Which is closer to Latin

No JK, it wouldn't.

English still operates on a germanic model. It's Syntactical structure and morphology are still purely germanic.

A Latin verb like "exceed" still gets conjugated in English as a germanic weak verb: I exceed, you exceed, he exceeds...I will exceed, we have exceeded, they have been exceeding, etc. --GERMANIC

And a Latin adjectives like "quiet" and "solid" still get inflected like germanic adjectives: "quieter/quietest"; "more solid/most solid"

Nouns too--Germanic:
"car" > "car's" > "cars (pl)" > "cars' (pl)"

that's still 2:1 on the side of Germanic for English

I'm so sorry...

The only solution for the English speakers who are ashamed of having a germanic culture : adopt a new language and culture... An hispanic one for the USA, or a French or Spanish one for the UK...

« Guest » : « English still operates on a germanic model. It's Syntactical structure and morphology are still purely germanic. »

Alors il va falloir que tu expliques ce que sont une structure syntaxique et une morphologie « purement germaniques ». D'autant que l'anglais se caractérise, par exemple, par une morphologie verbale d'une rare pauvreté en comparaison de l'allemand.

La raison pour laquelle l'anglais est une langue germanique ***N'EST PAS*** d'ordre syntaxique ou morphologique. L'anglais est une langue germanique car cette langue ***DÉRIVE*** d'une langue germanique plus ancienne.

greg

You are correct. English's germanic syntax and morphology are due to inheritance. But we can still say that there are certain linguistic qualities that are uniquely germanic, like strong vs weak verbs, that distinguish the germanic languages from others (not as a 100% rule, but as a relative comparison to the group)

THAT, AND the fact that if we were to "discover" English today, without any prior written history (not knowing its derivation), an analysis of the language would still enable us to classify it as germanic.

Enough scant morphological traits (-s, -ed, -ing, -en [past participle ending of some strong verbs]; -er/-est, etc) that still evidence that fact that English is germanic, even though it is not like German, but like Afrikaans or Danish. However, again, you are correct, because the history over time enables us to see the connection between English and say German that no longer exists today.

" THAT, AND the fact that if we were to "discover" English today, without any prior written history (not knowing its derivation), an analysis of the language would still enable us to classify it as germanic. "


And, in that text :

that, and, the, that, if, we, were, to, English, today, without, any, written, not, knowing, its, of, the would, still, us, it, as

=23 germanic words


fact, discover, prior, history, derivation, analysis, language, enable, classify

=9 germanized latin words



.... English vocabulary is really far to be latin, and far to be even half latin.

just looking at words shows us clearly that English is clearly Germanic - a germanic which has borroded from French/latin the words it missed to express "intellectual" ideas.

Other thing to keep in mind is that even if 60% or 80% or whatever percent of English vocabulary is from Latin, many of those words are either technical or literary words that are rarely used. All the most commonly used words are of Germanic origin, especially function words, which are all Germanic as far as I know. If you look at a kid's reader or an introduction to ESL book, the first few lessons will be almost entirely Germanic; these words are the base of our language.

Josh Lalonde : « Other thing to keep in mind is that even if 60↔ or 80↔ or whatever ↔ of English ↔ is from ↔, many of those words are either ↔ or ↔ words that are ↔ ↔. All the most ↔ ↔ words are of ↔ ↔, ↔ ↔ words, which are all ↔ as far as I know. If you look at a kid's reader or an ↔ to ↔ book, the first few ↔ will be almost ↔ ↔; these words are the ↔ of our ↔. »

Ceci pour illustrer l'impact du français et de l'habitude française de néologiser en latin sur la langue anglaise.

You are fools! I think most of you are english mothertongues: it is simply incredible you are not aware of your language. 70% of english vocabulary is LATIN-BASED, derivated or borrowed have NO importance: THAT's THE ULTIMATE FACT. Would you like I send you thousands and thousands of latin words in English?
I'm not saying that English is a new latin language (because it has no its grammatical structure), but it is a fact that it is THE MOST latinized germanic language. Take only the posts on this page. Here the latin words:

No
English
operates
germanic
model
Syntactical
structure
morphology
purely
Latin
verb
"exceed"
conjugated
adjectives "quiet"
"solid"
inflected
Nouns
solution
culture
adopt
new
language
hispanic
French
Spanish
correct
syntax
morphology
inheritance
certain
linguistic
qualities
uniquely
distinguish
others
rule
relative
comparison
group
fact
discover
prior
history
derivation
analysis
enable
classify
morphological
traits
past participle
evidence
Afrikaans
Danish.
correct
history
time
connection
exists
vocabulary
latin
clearly
express
intellectual
ideas
percent
technical
literary
rarely
used
commonly
origin
especially
function
introduction
lessons
entirely


Almost 80 words in only few lines, and I'm not sure I listed all. That's enough?

Rob, you are incorrect on a few words and particles:

"No"
"English"
the "-s" of "operates"; "exists"
the"-ly" of "purely"; "uniquely"; "clearly"; "rarely"; "commonly"; "especially";
..."entirely"
"others"
"group"
the"-ed" of "conjugated"; "inflected"; "used"
the "-(e)s" of "adjectives"; "Nouns"; "qualities"; "traits"; "ideas"; "lessons"
"new"
"French"
the "-ish" of "Spanish"
the word order of "past participle" [adjective modifier + noun; AND ...the "t" in "past" < alter. of "passed"]
the "-s" of Afrikaans
"Danish"
"time"

All the above words/particles are germanic in origin. You need to study before you make unfounded and uninformed assertions.

(and yes, "origin", "study", "-found-", "assertion" and "inform-" are all latinic)

and btw, the "technic-" of "technical" and "analysis" are Greek, and never passed through Latin to English. So is "morphology".
"syntax" is Greek, but it did pass through Latin, but it is not Latin, it's Greek.

I think English is the closest language to latin, because 70% of it comes from latin... That's really a huge number.
We English people are descendants of Romans and the heirs of their (our)civilisation.

<<I think English is the closest language to latin, because 70% of it comes from latin... That's really a huge number. >>

Even if 70% of the Total English Dictionary Vocabulary (including obscure, archaic, & obsolete latinic terms) does come out to be 70% from or through Latin (i.e. 'through Latin' = actually coming from another origin, like Greek or Arabic, but borrowed first by Latin and passed on to English), that does not make English the closest language to Latin. That's ridiculous! Faliscan is the closet language to Latin, followed by Oscan & the Umbrian group (Umbrian, Aequian, etc).

<<We English people are descendants of Romans and the heirs of their (our)civilisation. >>

The English are not descendants of the Romans! Only in your sick fantasies! (why would you want to be a descndant of the Romans??? YUCK!--no offense to those who are.).
When the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain in the 6th century, it was due to a vacuum left by the evacuating Romans centuries earlier. So although Britain in Roman times was a colonial outpost, no Romans remained at the time of the Anglo-Saxon conquest. It was a 100% Replacement event where the Romans left and the Anglo-Saxons came in. There was no mixing of the two. They never saw each other.
Many people get the false impression that the Roman occupation of Britain was continual, and that there remains a Roman base to the ethnicity, culture and language of Britain. This impression is utterly false. It's like saying all Americans are descendants of Native Americans because they were here first. No. European Americans for the most part REPLACED the indigenous peoples. Same with Britain. The only remains of Roman culture in Britain are the baths, roads, and some buildings. That's it.

But one could say out of all the other Germanic languages that English is the farthest away in intelligibility to all the other Germanic languages due to its special evolution and influences from many different languages. I'm a native English speaker and if I read a phrase from most of the other Germanic languages I might be able to pick out a few words or be able to understand 3-5% of whats said by I still wouldn't be able to understand the other Germanic languages despite being related by Syntax or Morphology. If you compare the Frisian-Afrikaans-Dutch-German or Swedish-Norwegian-Danish -Icelandic (a little bit farther off from the other three) intelligibility compared to English which is way further off from the rest. To me despite of the linguistic characteristics of the language intelligibility wins out. I prefer to think of English as its own family a hybrid language rather than part of any existing language family because of its uniqueness.

Please explain WHY they are incorrect and if you think they are German indicate the original word. All the words you indicated are of Latin origin.
English is not Latin??!! And where do you think Anglia, Britain, Britannia (and so on) come from?
The –s, the –ly the –ed etc, are ONLY German suffixes on Latin words, but no German words AT ALL! These words are derived from LATIN and if you open any page of a dictionary you’ll find at least half of them of the total.
Ex: common (latin) + german suffix –ly = commonly
The –ly in English is to form adverbs from adjectives, the –ed is the suffix of past participle of regular verbs and so on. Do a suffix or a prefix modify the origin of a word?
Just to clear:
Operate: from Latin “Operari”
Common from Latin “Communis”
Time from Latin “Tempus”
Rare from Latin “Rarus”
Clear from Latin “Clarus”
Etc.
And yes, the Greek words are Greek. I made a mistake in transcription.
Maybe you need to study so much again before acting as a presumptuous (latin) scholar (latin)

Rob,

"Time" does not derive from Latin "Tempus"
English "Time" comes from Anglo-Saxon "tima" which is related to Old Norse "timi" (Mod Sweedish "timme") and Old English "tid" from where we get "tide". Both are akin to Dutch "tijd" and German "Zeit"

"Other" although it looks like Spanish "otro" is a false cognate, same as Eng. "much" and Sp. "mucho", Eng. "day" & Sp. "dia".

Eng "other" comes from Old English "other" from proto-germanic *anthar. It is the same word origin as Dutch & German "ander". Sp "otro" comes from Latin "alter"--coincidence. not related.

"Anglia" is Latin, but comes from germanic "Engle"/"Angli" the Angles

English "much" comes from Old English "mycel" which is related to Sweedish "myket" [much] ; while Sp "mucho" comes from Latin "multus"--coincidence. not related.

Rob,

Oh I forgot. English "group" comes from French "groupe" from Italian "gruppo" from GERMANIC *kruppaz.

"no" comes from Middle English "no/na" < Old English "na". It is only partially related--in the "n-" to other Indo-European words of negation.

And why does English "operate" have an "-ate" on the end of it, when Latin is "operari"? English should be "opere". English "operate" comes from "operatus", which means "worked" [past participle] in Latin, so English uses the word incorrectly. English "operate" should be an adjective meaning "worked", not a verb meaning to "do work". (so in English, the word "operated" is in effect a double past participle, like "cross-eyeded" lol)