CORRECTION
<<Dutch I would have to agree.>>
I meant, Dutch I would have to disagree. (I can understand it in written form)
<<Dutch I would have to agree.>>
I meant, Dutch I would have to disagree. (I can understand it in written form)
Are Romance languages some kind of Germano-Latin?
"More than a German text for sure. German is rather unique among germanic languages. "
I believed that German was a typical Germanic language and English on the other hand was more deviated from what one should expect from a typical Germanic language. Indeed that linguistic family is called "the Germanic languages" and not "the Frisian languages or the "Anglosaxon languages".
I believed that German was a typical Germanic language and English on the other hand was more deviated from what one should expect from a typical Germanic language. Indeed that linguistic family is called "the Germanic languages" and not "the Frisian languages or the "Anglosaxon languages".
<<I believed that German was a typical Germanic language and English on the other hand was more deviated from what one should expect from a typical Germanic language. Indeed that linguistic family is called "the Germanic languages" and not "the Frisian languages or the "Anglosaxon languages". >>
That's the problem.
In English (and barely one other language--like Finnish I think) is Hoch Deutsch called "German". It's a misnomer. Calling Hoch Deutsch German gives undue emphasis to that one language.
And you're wrong, Hoch Deutsch is not the typical of a germanic tongue. It too has deviated, albeit, in the exact opposite direction of English.
Hoch Deutsch is very different from English, Swedish, Frisian, Icelandic and even Dutch. It sounds different, has shifted consonants, and doesn't look like the rest of the pack in written form. It's grammar is complicated, almost halfway to the point of being LATIN.
English, because of Scandinavian influence, has a much more relaxed grammar. Also, because of Old Norse influence, our words are different in many respects than Hoch Deutsch words:
HD: 'Bein', 'Himmel', 'nehmen'
Dutch: 'been', 'hemel', 'nemen'
English: 'leg' (cf. bone), 'sky' (cf. heaven), 'take' (cf. nim, nimble, numb)
That's the problem.
In English (and barely one other language--like Finnish I think) is Hoch Deutsch called "German". It's a misnomer. Calling Hoch Deutsch German gives undue emphasis to that one language.
And you're wrong, Hoch Deutsch is not the typical of a germanic tongue. It too has deviated, albeit, in the exact opposite direction of English.
Hoch Deutsch is very different from English, Swedish, Frisian, Icelandic and even Dutch. It sounds different, has shifted consonants, and doesn't look like the rest of the pack in written form. It's grammar is complicated, almost halfway to the point of being LATIN.
English, because of Scandinavian influence, has a much more relaxed grammar. Also, because of Old Norse influence, our words are different in many respects than Hoch Deutsch words:
HD: 'Bein', 'Himmel', 'nehmen'
Dutch: 'been', 'hemel', 'nemen'
English: 'leg' (cf. bone), 'sky' (cf. heaven), 'take' (cf. nim, nimble, numb)
I agree that terming Deutsch "German" and then calling the family "Germanic" makes it seem like Deutsch is the standard.
If this were the case, then No, English is not very "German"ic (Deutsch-like)...it's not Deutsch-like at all. But it is germanic.
Maybe we can get away using another term.
How about Teutonic? same root as Deutsch maybe, but wholly different association.
If this were the case, then No, English is not very "German"ic (Deutsch-like)...it's not Deutsch-like at all. But it is germanic.
Maybe we can get away using another term.
How about Teutonic? same root as Deutsch maybe, but wholly different association.
It depends on the kind of speech, it is not the same a businessman's speech than a shoemaker's speech. The more cultured the more latinized is one's speech, and also take into account that I referred to letters . When writing one uses a different register than when speaking, more formal and thence with more latin words than let's say, when you use an informal speech, for example when you talk to your family or you send a SMS. I don't think why some people consider casual registers to be more representative , they are the most used when talking, but obviously Literature makes use of the formal ones.
« Guest » : « In truth, the closest language to a mixture of Latin and German is French with a ratio of approx. 80% Latin , 15% German, 5% Other. »
D'où tiens-tu ces chiffres ?
« Guest » : « As in the case with English, the Anglophones never came into contact with Latin-speakers as in the case with Romanian and Slavic...the Latin influence in English is *artificial*, being created by the English speakers themselves (i.e. bookworms and scholars inkhorning terms into English). »
Si l'influence du français et du latin sur le vieil-anglais est en effet de type pyramidal (haut → bas) via l'aristocratie francophone et les langues écrites que celle-ci utilisait , il est faux de dire que l'influence du latin sur le vieil-anglais & le moyen-anglais a été *créée* par les anglophones : elle a été *reprise* par les anglophones.
« guest » : « Yes, but this is a ☼ ☼. A ☼ ☼ of that 60☼ is made up of words we don't ☼ anymore. Words like '☼', '☼', '', ☼. ☺'re in the ☼, but ☺ are old-☼, and ☼. What if this ☺: What if I went to work for Oxford on ☺ ☼ and ☼ I ☺ to "borrow" ☼ words and put ☺ in my English ☼. I ☺ all the words in ☼, however many ☺ may be, and ☼ ☺ on the English ☼. Of ☼ no one will ☼ ☼ ☺. ☺ ☼ sit ☺ in the ☼ ☼ and ☺. If I run a ☼ of English word ☼, all of a ☼ ENglish is 50☼ ☼!?? ☼ it has 50☼ of its words from ☼? That's nuts. ☼ ☼ to the ☺ thing. »
Tout est relatif. Francolatin → ☼. Norrois & nord-germanique → ☺.
« Guest » : « I believed that German was a typical Germanic language and English on the other hand was more deviated from what one should expect from a typical Germanic language. Indeed that linguistic family is called "the Germanic languages" and not "the Frisian languages or the "Anglosaxon languages". »
Il est vrai que des variantes de haut- & bas-allemand ont été codifiées très tôt et érigées au rang de scriptolangues officielles ou reconnues. Elles n'ont pas été remplacées, dans ces fonctions, par une langue romane ou slave. Ce n'est pas le cas du vieil-anglais finissant et du moyen-anglais naissant : ces langues ont perdu toute fonction normative à l'écrit sur leur propre sol. Les variantes du moyen-anglais se sont imposées à l'écrit en reprenant l'héritage francolatin.
Ce n'est pas du tout le cas des variantes haut- & bas-allemandes, même si les calques sur le modèle du médiolatin écrit sont très nombreux.
D'où tiens-tu ces chiffres ?
« Guest » : « As in the case with English, the Anglophones never came into contact with Latin-speakers as in the case with Romanian and Slavic...the Latin influence in English is *artificial*, being created by the English speakers themselves (i.e. bookworms and scholars inkhorning terms into English). »
Si l'influence du français et du latin sur le vieil-anglais est en effet de type pyramidal (haut → bas) via l'aristocratie francophone et les langues écrites que celle-ci utilisait , il est faux de dire que l'influence du latin sur le vieil-anglais & le moyen-anglais a été *créée* par les anglophones : elle a été *reprise* par les anglophones.
« guest » : « Yes, but this is a ☼ ☼. A ☼ ☼ of that 60☼ is made up of words we don't ☼ anymore. Words like '☼', '☼', '', ☼. ☺'re in the ☼, but ☺ are old-☼, and ☼. What if this ☺: What if I went to work for Oxford on ☺ ☼ and ☼ I ☺ to "borrow" ☼ words and put ☺ in my English ☼. I ☺ all the words in ☼, however many ☺ may be, and ☼ ☺ on the English ☼. Of ☼ no one will ☼ ☼ ☺. ☺ ☼ sit ☺ in the ☼ ☼ and ☺. If I run a ☼ of English word ☼, all of a ☼ ENglish is 50☼ ☼!?? ☼ it has 50☼ of its words from ☼? That's nuts. ☼ ☼ to the ☺ thing. »
Tout est relatif. Francolatin → ☼. Norrois & nord-germanique → ☺.
« Guest » : « I believed that German was a typical Germanic language and English on the other hand was more deviated from what one should expect from a typical Germanic language. Indeed that linguistic family is called "the Germanic languages" and not "the Frisian languages or the "Anglosaxon languages". »
Il est vrai que des variantes de haut- & bas-allemand ont été codifiées très tôt et érigées au rang de scriptolangues officielles ou reconnues. Elles n'ont pas été remplacées, dans ces fonctions, par une langue romane ou slave. Ce n'est pas le cas du vieil-anglais finissant et du moyen-anglais naissant : ces langues ont perdu toute fonction normative à l'écrit sur leur propre sol. Les variantes du moyen-anglais se sont imposées à l'écrit en reprenant l'héritage francolatin.
Ce n'est pas du tout le cas des variantes haut- & bas-allemandes, même si les calques sur le modèle du médiolatin écrit sont très nombreux.
greg:
<<<Ouest : « To my feeling [...] ».
Le problème est là : tu *t'imagines* 1] un processus de cérolisation — 2] basé sur du latin — 3] déclenché par des germanophones. >>>
The theory of 1]2]3] is substantiated by Christopher Lucken
http://medievales.revues.org/document638.html
"La « grammaire » désigne en ancien français le latin. Lui seul est pourvu d'une grammaire : celle notamment que décrivent l'Ars minor et major de Donat (IVe siècle) ou les Institutions grammaticales de Priscien (VIe siècle), à une époque où le « bon » latin (celui de la rhétorique illustrée par les meilleurs orateurs et défendue par Cicéron, et qui deviendra le latin « classique ») semble devoir s'effacer devant l'invasion du latin « vulgaire », [..] parlé par le « peuple » rustique et les barbares!!!! "
Professor Lucken obviously associate the genesis of "Vulgar Latin" (= Romance) to a process of "invasion in the IV century by "vulgar" Latin, which is spoken by the rural population and the (Germanic) barbars."
The IV century comprise the peak of migration of germanic Peoples into the Roman empire.
Especially the sentence "latin « vulgaire », [..] parlé par le « peuple » rustique et les barbares" says it all: in the IVth century the "vulgar" Latin was spoken by rural population and the barbars" .
<<<Ouest : « To my feeling [...] ».
Le problème est là : tu *t'imagines* 1] un processus de cérolisation — 2] basé sur du latin — 3] déclenché par des germanophones. >>>
The theory of 1]2]3] is substantiated by Christopher Lucken
http://medievales.revues.org/document638.html
"La « grammaire » désigne en ancien français le latin. Lui seul est pourvu d'une grammaire : celle notamment que décrivent l'Ars minor et major de Donat (IVe siècle) ou les Institutions grammaticales de Priscien (VIe siècle), à une époque où le « bon » latin (celui de la rhétorique illustrée par les meilleurs orateurs et défendue par Cicéron, et qui deviendra le latin « classique ») semble devoir s'effacer devant l'invasion du latin « vulgaire », [..] parlé par le « peuple » rustique et les barbares!!!! "
Professor Lucken obviously associate the genesis of "Vulgar Latin" (= Romance) to a process of "invasion in the IV century by "vulgar" Latin, which is spoken by the rural population and the (Germanic) barbars."
The IV century comprise the peak of migration of germanic Peoples into the Roman empire.
Especially the sentence "latin « vulgaire », [..] parlé par le « peuple » rustique et les barbares" says it all: in the IVth century the "vulgar" Latin was spoken by rural population and the barbars" .
"And you're wrong, Hoch Deutsch is not the typical of a germanic tongue. It too has deviated, albeit, in the exact opposite direction of English."
German has a bit deviated, just like any other Germanic language. However, you will find aspects which shifted or got lost in the North Germanic languages, but survived in German or Dutch. Anyway, comparing all Germanic languages, English is definitely the one altered the most. Every blockhead knows that.
Somebody said that English grammar is purely Germanic. Well, I say there is nothing of its original grammar left to be able to judge it, LOL
And by the way, High German is at any rate more similar to Dutch than to English! There are 75 % similiarity in vocabulary between German and Dutch (and 60 % to the North Germanic languages), compared to 30 % between English and Dutch (and 30 % to North Germanic languages). Not to mention the grammar.
http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/languages/similarities/german/index.html
German has a bit deviated, just like any other Germanic language. However, you will find aspects which shifted or got lost in the North Germanic languages, but survived in German or Dutch. Anyway, comparing all Germanic languages, English is definitely the one altered the most. Every blockhead knows that.
Somebody said that English grammar is purely Germanic. Well, I say there is nothing of its original grammar left to be able to judge it, LOL
And by the way, High German is at any rate more similar to Dutch than to English! There are 75 % similiarity in vocabulary between German and Dutch (and 60 % to the North Germanic languages), compared to 30 % between English and Dutch (and 30 % to North Germanic languages). Not to mention the grammar.
http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/languages/similarities/german/index.html
I meant:
High German is at any rate more similar to Dutch than is Dutch to English.
High German is at any rate more similar to Dutch than is Dutch to English.
"Because casual registers are natural, and literary ones aren't." No, they both are natural. A writer would feel uncomfortable writing a book with a casual register, or even making use of slang. The spoken language is only one part of it, and after all, we don't know how Shakespeare spoke, but how he wrote.
Roger Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:34 pm GMT
<<What characteristics of romance languages, and French in particular, if any, are attributed to Germanophones? >>
Vocabulary
nouns like: hâche, banlieue, fauteuil, troupe, soupe, jardin, guerre, groseille...
adjectifs like: hardi, frais, riche, bleu, blanc, gris, brun...
verbs like: danser, déchirer, guérir, gagner, garder...
adverbs like: trop ou guère...
many colours like bleu, gris, brun, blanc...
names like: Robert, Guilleaume, Adelaide, Richard, Mathilde...
Here a listing of Germanic vocabulary still in use today by Prof. H. Walter:
La guerre et la chevalerie : bande, baron (homme brave, mari), bière (cercueil), blason, brandon, convoi, crosse, échanson, éperon, épieu, étrier, félon, fief, flèche, gain, gant, garçon (domestique), gars (soldat valet goujat), gonfanon (étendard), guerre, guet, hache, hanap, harangue, heame, honte, lice, maréchal, marquis, orgueil, rang, sénéchal, trêve, choisir, éblouir, épargner, fournir, gagner, garder, guetter, haïr, honnir, souiller.
La vie des champs : blé, vois, bûche, fange, fourrage, fourrure, framboise, garbe, germe, grappe, haie, hameau, hêtre, houe, houx, jardin, maris, osier, roseau, saule, touffe, trappe, troëne, caille, chouette, crapaud, frelon, hanneton, héron, laie, mésange.
La vie artisanale : alène, étai, feutre, filtre, houille, maçon, tuyau, bâtir, broyer, déchirer, gratter, graver, râper.
La vie maritime : bouée, écume, falaise, flot.
Les couleurs, blanc, bleu, blond, brun, fauve, garance, gris, saur.
La vie domestique : banc, beignet, bille, buée, crèche, cruche, écharpe, fard, fauteuil, flacon, froc, housse, lanière, louche, poche, quenotte, soupe, hanche, flanc, téton, fluet, frais, gai, laid, long, broder, danser, guérir, héberger, lécher, regarder, rôtir, téter, trépigner.
http://www.mondalire.com/langue/meli_melo.htm
Phonetics: introduction of Germanic [w] which was treted like Latin [v] and became guttural comme dans guerre (< Franc werra), while vastare became wastare and finally gâter, vespa became wespa and finally guêpe. Latin words like huit (< octo), huis (< ostium), hermine (< arminia), huître (< ostrea), etc., have got their initial [h] from an old Germanic way of pronouncing [h] still in use in Germanic words like hache, hotte, huche, haillons, hangar, héron, hareng, etc.
Morphologic: Ending -and, -ard, -aud, -ais, -er et -ier are of Germanic origin, further a lot of verbs with ending -ir like choisir, jaillir, blanchir, etc.
Toponymes: Criquebeuf, Elbeuf, Caudebec, Honfleur, Trouville, etc. and names like Robert...
Syntax: for example word order in "l'endemain manda le duc son conseil". Today one would say: Le duc appela le lendemain son conseil.
Lots of Germanic traces have been been artificially erased from French which was "corrected" by linguistic puistst and Latin-lovers since the Renaissance.
Furthermore, many French (and English) words of clearly Latin provenience are late borrowings from medieval Latin and are not coming from Latin by evolution. Like English, the French language has used the classical Greek and Latin as a fundus to create new words for modern things, thoghts and polite constructions. This falsificates statistics that count words in lexica in order to establish the percentage of Germanic words in modern French.
Linguists often state that French owes to Germanic only a few words - exactly 544 following Henriette Walter, or 13 % of all foreign words introduced into modern French. In reality, the Germanic influence is much more important if one takes into account that the number of words was much smaller in early medieval times than in today's lexica.
http://www.salic-slmc.ca/showpage.asp?file=langues_en_presence/langues_off/fr_histoire&language=fr&updatemenu=true
<<What characteristics of romance languages, and French in particular, if any, are attributed to Germanophones? >>
Vocabulary
nouns like: hâche, banlieue, fauteuil, troupe, soupe, jardin, guerre, groseille...
adjectifs like: hardi, frais, riche, bleu, blanc, gris, brun...
verbs like: danser, déchirer, guérir, gagner, garder...
adverbs like: trop ou guère...
many colours like bleu, gris, brun, blanc...
names like: Robert, Guilleaume, Adelaide, Richard, Mathilde...
Here a listing of Germanic vocabulary still in use today by Prof. H. Walter:
La guerre et la chevalerie : bande, baron (homme brave, mari), bière (cercueil), blason, brandon, convoi, crosse, échanson, éperon, épieu, étrier, félon, fief, flèche, gain, gant, garçon (domestique), gars (soldat valet goujat), gonfanon (étendard), guerre, guet, hache, hanap, harangue, heame, honte, lice, maréchal, marquis, orgueil, rang, sénéchal, trêve, choisir, éblouir, épargner, fournir, gagner, garder, guetter, haïr, honnir, souiller.
La vie des champs : blé, vois, bûche, fange, fourrage, fourrure, framboise, garbe, germe, grappe, haie, hameau, hêtre, houe, houx, jardin, maris, osier, roseau, saule, touffe, trappe, troëne, caille, chouette, crapaud, frelon, hanneton, héron, laie, mésange.
La vie artisanale : alène, étai, feutre, filtre, houille, maçon, tuyau, bâtir, broyer, déchirer, gratter, graver, râper.
La vie maritime : bouée, écume, falaise, flot.
Les couleurs, blanc, bleu, blond, brun, fauve, garance, gris, saur.
La vie domestique : banc, beignet, bille, buée, crèche, cruche, écharpe, fard, fauteuil, flacon, froc, housse, lanière, louche, poche, quenotte, soupe, hanche, flanc, téton, fluet, frais, gai, laid, long, broder, danser, guérir, héberger, lécher, regarder, rôtir, téter, trépigner.
http://www.mondalire.com/langue/meli_melo.htm
Phonetics: introduction of Germanic [w] which was treted like Latin [v] and became guttural comme dans guerre (< Franc werra), while vastare became wastare and finally gâter, vespa became wespa and finally guêpe. Latin words like huit (< octo), huis (< ostium), hermine (< arminia), huître (< ostrea), etc., have got their initial [h] from an old Germanic way of pronouncing [h] still in use in Germanic words like hache, hotte, huche, haillons, hangar, héron, hareng, etc.
Morphologic: Ending -and, -ard, -aud, -ais, -er et -ier are of Germanic origin, further a lot of verbs with ending -ir like choisir, jaillir, blanchir, etc.
Toponymes: Criquebeuf, Elbeuf, Caudebec, Honfleur, Trouville, etc. and names like Robert...
Syntax: for example word order in "l'endemain manda le duc son conseil". Today one would say: Le duc appela le lendemain son conseil.
Lots of Germanic traces have been been artificially erased from French which was "corrected" by linguistic puistst and Latin-lovers since the Renaissance.
Furthermore, many French (and English) words of clearly Latin provenience are late borrowings from medieval Latin and are not coming from Latin by evolution. Like English, the French language has used the classical Greek and Latin as a fundus to create new words for modern things, thoghts and polite constructions. This falsificates statistics that count words in lexica in order to establish the percentage of Germanic words in modern French.
Linguists often state that French owes to Germanic only a few words - exactly 544 following Henriette Walter, or 13 % of all foreign words introduced into modern French. In reality, the Germanic influence is much more important if one takes into account that the number of words was much smaller in early medieval times than in today's lexica.
http://www.salic-slmc.ca/showpage.asp?file=langues_en_presence/langues_off/fr_histoire&language=fr&updatemenu=true
Somehow some people see the terms Germanic and Semi-Romance as antithetic.
In my personal opinion, English could be called semi-Romance (through the vocabulary) and yet 100% Germanic.
Another example is Indonesian. Just because it uses many loanwords even for basic, daily things, doesn't deny the fact that it's 100% an Austronesian language. Even if 90% of the words used in a text were not of Austronesian origin, its basic structure and grammar would still be thoroughly Austronesian. The same goes for English, even if it's semi-Romance, it is still thoroughly Germanic.
Other examples of a semi-Romance language is Albanian. Yet it is still 100% Albanian (or whatever the language family is called).
In my personal opinion, English could be called semi-Romance (through the vocabulary) and yet 100% Germanic.
Another example is Indonesian. Just because it uses many loanwords even for basic, daily things, doesn't deny the fact that it's 100% an Austronesian language. Even if 90% of the words used in a text were not of Austronesian origin, its basic structure and grammar would still be thoroughly Austronesian. The same goes for English, even if it's semi-Romance, it is still thoroughly Germanic.
Other examples of a semi-Romance language is Albanian. Yet it is still 100% Albanian (or whatever the language family is called).
<<Somebody said that English grammar is purely Germanic. Well, I say there is nothing of its original grammar left to be able to judge it, LOL >>
sure there is.
even though English grammar, from a morphological perspective, is so simple, there are plenty of aspects that follow a straight line back to Old English:
--Verbs--
sing-[ ] < singe(n) < singen < singan
to sing-[ ] < to singen < to singen(n)e < to singenne
sing-ing < singinge < singinde/singende < singende
[ ]-sung-[ ] < sunge(n) < (y)sunge(n) < gesungen
I sing-[ ] < I singe < I/ik/ich singe < ic singe/singo
you sing-[ ] < ye singe(n) < ye singeth/singen < --
thou sing-(e)st < thou singst < thou singst < thu singst
he sing-s/sing-(e)th < he singth < he singth < he singth
---
we sing-[ ] < we singe(n) < we singeth/singen < we singath
you sing-[ ] < ye singe(n) < ye singeth/singen < --
ye sing-[ ] < ye singe(n) < ye singeth/singen < ge singath
they sing-[ ] < they singe(n) < hey singeth/singen < hie singath
I make: I made: I have made
I can make: I could make
--Adjectives--
a good man < a good man(n) < (a) good man(n) < god man(n)
the good-[ ] man < the good(e) man(n) < the goode man(n) < se goda man(n)
fast > faster > fastest
--Nouns--
land
land's
lands
lands'
--Adverbs--
quick-ly <quickly < quickli(ch)(e) < cwiclice/cwiclica < cwic + -lice/lica < lic + -e/-a
fast-[ ] < fast(e) < faste < faste/fasta
fast:faster:fastest < faste:fastere:fasteste < faeste:faestor:faestost
---
Afrikaans is even more stripped of its old grammatical (morphological) endings than English is. Is it therefore less germanic?
Grammar is more than morphology. It's syntax too. And can also include phonology and semantics.
The fact that English in essence has "nothing of its original grammar left" *is* in fact its grammar, and this is characteristic of germanic languages as a group. Almost all germanic languages (excepting Deutsch) share this commonality. Not just English.
sure there is.
even though English grammar, from a morphological perspective, is so simple, there are plenty of aspects that follow a straight line back to Old English:
--Verbs--
sing-[ ] < singe(n) < singen < singan
to sing-[ ] < to singen < to singen(n)e < to singenne
sing-ing < singinge < singinde/singende < singende
[ ]-sung-[ ] < sunge(n) < (y)sunge(n) < gesungen
I sing-[ ] < I singe < I/ik/ich singe < ic singe/singo
you sing-[ ] < ye singe(n) < ye singeth/singen < --
thou sing-(e)st < thou singst < thou singst < thu singst
he sing-s/sing-(e)th < he singth < he singth < he singth
---
we sing-[ ] < we singe(n) < we singeth/singen < we singath
you sing-[ ] < ye singe(n) < ye singeth/singen < --
ye sing-[ ] < ye singe(n) < ye singeth/singen < ge singath
they sing-[ ] < they singe(n) < hey singeth/singen < hie singath
I make: I made: I have made
I can make: I could make
--Adjectives--
a good man < a good man(n) < (a) good man(n) < god man(n)
the good-[ ] man < the good(e) man(n) < the goode man(n) < se goda man(n)
fast > faster > fastest
--Nouns--
land
land's
lands
lands'
--Adverbs--
quick-ly <quickly < quickli(ch)(e) < cwiclice/cwiclica < cwic + -lice/lica < lic + -e/-a
fast-[ ] < fast(e) < faste < faste/fasta
fast:faster:fastest < faste:fastere:fasteste < faeste:faestor:faestost
---
Afrikaans is even more stripped of its old grammatical (morphological) endings than English is. Is it therefore less germanic?
Grammar is more than morphology. It's syntax too. And can also include phonology and semantics.
The fact that English in essence has "nothing of its original grammar left" *is* in fact its grammar, and this is characteristic of germanic languages as a group. Almost all germanic languages (excepting Deutsch) share this commonality. Not just English.
English is a Germanic language but a romance language wannabe. It's disgusting to see those thousands of latin derived words in English. What do they pretend? Take a look at Icelandic, they build new words from the core vocabulary, they don't need to take Latin or Greek words at all.
I have a question (maybe should be its own thread), but here goes:
In English, when one wants to elevate to a higher register, he does so using English's elevated language which in Modern English happens to be language filled with words of Latin origin. (i.e. the easy way)
[Notice, I did not say: He/she picks and chooses Latinate words in order to elevate his/her register. That would be a false statement, but it seems that that is how it is often perceived to be.]
My question is this:
In other languages, such as French or Spanish, what does one do to elevate language register? Does one use a set of words separated out for higher speech, like in English? Or do they rely on wholly different methods--apart from actual words--such as more complex expressions, indirection or deeper thoughts?
If elevated words are used, do these words mostly come from Latin, or another language source (like Greek perhaps)?
I also wonder what Greek does to accomplish this. Who do they borrow from, if that is used?
In English, when one wants to elevate to a higher register, he does so using English's elevated language which in Modern English happens to be language filled with words of Latin origin. (i.e. the easy way)
[Notice, I did not say: He/she picks and chooses Latinate words in order to elevate his/her register. That would be a false statement, but it seems that that is how it is often perceived to be.]
My question is this:
In other languages, such as French or Spanish, what does one do to elevate language register? Does one use a set of words separated out for higher speech, like in English? Or do they rely on wholly different methods--apart from actual words--such as more complex expressions, indirection or deeper thoughts?
If elevated words are used, do these words mostly come from Latin, or another language source (like Greek perhaps)?
I also wonder what Greek does to accomplish this. Who do they borrow from, if that is used?