English Language "autopsy” ! A meticulous examination..

Sander   Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:43 pm GMT

=>“More” entered English from greek “moros” via Germanic influence.
“One” is from the greek “ oinos” adopted by Germanics <=

This cannot and is not true!!! 'more' comes from:

One comes from Germanic as well:

*Woulden't 'Oinos' be spelled ' ένας '? I think it's hard to believe that English translated the number one,from greek.

But I do agree with you that
is , on , are, as, it , of, one, the, a, etc. should be taken out of the text,and just count the words.(the subject is afterall vocabulary)
Romanian   Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:55 pm GMT
"Mandarin" -portuguese origin.

Very interesting, Greg…That proves my point of view as very objective, but escaping some of the micro details you just observed or discovered…

A+ !
Romanian   Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:19 pm GMT
"One comes from Germanic as well"

Sender you are right but the ancient etymology is from the greek “OINOS” absorbed in :

Germanic Languages as:


And in Latin UNUS and the neo-Latin Languages”

Romanian –unu

Don’t forget that the Greek civilisation is the oldest from the European Continent and many words have they roots in Greek ! not only Latin !

The same destiny for “More” originated from the greek “moros” Infiltrating in other European languages...
Romanian   Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:32 pm GMT
"ONE" in Modern Greek = ENAS ( ένας ) Latin- UNUS
Sander   Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:45 pm GMT
I looked over it , and you are right! :) what a suprise, apparently Old-English "ainaz" was almost directly taken from Greek oinos ! Wauw! :-)
Fabian B aus D   Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:52 pm GMT
Why erroneous? You can't just claim that every word which isn't of anglo-saxon origin has to be of latin origin. There are many words, which descend directly from PIE. So it's not astounding, that there are, of course, many words, which are shared by roman and german languages. If you had looked it up at the etymological dicctionary which I had put forward, you would have recognised, that "large" is of unknown origin. I daresay it entered Latin before Latin had spread all over the world, but nobody knows where it came from. The fact that the roman languages share this word doesn't mean, that it stems necessarily from Latin itself.
Albeit you're right, the words you've just mentioned aren't German but germanic!

Greco, 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)

Greco, woran man hauptsächlich denken muss, ist, dass die Taxonomie der Sprache darauf basiert, woher Sprachen stammen, nicht welchen Anschein Sprachen oberflächlich erwecken, da die oberflächlichen Merkmale einer Sprache eher unter Sprachtypologie fallen, als unter Taxonomie. Im Hinblick auf die Taxonomie sind Englisch und sagen wir Isländisch sich viel näher als sagen wir Englisch und Mandarin, welche vollkommen unverwandt sind, obwohl typologisch modernes Englisch oft mehr Mandarin als Isländisch ähnelt. Ebenso hat Englisch eine enorme Anzahl romanischer Lehnwörter übernommen, was es auch nicht mehr zu einer romanischen Sprache macht, einfach weil Englisch mehr vom Germanischen als aus dem Vulgärlatein stammt.
Sander   Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:04 pm GMT
To come back on my last message,

I cheered to early ;) OE ainaz , comes from proto Germanic, not Greek.
Romanian   Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:21 pm GMT
Yes Fabian …German language indeed is Germanic …:-)

but “ from LATIN. Germanus, first attested in writings of Julius Caesar, who used Germani to designate a group of tribes in northeastern Gaul”

But saying that “Large”is not from LATIN !? but rather unknown , makes me largely laugh enlarged…

Latin – LARGUS
Romanian- LARG
Italian- LARGO
Portuguese – LARGO
Fabian B aus D   Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:57 pm GMT
Romanian I'm afraid you have neither read my text nor understood it, in case that you've read it. Please make sure, that you catch up on it. Have you ever been thinking about the possibility, that Latin, too, has loaned some words? After www.etymonline.com, which I refer to, "large" has been loanded from an unknown origin. That, however, is the reason why the romanic tongues own this word. I hope this has helped you a little.
Admittedly don't try to fool me, I indeed know, that German is a germanic tongue!
Romanian   Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:35 pm GMT
You’re fighting for a lost cause…

As far as I am concerned the term “ Large “derived from Latin and was spread out by the Roman Empire. It doesn’t matter if the word “Large” is Chinese-born or Vietnamese-born. It is a LATIN INFLUENCE in English and not a Chinese or Vietnamese!

I am trying to state the influence of LATIN overall, (Latin born words, loan-words as well, but part of Latin) in English Language.

Your referral as “unknown etymology” it’s useless in this case. Besides if nobody knows its origin, that’s just an useless argument…

<<Admittedly don't try to fool me, I indeed know, that German is a germanic tongue!>>

Well, I don’t think you have a sense of humour at all. By the way, a German stereotype…

The accent wasn’t on German being a Germanic language …that’s so obvious!

But on ”German” as “from Latin. Germanus, first attested in writings of Julius Caesar, who used Germani to designate a group of tribes in north-eastern Gaul”

GERMANUS- (Germanic) which ironically designates a non-Latin group of Teutonic languages - with a Latin name…Germanus

LATIN- Germanus
Romanian- Germania

In few cases (your case) English ironically sounds more LATIN than Spanish or French!!!

Spanish- Alemania

Take it easy my friend! Even if you win a battle, you’ve lost the war! The % of GERMANUS in English is not LARGER than 24 %!

Next please!
Sander   Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:02 pm GMT
Romanian you're are starting to act a little weird.

In terms of war,you are the one fighting for a lost cause,because no matter how many Romance words get into the English vocabulary,it's always going to be Germanic...
Romanian   Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:10 pm GMT
I am only joking Sander…I know that! :-)

I was speaking about the English vocabulary, primarily Latin (the body of English) not the Grammatical Structure or Language Family…which is obviously Germanic…

I apologise anyway!
JGreco   Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:52 pm GMT
>>>OH MY GOOOOODDDDDDD..........<<<<

Al of this educated linguistic bore is getting on my nerves! Everybody is missing the whole point to my writing. I do not care about what percentages of English are of Romantic or Germanic origin. I was trying to discuss REAL WORLD SITUATIONS ENVOLVING THE LANGUAGE! In a real world situation the average educated English speaker no matter the variety they speak when they encounter another person who speaks a fellow Germanic tongue who is speaking in that language, a speaker of English will not be able to understand them. I have friends from all over Northern Europe who speak German and Dutch (somewhat mutually intelligible) and who speak Swedish and Norsk (also mutually intelligible) but English is not intelligle to any other Germanic language which differs from levels of intelligibility for all other Indo-European branches. Real world examples people! Thank You I said my peace.
Travis   Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:54 pm GMT
Well, normally languages by definition *should not* be crossintelligible with other things classified as being specifically "languages" per se, but often this is broken due to social, historical, and political concerns. For example, the continental North Germanic languages ought to be classified as a single Scandinavian language, especially because internal dialect variation within Danish (as exemplified by Sønderjysk), Swedish (as exemplified by Dalska), and Norwegian (as exemplified by very large variation within spoken Norwegian overall) is very often much larger than that between the "standard" languages themselves. In the opposite direction, people often refer to Italian as a single language, yet from a linguistic standpoint it should actually be referred to as a language group, due to limited crossintelligibility between many "dialects" of it, even when one ignores the Gallo-Italian languages altogether.

Another issue is that crossintelligibility is often much higher in writing than it is in speech. For example, in the case of German and Dutch, both are moderately crossintelligible *in writing*, with Dutch being in particular rather understandable to German-speakers who also speak English. However, the actual crossintelligibility in speech between German and Dutch is far lower in speech than one might guess from looking at written German and written Dutch. Another case of this is English and Scots, where written Scots is usually partially but not fully intelligible to English-speakers, but spoken Scots is usually not intelligible at all to English-speakers who don't also speak it. That said, the relationship between English and Scots is similar to that between German and Low Saxon, or German and Dutch, with the exception that Scots is not as strong politically as Dutch.
Fabian B aus D   Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:03 am GMT
Well, Romanian, I'm downright uninterested in a fight. I have merely been intereted in emphasising how many different sources have had an influence on the English language. I fear that you take this subject too earnest! For me, English is just a subject at school, which I have chosen to make my school leaving examination in. I don't really care what Latin had done to English, for my native tongue has almost no influence of Latin. Your language, Romanian, in contrast is a romanic language by all means. Could it be that you want to point out a Latin predominance?

I don't think that my reasoning is useless, for it's evident that our aims are different. I want to fathom English sources whereas you want to make English a romanic tongue!
See, I've never given any meaningfulness to my little note. And I've never denied that "large" came over Latin into English but was very interested how it came into Latin, for this is in fact still unknown!

So, let us abandon this misunderstanding. You're right, Latin and it's descendents had have a great sway over English, however, I prefer anyway German :p .

The history of the word "German", for instance, is very interesting, too!