|
|
French one of the most touched languages by English?!
<<“and when people actually speak, the percentage of Germanic words is quite high”
What do you know about “everyday English” Since when is that a sample or linguistic comparison among languages ?
Everyday samples of language are the true language in any serious linguistic analysis. The real language is the spoken language, which is overwhelmingly of an everyday and informal nature for any human language being considered. If you want to know how long this has been around as the standard for serious linguistic analyses, it's been within the past 100-200 years in the field of linguistics, but has become especially fundemental within the past century.
<<Who cares about a farmer’s everyday vocabulary, or a redneck, a junkie, an academician, a prostitute, a president (not Bush)
It doesn’t matter if English common words have Chinese, Zambian or Greek origin, or the words in “everyday English” are saxon. It doesn’t make a difference.>>
Actually, it is a quite useful measurement in any linguistic analysis of a language.
<<A language is an unitarium, a total indivisible. And you like it or not, 70 % of English is of Romance origin.>>
About 60-70% of total exical items in English are of Latin/Romance origin. However, lexical items are not the only part of a language. Other major linguistic fields must be considered, such as syntax, phonology, prosody, morphology, etc. in determining the origins of a language. And as it turns out, those all point to English undeniably being a (Western) Germanic language no matter the percentage of lexical items that have come form Germanic sources or not.
<<Ok ? Don’t preach that cr@p with “everyday English” or 763 used words…unless you’re in the kindergarten or playing poker with your inmates.
Just because you spend most of the time in a small “anglo-saxon room” doesn’t mean that the other 9 “Romance rooms” don’t exist. English is a predominant Latin House. English overall is a Saxon compromise and a Romance wannabe…if not a mutant who speaks Romance and thinks Saxon…>>
As explained above, English is classified by linguistics as an Indo European-Germanic-Western Germanic language. I have no opinion on the matter of how many Romance words there are or aren't in English (and in fact I like Romance languages--I've learned two and understand more) but as I said before just words do not a language make. There is so much more to consider, as I mentioned above. English is not a predominant "Latin House"--for that to be true it would be have to be proven that significant areas of language, such as morphology, phonology, etc. had been directly descended from Latin. That's not the case. English's underlying structure is undeniably Germanic no matter how many loan words it takes in.
Wow antimoonis finally back !!! I havn't been here for several months. Anyways back to the discussion....
Personally I think language similarities should be based on comprehension. I don't care if lexically English is closer to the Germanic language family it is not intelligable to any Germanic language so to me the germanic languages are distant to me. The average English speaker when first hearing any of these other Germanic languages could hardly pick out just a word or to of those languages. Compared to the everyday uses of the many French words English looks closer to the Romanic Languages than the Germanic languages. All the Romance languages whether on paper or spoken is somewhat inteliigable to each other and the same goes with the Germanic languages if you subdivide them into the Scandinavian languages and the Germanic languages (including the Dutch languages). English really should be in its own language category with all its variants.
>>>Excuse the typos in my previous postings, "I'm Reeeeaaallly tired right now!<<<<<
Travis, I confess that I sometimes refer to English as a "hybrid" language. I believe you're right, though, to emphasize the grammar and the greater frequency with which Germanic words are used. A language is essentially what's being used rather than what's stored in a dictionary. Most linguists would classify English as a Germanic language, and despite the large number of Romance words I won't argue with them.
Where I believe the number of borrowed words is significant is in judging the potential of English to express nuances (also they help when learning the languages that they come from, and related languages). Having both Germanic and Romance alternatives -- and academic words taken directly from Latin and Greek -- has given English a wide range of synonyms, each carrying a slightly different meaning or connotation.
>Actually I think Ernest Hemingway holds the record for the shortest story: "For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn." [Lazar]
Yes, though three sentences rather than one, it's definitely shorter than Monterroso's. Writers of polysyllabic Spanish may be at a disadvantage in this kind of endeavor.
[ By the way, do you have the primary source for the attribution to Hemingway? So far I haven't been able to find it.]
For persons who have 30 seconds to kill, I'll post a few more stories (once again without a primary source, but supposedly written in imitation of Hemingway):
John Updike: "Forgive me!" "What for?" "Never mind."
Michael Cunningham: "My nemesis is dead. Now what?"
Norman Mailer: "Satan - Jehovah - 15 rounds. A draw."
Tobias Wolff: "She gave. He took. He forgot."
http://www.wvia.org/six_word_novel_contest.htm
Gjones: "Gjones read short stories. He posted."
[Astute critics will note that the Gjones story is autobiographical.]
Here's a more famous example of non-fictional brevity. According to Plutarch, Julius Caesar described one of his victories in three words -- "Veni, vidi, vixi" [I came, I saw, I conquered].
JGreco, the main thing one must remember is that language taxonomy is based on what languages are descended from, not what languages may superficially seem like, as the superficial characteristics of a language fall under language typology rather than taxonomy. With regards to taxonomy, English and, say, Icelandic are far closer than, say, English and Mandarin, which are completely unrelated, even though typologically modern English is in many ways more like Mandarin than Icelandic. Likewise, as much as English has taken on large quantities of Romance loans, that makes it no more a Romance language simply because English is descended from Common Germanic rather than from Vulgar Latin.
Furthermore, when you say that English should have its own category, so you mean that it should have its own category within the Indo-European group? The matter is that for English to have its own category within the Indo-European group, it must have had its own separate protolanguage directly derived from Proto-Indo-European, due to the nature of language taxonomy, which is something that English clearly doesn't have, being descended from Common Germanic. However, if you mean that English should already have its own subgroup *within* the West Germanic languages, that is another story. English already shares its own subgroup of the West Germanic languages with Scots and the Frisian languages, that is, the Anglo-Frisian languages. As for English having specifically its own group, it will probably soon (within linguistic time, that is, by about a few hundred years or so from now) have its own subgroup of the Anglo-Frisian languages, due to having by then likely having started actually fracturing into multiple daughter languages. But that is less a matter of it being classified as having its own group than having a new group composed of languages descended from it.
<<JGreco, the main thing one must remember is that language taxonomy is based on what languages are descended from, not what languages may superficially seem like, as the superficial characteristics of a language fall under language typology rather than taxonomy. With regards to taxonomy, English and, say, Icelandic are far closer than, say, English and Mandarin, which are completely unrelated, even though typologically modern English is in many ways more like Mandarin than Icelandic. Likewise, as much as English has taken on large quantities of Romance loans, that makes it no more a Romance language simply because English is descended from Common Germanic rather than from Vulgar Latin.>>
Exactly. I'll bring back the example of Korean again. Korean is not a Sino-Tibetan language (actually there's some debate about what it is but everyone agrees it's not Sino-Tibetan), yet about 60-70% of its lexical items have come from various forms of Chinese over literally millennia. However, this doesn't make Korean even one inch closer to being a Sino-Tibetan language simply because it has so many words ultimately derived from Chinese. In all other matters Korean is almost as far away as you can get from Chinese. Their grammar, syntax, phonological rules and restrictions, etc. are almost completely different. Korean is SOV, agglutinative, and head-final. Many common Korean words are at least bisyllabic and many are multisyllabic ('gareuchida' 'teach' jeongjishinho 'stoplight' 'moreugesseumnida' 'I don't understand'). Chinese is SVO, analytical, head-initial, and tonal. Most Chinese words are monosyllabic. A few are bisyllabic at most.
However, by the logic that English is more Romance than Germanic simply because of all its Romance words (which is, to line up conveniently with Korean, also about 60-70%) would also have to apply to Korean, saying that it's more Sino-Tibetan than anything else. That'd be absurd. Same for English being called a "hybrid" or "almost Romance" language. It's not even close. I can write a sentence using 98% Romance-derived words in English and that doesn't change the fact that the underlying structure is still undeniably Germanic.
I often say that English is an "inbetween" language,but even though the vocabulary is enormously latin inflicted,the most basic grammer is Germanic.*The only reason why English people can read a French text better than a German one is that huge latinisation of English.
I am a supporter of a new subdivision of the Germanic language,but I haven't really got an idea how that would be called...
*Note:If English had the most basic Romance grammer, and a huge Germanic vocabulary,it would probably still be a Romance language.
The English "autopsy” A dissection of a random text ..."The skeleton and the body"
.........................................................................................................
I agree with the fact that Common English or basic English, is more Saxon than Romance ...But that is very subjective.. The more intellectual and educated you are - the more your English is Latin based...The English spoken in many universities, politic and academic environments is 50-70% Latin based.
Well, I really enjoyed this analysis of a moderate intellectual terminology, (but not academic) used in the following text...
I just selected a random "body-text" written by Travis...
........................................................................................................
Post-mortem (7:25:PM) 30/08/05
1. Latin words identified and Isolated in (Parenthesis)
>>JGreco, the (main) thing (one) must (remember) is that (language taxonomy) is (based) on what (languages) (are) (descended) from, (not) what (languages) may (superficially) (seem) like, (as) the (superficial characteristics) of a (language) fall under (language typology) rather than (taxonomy). With (regards to taxonomy), English and, say, Icelandic (are) far (closer) than, say, English and Mandarin, which (are) (completely unrelated), even though (typologically modern) English is (in) (many) (ways) (more) like Mandarin than Icelandic. Likewise, (as) (much) (as) English has taken on (large quantities) of (Romance) loans, that makes (it) (no) (more) a (Romance language simply) (because )English is (descended) from (Common Germanic) (rather) than from (Vulgar Latin)<<
........................................................................................................
2. (7:35:PM) 30/08/05. The Saxon words extraction...
The… thing…must…. is that … is … on what … …from, … what … may … like, … the … of … fall under … rather than … With … English and, say, Icelandic far … than, say, English and Mandarin, which … even though ... English is … ways … like than Icelandic. Likewise… English has taken on … of …loans, that makes … a … English is …from … than from…
........................................................................................................
3. (7:43:PM) 30/08/05. Latin words extraction
one… remember…language taxonomy… based…languages are descended, not…languages…superficially…seem, as…superficial characteristics…language…language typology…taxonomy. regards taxonomy are closer are…completely unrelated, typologically modern…in…many…more…as…much as…large quantities… Romance, no more Romance… language simply because …descended…Common Germanic rather …Vulgar Latin.
........................................................................................................
4. Latin Dissection (7:57:PM) 30/08/05. The Latin etymology of words from the selected text are (French, Latin, other neo-Latin.etc)
It-id, ille
Ways-vias
one-un
Remember- rappeler, rammentare
Language-langage
Taxonomy- taxonomie
Based-baser
are - être
descended,- descendre
not- non
superficially- superficiellement
seem- sembler
as- aussi
superficial - superficiel
characteristics- caractéristique
typology- typologie
regards -regard
completely- complètement
unrelated, un-relater
modern-modern
in-in
more-maggior, mas
many- multi …
much-mucho
large - magnus, larg
quantities… -quantité
Romance-Romance
Simply-simplum
because - à cause de
Common- commun
Germanic-Germanic
rather –quelque, poter
Vulgar –Vulgar
Latin-Latin
.........................................................................................................
5. Anglo Saxon dissection (8:07:PM) 30/08/05 Anglo-Saxon origin or other…
The
thing…
must….
that
what
from,
may …
like,
of
fall
under
With …
English
Icelandic
and,
say,
than,
which …
even
though
like
than
Likewise…
has
taken
on
loans,
makes
.........................................................................................................
6. (8:15:PM) 30/08/05. Autopsy terminated-the body incinerated...
7. Sample Report: A hybrid specimen, a mutant species of an Indo-European language, 63% Latin, 24% Saxon, and 13% of other genes detected....MARGIN ERROR 7%
.........................................................................................................
You can easily observe the Saxon skeleton of English… Latin is the body of English. And the richness of Latin words are shaping and contouring the Beauty of English language, its sound is softer and more melodic than any other harsh or guttural Germanic language...
Doctor: Romanian
Patient: Travis
How do you feel today Travis? Ok? Good :-)
Romanian, That was a great observation! Though a few errors...
=>one-un <=
Is descended from "een" or "eins" well anyway it has Germanic roots ;)
=>more-maggior, mas <=
Descended from "Mehr" or "meer" (germanic)
=>are - être <=
Descended from "är" (Scandanavian thus Germanic)
=>Germanic-Germanic <=
The "ic" ending is latin, but the word is derived from Germanen or Germanisch ;)
=>not- non <=
From Germanic "niet" or "nicht"
=>as- aussi <=
(aussi = as well isnt it?) 'as'comes from Germanic "als"
Romanian, you also missed some other Germanic words that Sander didn't catch, so I provided them down here. Also, you should note that just because words seem similar in two languages doesn't mean they're loanwords. In the case of English and Latin, the sheer fact that they're *already* distantly related as members of the Indo-European language family means there are many similarities in both which don't have to do with borrowed words, but simply the way both developed from the common source of Proto Indo-European (PIE).
It-(from Old English "hit," not Latin "id, ille")
Ways-(from Old English "weg," not Latin "vias")
seem-(from Old Norse "soema," not French "sembler")
in-(from Old English "in"...once again the similarity to forms in Latin and Romance languages with "in" is not a situation of borrowing but one of distant relatedness thru PIE)
many- (from Old English "manig" not Latin "multi")
much-(from Old English "micel" not Spanish "mucho"...Spanish "mucho" is actually a direct development from Latin "multi" and the fact that the Englisn and Spanish words resemble each other so closely is pure coincidence)
rather-(from Old English "hraþor"..."þ" was an old symbol for "th")
Also, in your "autopsy" you should remember this was an autopsy of a written (and at least semi-formal) text, which almost always guarantees a significant higher showing of Latin and Latinate words.
If I count Sander's and my corrections, plus "main" which you forgot to put on any list (it's Germanic, from Old English "mægen") that's 14 extra words for a total of 30 from a Germanic source and 21 from Latin/Romance. That's a lot more than your 7% margin of error. The majority of the words from your selected text are Germanic in origin.
Also, this doesn't take into account the frequency of the words. For example, as expected, very common words like "the" "that" "with" "which" "of" etc., which are exclusively Germanic in origin, show up multiple times while Latinate borrowings such as "characteristics" show up once, as they're not high-frequency function words.
|