[brabel]

> In Romanian you can be incredibly sophisticated (via modern French influence), but also stay close to the agricultural and pastoral roots.

What makes you think French has a less "agricultural" root than Romanian. Both languages have existed since a time when industrialization was still far in the future... are you suggesting French somehow evolved from a more academic foundation?? This sounds kind of ridiculous to me.

[oblio]

> are you suggesting French somehow evolved from a more academic foundation?? This sounds kind of ridiculous to me.

Look up what the French Academy is doing :-)

Also Romania used to have 50% subsistence farmers until 2000.

[denton-scratch]

> are you suggesting French somehow evolved from a more academic foundation?

I think it's true.

Modern French is derived from a form of French spoken among aristocrats; the Norman Conquest didn't bring to Britain a great influx of peasant French. For a long time, an educated Briton (a) spoke French, and (b) had lived in France, and even been educated there.

[908B64B197]

> peasant French

It's also that until the 19th century and compulsory education there were multiple dialects of French spoken throughout the country. "Royal French" is a descendant of Norman and was the language the bourgeoisie adopted after the revolution and that the rest of the country standardized on.

Same thing happened in the Americans French colonies in Canada and Louisiana; the settlers brought the "Royal" French with them because they were majorly from the north.