|
|
Why do some here wish that English was linguistically pure?
<<If you have a big issue with latin/french borrowings you ought to take it up with the scholars and scribes who borrowed them into the language during the middle ages. Maybe they can be reasoned with.>>
We can undo the damage they did without having to consult with dead corpses
"It's not about purifying the language. It's just about trimming the excess fat, and English has a LOT of excess fat."
Now I've read some pretty lame opinions in this thread about English. This really tops them though.
<<What does linguistically pure mean? >>
In addition to trimming the fat, it also means that all elements--in English's case, it's vocabulary--be free from all foreign words and phrases. In the strictest sense, it would mean replacing all of the words borrowed from other languages like French, Latin, Spanish, and even German, Dutch and Old Norse. Thus a "Pure English" lexicon would be only Anglo-Saxon derived. In a broader sense, this only applies to words of French and Latin derivation. usually.
No, that is ridiculous. German is our brother; both German and Old English spring from the same roots. Words from other Germanic languages would be fine to keep.
There is not a pure language in the world. Perhaps some dialects but not a language. English, French, Spanish, German and many others have been influenced by other cultures and languages. Am I right by assuming that this stupid thread was started by a stupid teenager who used the word like 6 times per minute? Please grow up and post serious threads...and get a life!
"It's not about purifying the language. It's just about trimming the excess fat, and English has a LOT of excess fat."
Like speakers like language! LOl jk
Just use the word that best fits the meaning you want to convey. It's kind of irrelevant where the word derives from.
<<Am I right by assuming that this stupid thread was started by a stupid teenager who used the word like 6 times per minute? Please grow up and post serious threads...and get a life! >>
No, you are not right. The thread was started by asking an honest question: Why do some here wish English were linguistically pure?" There is no hint in that question of the asker's own take on the matter, or any opinion or judgement regarding--whether for or against it. U get a life
<<No, that is ridiculous. German is our brother; both German and Old English spring from the same roots.>>
So do Latin and English <<Words from other Germanic languages would be fine to keep. >> But that would not be true linguistic purity. That is your own individual forechest ("preference").
<<There is not a pure language in the world. Perhaps some dialects but not a language. English, French, Spanish, German and many others have been influenced by other cultures and languages. Am I right by assuming that this stupid thread was started by a stupid teenager who used the word like 6 times per minute?>>
I'm not a teenager. Also, if you had actually read any of my posts in this thread, you would have seen that I agree with you about purity and that it is in my mind a pointless goal. <<Please grow up and post serious threads...and get a life! >> You should have directed that toward the most extreme Anglishists with whom I heartily disagree.
<<That is your own individual forechest ("preference").>>
My wife has an awfully nice forechest.
<<My wife has an awfully nice forechest. >>
LOL, good one Yeah, I just knew that form ('forechest' < OE 'fore-' + 'cyst' ["choice"]) would be a problem. perhaps I should have altered it to 'forechiste' or even by influence of choice to 'forechoice' :)
How about "forebearing" as a calque of preference?
That is your own uncleftish forebearing.
<<How about "forebearing" as a calque of preference? >>
That would work. But my only concern is that it would be easily confused with the already existing 'forbearing' meaning 'suffereing/enduring/tholing' |