What makes a language Romance or Germanic?

The use of "to" before infinitives is by far more widespread in English than the use of (zu, te, att) in other Germanic languages


<< "I am proving": unknown in any other Germanic language, but used in Spanish and Italian. >>
Wrong. It is known in Scots, and it is known in Middle and Old English. >>

-- Ça ne sort guère de la famille... You forgot: Scouse, Cockney, Southern U.S. English (as well as a couple of others I'm not presently aware of).


<< Whether a language is Germanic or not depends SOLELY on the language's genetics >>

-- Here I unconditionaly agree. As I always say: sharks and dolphins, facing the same environment, have developed similar physical features (like fins), but their chromosomic distance is nevertheless extreme and constantly increasing.

<<<<2. "I prove, you prove, he proves, I proved", "I have proven" -- quite similar to French >> >>

By the way, what is similar here about English and French?

English:
I com-e/(or if you will) come-0
you com-e/come-0
he com-es/come-s

we com-e/come-0
you com-e/come-0
they com-e/come-0

French:
je vien-s
tu vien-s
il vien-t

nous ven-ons
vous ven-ez
ils vien-nent

What's similar???

Now, if in English we said for borrowed French verbs:
I prove/I me prove
you proves/you you proves
he prove/he him prove

we provons/we us provons
you provez/you you provez
they provent/the them provent

then that would be a similarity.

'proven' is also not like 'prouvé'

nor is 'I proved' like 'J'ai prouvé'



<<3. "I am proving": unknown in any other Germanic language, but used in Spanish and Italian.>>

SPANISH and ITALIAN??--two languages that have had practically NO impact or influence on English. ESKIMO and NAVAJO have had just as much influence on English as they.
And where is the French?

English is the quintessential Germanic language and rule by which to measure all other Germanic languages!!!!!:]
Now the case is closed :)

<<The use of "to" before infinitives is by far more widespread in English than the use of (zu, te, att) in other Germanic languages >>

This might be true, but I haven't tested it to see.
It does seem that way, because in English, when we lost our infinitive ending -en it left no distinguishing feature to make the infinitive from other forms. This created a vacuum which sucked the supine--the only other distinguisher--into its place.

<<Ça ne sort guère de la famille>>
LOL. Well, PARISIEN, Scots is a little more distant than Cockney or Southern Am. But I do see your point there :P


Also, what many people tend to forget is that it really is no surprise that English has so little to do with Romance languages, and French in particular. Not many people in Norman England were twi-lingual, only a select few among the elite and ruling classes. The vast more-deal of the populace was uni-lingual in English, and maybe twilingual in English and Norse.

English has French words in it not because of language contact, per se, but more because of English literary writes and scribes. The English leod reading their works and using their French words never spoke French themselves...that's a fact.

The thing is, creole Frenches and Englishes are lexically mostly French and English but grammatically they preserve features of other languages (or develop their own grammars, usually simplified). At least, that is the definition of creole languages.

Educated English is mostly Latinate lexically and has a grammar that is fairly distinct from the grammar of Old English (significantly simplified in some respects, obviously Latinate in some literary forms, e.g. the ablative absolute). By that measure, educated English is definitely a "creole Latin", not a pure Germanic language.

<<educated English >>

You speak of "educated English" as if it's a totally new and separate language.

I'm educated. I don't speak it, and don't care to.

I would call that language "presumptuous or pompous English". Earnestly. That's not an attack against you or your belief. It's an attack on that kind of talk. Ridiculous.

Please explain: what is the ablative absolute for those who may not know :)

I could call "educated" English written English, if not for the spread of texting and whatnot. Or I could just call it 'above-average vocabulary' English.

With 62% of the top 10,000 most used words in English being of French or Latin origin, English *is* a creolized language. It cannot be called a Germanic language without bringing attention to this fact. Creole languages are creole languages: Tok Pisin is neither English nor Papuan, and by the same logic English is neither Germanic nor Romance. It is a creole language.

It could *pretend* to be a Germanic language by using only a few thousand basic words, but that would actually make it as undeveloped as Tok Pisin itself.

The language of Shakespeare is a creolized Latin-Germanic blend. The language of a barely literate country bumpkin can possibly be Germanic (though with even basic words like catch, cook (fry, boil, broil, etc.), wall, place and whatnot being Latinate it would be hard to avoid the creole).

It's not true that English sistematically Germanizes borrowed words. For example many plurals are formed following the Latin fashion: datum -> data instead of datum-s, which would be more "Germanic" (assumed plural -s in English is not a French influence...).

Well, Woozle, I couldn't disagree with you more.

By your definition of creole, all languages are creoles, even Latin itself, which borrowed heavily from Greek. Thankfully, your definition and logic are unsound.

What you're really bearing back to here with English though is properly called "mingling" or admixture".

What I find queer is that even though 62% of the top 10.000 most used words listed (notwithstanding the statistics) are Latinate, the actual usage of words is not at 62%. So what I'm saying is, that if you analyse the words we actually use, you will not see them to be 62% Latinate even if your reckoning above is correct (I am btw accepting it as such. I have no quabble about that :). English is actually around 25-30% Latinate.

Two variables make that 62% impossible:
1) Frequency of use
2) Words not considered

Frequency of use is self-explanatory. One does not use all 10.000 top used words equally, with the same frequency, which is why they are ranked from 1-10.000.


2) Many words are being left out. According to your percentage, the word 'take' (for wis in the top 100) counts as one word one time, but you actually use it as several different words, several times over, and the frequency of its use is much higher than what is indicated by the inverse of that 62%.

For instance, you say
'take' but also
'take on' = assume, accept
'take over' = conquer, apprehend, assume chanrge of
'take in' = accept, receive, lodge
'take off' = leave, depart
'take out' = subtract, extract
'take to' = devote, pledge, respond favorably
'take up' = accept, assume, occupy, fill, lift
'take up with' = befriend, accompany, keep company with
'take down' = record, register
'take after' = resemble, mimmick
'take away' = remove, subtract

See here there are at least 11 other words represented by 'take' in addition to 'take' itself. Now factor thaose into your first 10.000 words.

According to your 62%, 'take' is counted just once.

This is why people scratch their heads and wonder why the percentages of Latinate words are so high, but when a text is actually analysed, the Latinate percentages are so low. ***This is why.*** The reckoning of the 62% and 10.000 words was incorrect and shoddy, or biased, or both.

With the above taken into consideration, I guarantee you that of the first 10.000 words in English, at least 85% are Germanic. This scenario plays over and over again with all Saxon words (come, play, see, look, run, bring, bear, go, think, speak, say, etc)

<<The language of Shakespeare is a creolized Latin-Germanic blend. The language of a barely literate country bumpkin can possibly be Germanic (though with even basic words like catch, cook (fry, boil, broil, etc.), wall, place and whatnot being Latinate it would be hard to avoid the creole). >>

Incorrect. Shakespeare did much to envigorate the native element in English. "Heart of gold", "the makings of", "seen better days", "a sorry sight", "eaten out of house and home", "heart of hearts"

Many kuntry bumpkins use Latinate words:

"I'm commencin' to cypherin' it out so's I can go a-courtin'..."[Jethro Clampett]
"What fer? I ain't a-gettin' in no trouble on account o' this here jug o' cider (rheumatiz' medicine)...I'm a physician"[Granny Clampett] :}

The pendulum has swung full-swing. It's the kuntry bumpkins who speak Latinate English :|

<<(fry, boil, broil, etc.), >>

'Broil' is not a Latinate word.

Meant the way you did here (as there are two separate etymologies for 'broil'), to 'broil' (cooking) < OFr 'bru(s)ler' < OF 'bruir' "to burn" < Frk *'brojan' "to burn, scortch" (cf MHG 'brüejen' "to scald, burn")

broil (1)
"cook," 1375, from O.Fr. bruller "to broil, roast," from brosler "to burn," from L. ustulare "to scorch, singe," from ustus, pp. of urere "to burn." Alt. by infl. of Gmc. "burn" words beginning in br-.

Broil in this sense appears to be a curious Germanic-Latin hybrid. But it *is* a French borrowing, in any case.

=======
By your definition of creole, all languages are creoles, even Latin itself, which borrowed heavily from Greek. Thankfully, your definition and logic are unsound.

What you're really bearing back to here with English though is properly called "mingling" or admixture".
-----------

1. Latin didn't have most of its vocabulary derived from Greek.
2. That's what creole languages are - they're "mingling" and "admixtures"
2. I agree that the majority of the most used words in English are Germanic in origin. As I've mentioned elsewhere - top 1000 words are over 80% Germanic, top 10,000 words are over 60% French and Latin. If we base our definition of creole on "lexicon mostly derived from a non-local language", then English will be Germanic at 1,000 words, a creole at 10,000. There's no 'scientific' definition of a creole language, just as there's no sciendific definition of a 'language' as opposed to a dialect.


I'm simply saying the Germanic vocabulary alone in English is insufficient to express most thoughts of even basic complexity (up to the near-impossibility of giving basic cooking instructions or asking someone to repair a wall - 'repair', 'mend' and 'fix' are all French borrowings, and the 'wall' is obviously Latin.. is there a synonym for it?). Germanic English is simply not a standalone language: if you purge Latin and French borrowings, it will cease being usable as a language. A new language, perhaps based on Old English, will have to be invented in its place - but it WILL be a new language. No one except for specialists understands 'leod' or 'leed', you know.

So, I take my previous statement back. It would indeed be impossible for a country bumpkin to speak good Germanic English consistently - this would require the professionalism of a linguist. English is a creolized language even at its basic level.

Even you - who goes to such pains to avoid the words like 'strange' - still have your reply peppered with Latin and Greek roots: "disagree", "use", "listed", "accept", "actual", to say nothing of more technical terms.

*Incorrect. Shakespeare did much to envigorate the native element in English. *

Are you trying to prove my point by avoiding the use of Germanic words?

<<Alt. by infl. of Gmc. "burn" words beginning in br-. >>

The gainwise is true. It's a Germanic word influenced by a Latin -ustulare ending :)

<<"listed">>

"list" is a Germanic etymon.

Though I respect your right to have your opinion, Woozle, I think you're off your rocker. So you think English is multiple languages in one haha. A German language in childhood and a Romance one in adulthood? and all the while a "creole"? LMAO.

Thanks, I needed that today ;)

<<broil (1)
"cook," 1375, from O.Fr. bruller "to broil, roast," from brosler "to burn," from L. ustulare "to scorch, singe," from ustus, pp. of urere "to burn." Alt. by infl. of Gmc. "burn" words beginning in br-.

Broil in this sense appears to be a curious Germanic-Latin hybrid. But it *is* a French borrowing, in any case.
>>

Do other words of French see this same type of hibridizations?

This makes Franch more the mixed lenguage more than English imho

<<But it *is* a French borrowing, in any case. >>

The French element in English cannot be thought of as being a pure Latinate element, because it's simply not.

We must remember what language English took its oïl-roamnce words from, it wasn't French, it was Anglo-Norman, the variety/dialect of Normaund spoken in the British Isles. It was not what we think of when we say French today.

Anglo-Norman was a thrice Germanized version of Romance.
1. Old French was a Germano-Francien version of Gallo-Romance
2. Normaund was a twice Germanized version of the same Gallo-Romance
3 Anglo-Normaund was three times a charm :)

The "French" element in English is practically a Germano-hybrid element, so you cannot count this in the 62% Latinate (French + Latin).

Someone (Woozle) needs to study a bit more :)

Yes, English has many French words, but a huge percentage of them are Frankish words--huge, bacon, balcony, ticket, etiquette, attack, attach, cliché, coiffe, choice, chagrin, casserole, baste, roast, chiffon, salon, mannequin, mug, baggage--hundreds if not thousands of these are Germanic words and must be discounted from that Romance-Latin tally.

<<"I'm commencin' to cypherin' it out so's I can go a-courtin'..."[Jethro Clampett] >>

Jethro's last name was Bodine. He was the son of Pearl, Jed Clampett's cousin.

And yes, they all spoke latinized English :p

"Yes, English has many French words, but a huge percentage of them are Frankish words"

You mean, several percent of them are? No doubt, and if that's how you understand the word 'huge' (a yet another French borrowing, apparently, of unknown origin), fine. I'm not here to judge idiolects.

And in any case, who cares whether those words are ultimately 'Frankish' or Latin? Both are foreign to England, but both were related to Old English: the former more closely by its virtue of being a Germanic language, the latter more distantly by its virtue of being an Indo-European language. The ultimate origin of certain French words is beside the point: virtually all words in English come from Indo-European languages, but making this a case for disproving the creolized nature of modern English would be a bizarre proposition.

Again. At top 10,000 words English is lexically much closer to French than to Old English. English lost its grammatical gender, and virtually all of its old declensions and conjugations. English *is* a creole language. It passes all the definitions of a creole language.

HUGE
Etymology
From Old French ahuge (“‘high, lofty, great, large, huge, also as adv., in freat quantity or number’”), from a hoge (“‘at height’”) from a- + hoge (“‘a hill, height’”) of Germanic origin akin to Old Norse haugr "hill" from Proto-Germanic *koukos (“‘hill, mound’”). Akin to Icel haugr "mound", O.H.G. houg "mound" (Ger Hügel "hill"), Lithuanian kaukaras "hill", O.H.G. hōh "high", Old English hēah "high". More at high

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huge

<<English lost its grammatical gender, and virtually all of its old declensions and conjugations. English *is* a creole language. It passes all the definitions of a creole language. >>

I have a question for you, Wozzle. If English had an influx of words from other languages during a time when that was fashionable, and English--not having a literary control like the Academie Francaise to stem any rogue borrowings, but having to accept what people spoke out of their mouths (like those who today borrow "leod" and "frempt" wholesale), if English borrowed notably from French and Latin, words, which many have already become obsolete, and others are becoming obsolete, and the process of borrowing from French and Latin has ceased, why then are you the only one who declares English a creole?

I have not heard any others claim this lately (although in the past it was considered and then debunked. Needless to say, some of what you say was among those erstwhile forthstellings). You are probably just smarter than the ones who first proposed it before.

They were not on the level you are. I'm sure of it.

<< not having a literary control like the Academie Francaise to stem any rogue borrowings, but having to accept what people spoke out of their mouths >>

-- "having to accept what people spoke out of their mouths" was just what the Academie Française was made for. Didn't you know? It was founded at a time French literature was invaded by Italian borrowings, and it made a very good job making scholars agreeing to write just like their countrymen speak.

Maybe you got your information from some Quality British Newspaper? (what an oxymoron!)