Which is closer to Latin

Rms   Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:15 pm GMT
“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.”

Evidently he wants to be descendant of the Romans because he thinks it is prestigious, more prestigious to think being a descendant of AngloSaxon (with no offense to anybody). I can imagine it is like that!
Unfortunately he will be partly disappointed.
First: nobody is directly “descendant” from the Romans because:
1) The “Romans” did not exist as a people. They were not an “ethnic group” as you mean, but in centuries of story became Romans also many Germanic tribes etc. So a “Roman” was a citizen of the Empire and he could be north African till the north of Europe, from today Portugal to Middle-East.
Rome was the first enormous metropolis of the western world, its inhabitants came from all the Empire.
So I do not understand what you mean when you talk about “Romans”.
2) In thousand of years many populations in ALL European countries mixed and overlapped, so how you can say English are only Anglo saxon, it’s fantasy!. Anglo Saxon was a people who contribute to the population of Britain. Then according to your way of thinking English would be more exactly “French Normans” because that was the last great invasion centuries after AngloS which erased all Anglo Saxon contribution, language included.
First: Iberians, them Celts, then Romans, Then Anglo Saxon, then Danish invaders, then Vikings, then French Normans.....Where is the main ethnic and cultural anglo saxon contribution?
I do not want to point out that we are referring ONLY to English as inhabitants of England because Welsh and Scottish are not Anglo-Saxon.
It’s true as you said where Romans evacuated the Germanic tribes invaded Britain causing the total collapse of civilisation and the withdrawal of culture, but the Roman contribution was not lost entirely. Something remained, and from those ruins English re-started their civilisation.
So English are not COMPLETELY Anglo Saxon: only in your sick fantasies! This is a stupid thought based on more stupid “ethnic” reasoning, English like EVERY people on EVERY country of Europe is the result of uncountable superimpositions.
Germanic tribes DID NOT invaded CENTURIES after Roman left the island but few years later, you’d better to brush up your time chronology. Yes, there were no mixing.
Although the heritage Romans left in Britain was pretty big, the comparison with native Americans is totally false, the native American did not influence the new nation, Romans in Britain ONLY built the entire roads web, the most important cities, they founded London (londinium), imported urbanisation and laws. Roman law, by the way, was the base of the today western law. They also left the culture, and some “ethnicity” (a very idiot word to me). So as you can see in some way you ARE a descendant of the Romans, like ALL Europe.
Guest   Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:25 pm GMT
JGreco

Although it would be nice to have intelligibility between English and other germanic languages, it's not really necessary. However, English IS somewhat intelligilble with Frisian. Frisian does not belong to the Dutch-German language area.
If Gothic in the Crimea had survived until modern times, it would not be intelligible with the West & North germanic languages. Would this therefore make it "special"? Would it need its own language family? No. It would still be germanic, just like English.

English really is more similar to other germanic languages than it's dissimilar. Just ask someone who is Slavic, or Greek (my mother is Slavic, and I have Greek friends). They can see it better than we can, because we are native speakers.

It's like siblings in the same family. Oftentimes siblings so not think they resemble one another, because they tend to focus on their differences, and magnify them. However, those outside the family can clearly see the relation. So it is with English and its kin.

Try not to focus on mutual intelligibility.
Guest   Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:01 pm GMT
We English people are descendants of Romans and the heirs of their (our)civilisation. That's so good, I feel Roman!
JGreco   Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:03 pm GMT
English is the closest to LATIN! BWahahAHAH
Guest   Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:25 pm GMT
LOL! ; ]
Scot   Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:45 pm GMT
English is the closest to Latin?? YOU WISH !!!
A curiosity   Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:55 pm GMT
Few people know when USA were founded the founders of the Constitution wanted to adopt Latin or Greek as the language of the new nation, obviously it would have been such a big revolution that was not feasible in practice.
Guest   Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:29 pm GMT
" Few people know when USA were founded the founders of the Constitution wanted to adopt Latin or Greek as the language of the new nation, obviously it would have been such a big revolution that was not feasible in practice. "

The wish of the Anglo-saxon nations to hold the heritage of the mediterranean civilisations seems without limits. those countries have a very narrow link to it compared with a lot of other European countries.
Why not accepting of being who they are: heirs of the English civilisation. Is it a shame ? It is now since two centuries the biggest civilisation that have ever existed - able to replace all the other cultures of the world. Much more powerfull than all the most powerful civilisations of the world that have existed before it.
Thom   Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:46 am GMT
The wish of the Anglo-saxon nations to hold the heritage of the mediterranean civilisations seems without limits.

As well as the contrary by some fools
Seeing your wondeful open-minded status you are American without any dubt

those countries have a very narrow link to it compared with a lot of other European countries.

WHHAAATTT????? AHAHAH!!!
Just a few reminders (I underline A FEW):
-Mediterranean civilisations sailed up and down the two American continents
-Portugal, Spain and France had American colonies VERY long before England
-An Italian discovered America for the western civilisation
-Even the same name America derives from Italian sailor Amerigo Vespucci
-The founders of USA were filled with Mediterranean civilisation, they read classic Greek and classic latin writers on whom the constitutions is inspired.
-Mediterranean countries had many immigrants in those "english" countries and these countries were built ALSO with the sweat of their hard work, so they are not only English: these country are equally French, Spanish, Italian, Asian, German etc.
Which countries have strong link intead? Denmark? Norway? Romania? Switzerland? Belgium? Austria? Please telll us. Enlight us on which contribution they give to english speaking countries

Why not accepting of being who they are: heirs of the English civilisation. Is it a shame ?

Because is not true! These countries are HEIRS OF ALL the civilisations that buot them, there is not a distinguished civilisation
Is it perhaps a shame the contrary? Is it a shame declaring the obvious truth? Is it a shame desiring this?
Why certain people don't want to admit the truth everyone know?
English "civilisation" destroyed everything it touched, then with the hard work of immigrants countries were built, that's history
I may be wrong but i remember that for example Americans kicked those "beloved" English (and their english civilisation) home as soon as they had the chance. Then they wanted to rebuilt the country on inspiration of the greatest Mediterranean civilisations

It is now since two centuries the biggest civilisation that have ever existed -

What? Are you kidding or just took drugs?? What is this BIGGEST civilisation? I can't se one and more than less the biggest "ever existed".
I can only see "economical empires" and nothing else, I can't see any "english" civilisation. Maybe you have never heard of Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Chinese etc....

able to replace all the other cultures of the world.

YES! WITH THE "CIVILISATION" OF THE FORCE! Or destroying them.

Much more powerfull than all the most powerful civilisations of the world that have existed before it.

Yeah yeah...certainly! Any other delirium of omnipotence???
Make yourself a favour: CHANGE PUSHER
Josh Lalonde   Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:02 am GMT
The easiest way to prove that English is a Germanic language is this: write a sentence using only Germanic words. "The man walked home that morning and slept until night." This is a pretty normal, everyday kind of sentence. I'm sure I could carry this story on for a while without a single Latin word. Now try to write a sentence using only Latin words. I don't know if it's even possible, but it certainly wouldn't be normal.
greg   Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:46 am GMT
Josh Lalonde :

« The ↔ way to ↔ that English is a ↔ ↔ is this: write a ↔ ↔ only ↔ words. "The man walked home that morning and slept until night." This is a pretty ↔, everyday kind of ↔. I'm ↔ I could ↔ this ↔ on for a while without a ↔ ↔ word. Now ↔ to write a ↔ ↔ only ↔ words. I don't know if it's even ↔, but it ↔ wouldn't be ↔. »


C'est certainement possible mais quel manque de vocabulaire alors !
greg   Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:01 am GMT
Thom : « The founders of USA were filled with Mediterranean civilisation, they read classic Greek and classic latin writers on whom the constitutions is inspired. »

Absolument ! D'ailleurs point n'est besoin de remonter à l'Antiquité puisque les Philadelphiens des États-Unis ont directement pompé leur constitution sur la Constitution corse de 1755 initiée et revue par Pascal Paoli, en partie rédigée par Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Thom   Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:12 am GMT
Greg: Absolument ! D'ailleurs point n'est besoin de remonter à l'Antiquité puisque les Philadelphiens des États-Unis ont directement pompé leur constitution sur la Constitution corse de 1755 initiée et revue par Pascal Paoli, en partie rédigée par Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Et un grande contribution à l'écriture des principes de la Constitution des Etas-Unis vient du philosophe italien Filippo Mazzei qui etait ami de Jefferson. Fact qui a été toujour bien taisé .
Danse les trois principes fondamentaux de la constitution ameriquenne le droit et la recherche de la bonheur fut suggeré par Mazzei (Poggio a Caiano 1730 - Pisa 1816) à Jeffeon dans une lettre.
Combien d'Ameriquens sachent ça? Juste parce que il est une culture "anglo Saxon"!!
JGreco   Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:55 pm GMT
"JGreco Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:03 pm GMT
English is the closest to LATIN! BWahahAHAH"


That was not me. But I'm flattered since you like my name so much...........
Guest   Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:27 pm GMT
<<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, time, new, danish and others are Germanic. English didn't get them from Latin or a Romance language. Besides, most of the words in the English vocabulary will be scientific vocabulary, very specialized and hardly used in everyday speech. Look at these words.

allergy
antigen
autism
biosphere
caffeinee
carotene
charisma
chromosome
dynamo
dyslexia
entropy
enzyme
gene
graphite
heroin
homeopathy
hypothalamus
ketone
mitochondria
narcissism
nihilism
ozone
polymer
Etc etc

Guess what, English never borrowed these words from Latin or even coined these words. They came from 'GERMAN'. This shows that even German has a tendency to coin scientific words from Greek/Latin roots. But would you say that German is predominantly Latin derived?