >
> >[OK, I'll qualify that -- Latin impacted syntactically on English in the
> >prohibition of the double negative as an intensive form, and the split
> >infinitive.  Recently (if you accept the OED) the prohibition on the split
> >infinive has been reversed.  But "No, nay, never, no nay never no more" is
> >still unacceptable in Received Standard English.  But it still exists in
> >lots of non-RSE varieties of English.]
> >
> >> (I was merely using capital letters only to distinsguish my replies from
> >> your statements...not to shout at you, sorry)
> >
> >No problem.
> >
> >> what do i mean with Shakespeare's historical english? exactly the
>language
> >> that was spoken in England at the time of Shakespeare
> >
> >I +still+ have trouble with "the language that was spoken in England at the
> >time of Shakespeare".  The idea that one English was spoken then, rather
> >than a variety of Englishes.   Especially that "exactly" <g>.
> >
> >> and that Shakespeare helped canonize.
> >
> >There's a better case (such as it is) to be made for the King James Bible
> >fulfilling this role.  It was much more widely read, at least early on,
>than
> >Shakespeare, and more "authoritative".  Shakespeare only becomes the
> >(official) central figure that he is with Garrick and the 18thC
> >institutionalisation of his work.
> >
> >> The same as with Dante, no more no less.
> >
> >Which is where the parallel with Dante breaks down, I think.  Dante was
> >revered much more immediately.  Nobody (later) dismissed the crudity of
> >Dante's language in the fashion that Dryden (unexceptionally for his time)
> >slagged-off the language in Shakespeare's plays.
> >
> >> erminia (waiting for my hair to grow long again overnight during our
>usual
> >> Sabat).
> >
> >Luck!!
> >
> >Robin