Absolutely yes! it is a union between germanic and latin! Everybody knows it. For the peace of germanic wanabee latin language
what makes English Germanic?
Were English a union between Germanic and Romance languages and, assuming you speak a Romance one as shown by your shocking bias, you would imagine you'd be able to make sense in it. Unfortunately, you do not make sense at all.
"Were English a union between Germanic and Romance languages and, assuming you speak a Romance one as shown by your shocking bias, you would imagine you'd be able to make sense in it. Unfortunately, you do not make sense at all."
Were English a union between Germanic and Romance languages and, assuming you speak a "Germanic" one as shown by your shocking bias, you would imagine you'd be able to make sense in it. Unfortunately, you do not make sense at all.
It goes both ways.
Were English a union between Germanic and Romance languages and, assuming you speak a "Germanic" one as shown by your shocking bias, you would imagine you'd be able to make sense in it. Unfortunately, you do not make sense at all.
It goes both ways.
<<Were English a union between Germanic and Romance languages and, assuming you speak a "Germanic" one as shown by your shocking bias, you would imagine you'd be able to make sense in it. Unfortunately, you do not make sense at all.
It goes both ways. >>
of COURSE Globo speaks a GERMANIC language--He's using ENGLISH.
It goes both ways. >>
of COURSE Globo speaks a GERMANIC language--He's using ENGLISH.
The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826
THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE
To the Honorable J. Evelyn Denison, M.P., Monticello, November 9, 1825
[Paragraph 2]
I learn from you with great pleasure, that a taste is reviving in England for the recovery of the Anglo-Saxon dialect of our language; for a mere dialect it is, as much as those of Piers Plowman, Gower, Douglas, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspeare, Milton, for even much of Milton is already antiquated. The Anglo-Saxon is only the earliest we possess of the many shades of mutation by which the language has tapered down to its modern form. Vocabularies we need for each of these stages from Somner to Bailey, but not grammars for each or any of them. The grammar has changed so little, in the descent from the earliest, to the present form, that a little observation suffices to understand its variations. We are greatly indebted to the worthies who have preserved the Anglo-Saxon form, from Doctor Hickes down to Mr. Bosworth. Had they not given to the public what we possess through the press, that dialect would by this time have been irrecoverably lost. I think it, however, a misfortune that they have endeavored to give it too much of a learned form, to mount it on all the scaffolding of the Greek and Latin, to load it with their genders, numbers, cases, declensions, conjugations, &c. Strip it of these embarrassments, vest it in the Roman type which we have adopted instead of our English black letter, reform its uncouth orthography, and assimilate its pronunciation, as much as may be, to the present English, just as we do in reading Piers Plowman or Chaucer, and with the contemporary vocabulary for the few lost words, we understand it as we do them. For example, the Anglo-Saxon text of the Lord's prayer, as given us 6th Matthew, ix., is spelt and written thus, in the equivalent Roman type: "Faeder ure thu the eart in heofenum, si thin nama gehalgod. to becume thin rice. gewurthe thin willa on eorthan. swa swa on heofenum. urne daeghwamlican hlaf syle us to daeg. and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgifath urum gyltendum. and ne ge-laedde thu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele'. I should spell and pronounce thus: 'Father our, thou tha art in heavenum. si thine name y-hallowed. come thin ric. y-wurth thine will on earthan. so so on heavenum. ourn daywhamlican loaf sell us to day. and forgive us our guilts so so we forgivath ourum guiltendum. and no y-lead thou us on costnunge, ac a-lease us of evil'. And here it is to be observed by-the-bye, that there is but the single word "temptation" in our present version of this prayer that is not Anglo-Saxon; for the word "trespasses" taken from the French, ({ofeilemata} in the original) might as well have been translated by the Anglo-Saxon "guilts."
THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE
To the Honorable J. Evelyn Denison, M.P., Monticello, November 9, 1825
[Paragraph 2]
I learn from you with great pleasure, that a taste is reviving in England for the recovery of the Anglo-Saxon dialect of our language; for a mere dialect it is, as much as those of Piers Plowman, Gower, Douglas, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspeare, Milton, for even much of Milton is already antiquated. The Anglo-Saxon is only the earliest we possess of the many shades of mutation by which the language has tapered down to its modern form. Vocabularies we need for each of these stages from Somner to Bailey, but not grammars for each or any of them. The grammar has changed so little, in the descent from the earliest, to the present form, that a little observation suffices to understand its variations. We are greatly indebted to the worthies who have preserved the Anglo-Saxon form, from Doctor Hickes down to Mr. Bosworth. Had they not given to the public what we possess through the press, that dialect would by this time have been irrecoverably lost. I think it, however, a misfortune that they have endeavored to give it too much of a learned form, to mount it on all the scaffolding of the Greek and Latin, to load it with their genders, numbers, cases, declensions, conjugations, &c. Strip it of these embarrassments, vest it in the Roman type which we have adopted instead of our English black letter, reform its uncouth orthography, and assimilate its pronunciation, as much as may be, to the present English, just as we do in reading Piers Plowman or Chaucer, and with the contemporary vocabulary for the few lost words, we understand it as we do them. For example, the Anglo-Saxon text of the Lord's prayer, as given us 6th Matthew, ix., is spelt and written thus, in the equivalent Roman type: "Faeder ure thu the eart in heofenum, si thin nama gehalgod. to becume thin rice. gewurthe thin willa on eorthan. swa swa on heofenum. urne daeghwamlican hlaf syle us to daeg. and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgifath urum gyltendum. and ne ge-laedde thu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele'. I should spell and pronounce thus: 'Father our, thou tha art in heavenum. si thine name y-hallowed. come thin ric. y-wurth thine will on earthan. so so on heavenum. ourn daywhamlican loaf sell us to day. and forgive us our guilts so so we forgivath ourum guiltendum. and no y-lead thou us on costnunge, ac a-lease us of evil'. And here it is to be observed by-the-bye, that there is but the single word "temptation" in our present version of this prayer that is not Anglo-Saxon; for the word "trespasses" taken from the French, ({ofeilemata} in the original) might as well have been translated by the Anglo-Saxon "guilts."
I learn from you with great ↔, that a ↔ is ↔ in England for the ↔ of the ↔ ↔ of our ↔; for a ↔ ↔ it is, as much as those of Piers Plowman, Gower, Douglas, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspeare, Milton, for even much of Milton is already ↔. The ↔ is only the earliest we ↔ of the many shades of ↔ by which the ↔ has tapered down to its ↔ ↔. ↔ we need for each of these ↔ from Somner to Bailey, but not ↔ for each or any of ↔. The ↔ has ↔ so little, in the ↔ from the earliest, to the ↔ ↔, that a little ↔ ↔ to understand its ↔. We are greatly ↔ to the worthies who have ↔ the ↔ ↔, from ↔ Hickes down to ↔ Bosworth. Had ↔ not given to the ↔ what we ↔ through the ↔, that ↔ would by this time have been ↔ lost. I think it, however, a ↔ that ↔ have ↔ to give it too much of a learned ↔, to ↔ it on all the ↔ of the ↔ and ↔, to load it with ↔ ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔. Strip it of these ↔, ↔ it in the ↔ ↔ which we have ↔ instead of our English black ↔, ↔ its uncouth ↔, and ↔ its ↔, as much as may be, to the ↔ English, ↔ as we do in reading Piers Plowman or Chaucer, and with the ↔ ↔ for the few lost words, we understand it as we do ↔. For ↔, the ↔ ↔ of the Lord's ↔, as given us 6th ↔, ix., is (spelt) and written thus, in the ↔ ↔ ↔: "Faeder ure thu the eart in heofenum, si thin nama gehalgod. to becume thin rice. gewurthe thin willa on eorthan. swa swa on heofenum. urne daeghwamlican hlaf syle us to daeg. and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgifath urum gyltendum. and ne ge-laedde thu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele'. I should (spell) and ↔ thus: 'Father our, thou tha art in heavenum. si thine name y-hallowed. come thin ric. y-wurth thine will on earthan. so so on heavenum. ourn daywhamlican loaf sell us to day. and forgive us our guilts so so we forgivath ourum guiltendum. and no y-lead thou us on costnunge, ac a-lease us of evil'. And here it is to be ↔ by-the-bye, that there is but the ↔ word "↔" in our ↔ ↔ of this ↔ that is not ↔; for the word "↔" taken from the French, ({ofeilemata} in the ↔) might as well have been ↔ by the ↔ "guilts."
On voit mieux ainsi le caractère germanique de la langue anglaise, non ?
On voit mieux ainsi le caractère germanique de la langue anglaise, non ?
Je devrais plutôt dire le caractère anglique de la langue anglaise car j'ai enlevé les mots d'origine scandinave. En fait non, pas tous. Voici la version expurgée des étymons étrangers aux champ anglo-saxon :
I learn from you with great ↔, that a ↔ is ↔ in England for the ↔ of the ↔ ↔ of our ↔; for a ↔ ↔ it is, as much as those of Piers Plowman, Gower, Douglas, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspeare, Milton, for even much of Milton is already ↔. The ↔ is only the earliest we ↔ of the many shades of ↔ by which the ↔ has tapered down to its ↔ ↔. ↔ we need for each of these ↔ from Somner to Bailey, but not ↔ for each or any of ↔. The ↔ has ↔ so little, in the ↔ from the earliest, to the ↔ ↔, that a little ↔ ↔ to understand its ↔. We are greatly ↔ to the worthies who have ↔ the ↔ ↔, from ↔ Hickes down to ↔ Bosworth. Had ↔ not given to the ↔ what we ↔ through the ↔, that ↔ would by this time have been ↔ lost. I think it, however, a ↔ that ↔ have ↔ to give it too much of a learned ↔, to ↔ it on all the ↔ of the ↔ and ↔, to load it with ↔ ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔. Strip it of these ↔, ↔ it in the ↔ ↔ which we have ↔ instead of our English black ↔, ↔ its uncouth ↔, and ↔ its ↔, as much as may be, to the ↔ English, ↔ as we do in reading Piers Plowman or Chaucer, and with the ↔ ↔ for the few lost words, we understand it as we do ↔. For ↔, the ↔ ↔ of the Lord's ↔, as given us 6th ↔, ix., is (spelt) and written thus, in the ↔ ↔ ↔: "Faeder ure thu the eart in heofenum, si thin nama gehalgod. to becume thin rice. gewurthe thin willa on eorthan. swa swa on heofenum. urne daeghwamlican hlaf syle us to daeg. and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgifath urum gyltendum. and ne ge-laedde thu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele'. I should (spell) and ↔ thus: 'Father our, thou tha art in heavenum. si thine name y-hallowed. come thin ric. y-wurth thine will on earthan. so so on heavenum. ourn daywhamlican loaf sell us to day. and forgive us our guilts so so we forgivath ourum guiltendum. and no y-lead thou us on costnunge, ac a-lease us of evil'. And here it is to be ↔ by-the-bye, that there is but the ↔ word "↔" in our ↔ ↔ of this ↔ that is not ↔; for the word "↔" ↔ from the French, ({ofeilemata} in the ↔) might as well have been ↔ by the ↔ "guilts."
I learn from you with great ↔, that a ↔ is ↔ in England for the ↔ of the ↔ ↔ of our ↔; for a ↔ ↔ it is, as much as those of Piers Plowman, Gower, Douglas, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspeare, Milton, for even much of Milton is already ↔. The ↔ is only the earliest we ↔ of the many shades of ↔ by which the ↔ has tapered down to its ↔ ↔. ↔ we need for each of these ↔ from Somner to Bailey, but not ↔ for each or any of ↔. The ↔ has ↔ so little, in the ↔ from the earliest, to the ↔ ↔, that a little ↔ ↔ to understand its ↔. We are greatly ↔ to the worthies who have ↔ the ↔ ↔, from ↔ Hickes down to ↔ Bosworth. Had ↔ not given to the ↔ what we ↔ through the ↔, that ↔ would by this time have been ↔ lost. I think it, however, a ↔ that ↔ have ↔ to give it too much of a learned ↔, to ↔ it on all the ↔ of the ↔ and ↔, to load it with ↔ ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔. Strip it of these ↔, ↔ it in the ↔ ↔ which we have ↔ instead of our English black ↔, ↔ its uncouth ↔, and ↔ its ↔, as much as may be, to the ↔ English, ↔ as we do in reading Piers Plowman or Chaucer, and with the ↔ ↔ for the few lost words, we understand it as we do ↔. For ↔, the ↔ ↔ of the Lord's ↔, as given us 6th ↔, ix., is (spelt) and written thus, in the ↔ ↔ ↔: "Faeder ure thu the eart in heofenum, si thin nama gehalgod. to becume thin rice. gewurthe thin willa on eorthan. swa swa on heofenum. urne daeghwamlican hlaf syle us to daeg. and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgifath urum gyltendum. and ne ge-laedde thu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele'. I should (spell) and ↔ thus: 'Father our, thou tha art in heavenum. si thine name y-hallowed. come thin ric. y-wurth thine will on earthan. so so on heavenum. ourn daywhamlican loaf sell us to day. and forgive us our guilts so so we forgivath ourum guiltendum. and no y-lead thou us on costnunge, ac a-lease us of evil'. And here it is to be ↔ by-the-bye, that there is but the ↔ word "↔" in our ↔ ↔ of this ↔ that is not ↔; for the word "↔" ↔ from the French, ({ofeilemata} in the ↔) might as well have been ↔ by the ↔ "guilts."
Notre Père, qui es aux cieux,
Que ton nom soit sanctifié,
Que ton règne vienne,
Que ta volonté soit faite
Sur la terre comme au ciel.
Donne-nous aujourd’hui notre pain de ce jour
Pardonne-nous nos offenses,
Comme nous pardonnons aussi à ceux qui nous ont offensés
Et ne nous soumets pas à la tentation,
Mais délivre-nous du mal.
Amen
Onze Vader in de hemel,
laat uw naam geheiligd worden,
laat uw koninkrijk komen
en uw wil gedaan worden
op aarde zoals in de hemel.
Geef ons vandaag het brood
dat wij nodig hebben.
Vergeef ons onze schulden,
zoals ook wij hebben vergeven
wie ons iets schuldig was.
En breng ons niet in beproeving,
maar red ons uit de greep van het kwaad.
Amen
Our Father, which art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
in earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
But deliver us from evil
Amen
Que ton nom soit sanctifié,
Que ton règne vienne,
Que ta volonté soit faite
Sur la terre comme au ciel.
Donne-nous aujourd’hui notre pain de ce jour
Pardonne-nous nos offenses,
Comme nous pardonnons aussi à ceux qui nous ont offensés
Et ne nous soumets pas à la tentation,
Mais délivre-nous du mal.
Amen
Onze Vader in de hemel,
laat uw naam geheiligd worden,
laat uw koninkrijk komen
en uw wil gedaan worden
op aarde zoals in de hemel.
Geef ons vandaag het brood
dat wij nodig hebben.
Vergeef ons onze schulden,
zoals ook wij hebben vergeven
wie ons iets schuldig was.
En breng ons niet in beproeving,
maar red ons uit de greep van het kwaad.
Amen
Our Father, which art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
in earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
But deliver us from evil
Amen
<<I learn from you with great ↔, that a ↔ is ↔ in England for the ↔ of the ↔ ↔ of our ↔; for a ↔ ↔ it is, as much as those of Piers Plowman, Gower, Douglas, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspeare, Milton, for even much of Milton is already ↔. The ↔ is only the earliest we ↔ of the many shades of ↔ by which the ↔ has tapered down to its ↔ ↔. ↔ we need for each of these ↔ from Somner to Bailey, but not ↔ for each or any of ↔. The ↔ has ↔ so little, in the ↔ from the earliest, to the ↔ ↔, that a little ↔ ↔ to understand its ↔. We are greatly ↔ to the worthies who have ↔ the ↔ ↔, from ↔ Hickes down to ↔ Bosworth. Had ↔ not given to the ↔ what we ↔ through the ↔, that ↔ would by this time have been ↔ lost. I think it, however, a ↔ that ↔ have ↔ to give it too much of a learned ↔, to ↔ it on all the ↔ of the ↔ and ↔, to load it with ↔ ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔. Strip it of these ↔, ↔ it in the ↔ ↔ which we have ↔ instead of our English black ↔, ↔ its uncouth ↔, and ↔ its ↔, as much as may be, to the ↔ English, ↔ as we do in reading Piers Plowman or Chaucer, and with the ↔ ↔ for the few lost words, we understand it as we do ↔. For ↔, the ↔ ↔ of the Lord's ↔, as given us 6th ↔, ix., is (spelt) and written thus, in the ↔ ↔ ↔: "Faeder ure thu the eart in heofenum, si thin nama gehalgod. to becume thin rice. gewurthe thin willa on eorthan. swa swa on heofenum. urne daeghwamlican hlaf syle us to daeg. and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgifath urum gyltendum. and ne ge-laedde thu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele'. I should (spell) and ↔ thus: 'Father our, thou tha art in heavenum. si thine name y-hallowed. come thin ric. y-wurth thine will on earthan. so so on heavenum. ourn daywhamlican loaf sell us to day. and forgive us our guilts so so we forgivath ourum guiltendum. and no y-lead thou us on costnunge, ac a-lease us of evil'. And here it is to be ↔ by-the-bye, that there is but the ↔ word "↔" in our ↔ ↔ of this ↔ that is not ↔; for the word "↔" taken from the French, ({ofeilemata} in the ↔) might as well have been ↔ by the ↔ "guilts."
On voit mieux ainsi le caractère germanique de la langue anglaise, non ? >>
Why do you keep doing that?. Is that all you do? How many French words are in what I just said?
On voit mieux ainsi le caractère germanique de la langue anglaise, non ? >>
Why do you keep doing that?. Is that all you do? How many French words are in what I just said?
<Why do you keep doing that?. Is that all you do? How many French words are in what I just said? >
<6 words. >
"French" words do not exist at all, French vocabulary and grammar is mostly of Latin, Germanic and Greek origin.
<6 words. >
"French" words do not exist at all, French vocabulary and grammar is mostly of Latin, Germanic and Greek origin.