I have heard that English is really a mixed language, but a mix of???
I have heard some people say that they think English vocabulary looks very odd
I have heard some people say that they think English vocabulary looks very odd
English- a mixed language???
You could say it is a mix of (old) German and (old) French -- this is a bit oversimplified, though.
Despite large lexical infusions from non-Germanic languages, English's underlying structure is still clearly Western Germanic, thus it is typologically classified as a Western Germanic language. The underlying structure of English was largely unaffected by the languages it took words from. For instance, while huge amounts of words came into English from Old Norman French, ONF had a negligible influence on most non-lexical aspects of the language, such as syntax.
I have no quarrel with Guest and Kirk's comments.
Personally, I have always like the Collier's Encyclopedia description of English as "A Germanic language with some Romance modifications." Of course, you could say similar things about many of the world's languages: Albanian, Romanian, Persian, Thai, Korean etc. where the modifications are Romance, Slavic, Arabic, Chinese and Chinese respectively.
Personally, I have always like the Collier's Encyclopedia description of English as "A Germanic language with some Romance modifications." Of course, you could say similar things about many of the world's languages: Albanian, Romanian, Persian, Thai, Korean etc. where the modifications are Romance, Slavic, Arabic, Chinese and Chinese respectively.
>>Despite large lexical infusions from non-Germanic languages, English's underlying structure is still clearly Western Germanic, thus it is typologically classified as a Western Germanic language. The underlying structure of English was largely unaffected by the languages it took words from. For instance, while huge amounts of words came into English from Old Norman French, ONF had a negligible influence on most non-lexical aspects of the language, such as syntax.<<
Actually, there is one other aspect in which contact with Old Norman French influenced English, which is that it precipitated the phonemic differentiation of the pairs of fricatives [f] and [v], [s] and [z], and [S] and [Z], where the members of each pair, during the Old English period, were simply allophones of /f/, /s/, and /S/ respectively. The reason why is that ONF loans did have phonemes corresponding to each of said phones, and thus their borrowing triggered such to actually be phonemically differentiated in Middle English, which, of course, spread to (both West and North) Germanic words as well.
Actually, there is one other aspect in which contact with Old Norman French influenced English, which is that it precipitated the phonemic differentiation of the pairs of fricatives [f] and [v], [s] and [z], and [S] and [Z], where the members of each pair, during the Old English period, were simply allophones of /f/, /s/, and /S/ respectively. The reason why is that ONF loans did have phonemes corresponding to each of said phones, and thus their borrowing triggered such to actually be phonemically differentiated in Middle English, which, of course, spread to (both West and North) Germanic words as well.
Actually, one erratum to my above post: I should not have said that ONF contact caused [S] and [Z] to differentiate rather than being allophones, as [Z] was not actually realized in Old English, which only had [S] (/S/, corresponding to earlier /sk/) without any voiced allophone. Consequently, I should have said that ONF loans simply *introduced* /Z/ into Middle English directly.
Yes, I was thinking of those when I wrote the post, but I decided not to go into detail about specific things. But you bring up a good point--the case of the fricatives is one (pretty rare) example where English phonology was actually affected by French. Of course, other Germanic languages haven't been immune to phonological introductions as a result of lexical borrowing from French. For instance, Dutch, German and Danish also have /Z/ in some words as a result of borrowing from French (of course they're not always treated as /Z/ in all dialects of said languages but that's beside the point).
One note, though, is that /Z/ in Modern English actually comes from two different sources. One source is loans from ONF, as well as Middle French and Modern French; another source is the palatalization of /z/ by following /j/ and also /i:/ (in NAE today /i/) and /I/ reduced to [j]. Note that this palatalization is still productive today, and is not solely a historical sound shift.
Yes, the /Z/ as a result of palatalization of historical /zj/ might've occurred anyway in English, altho it should be mentioned the sequence /zj/ was usually (if not always) from French-derived words to begin with.
Another sound which was either not present in Old English or whose frequency was greatly increased as a result of French influence is the diphthong "oi/oy" (for example, English "coy" came from OF "coi").
Another sound which was either not present in Old English or whose frequency was greatly increased as a result of French influence is the diphthong "oi/oy" (for example, English "coy" came from OF "coi").
Well, not necessarily, as said intermediate form [zj] in English can very often result from /zi/ before another vowel due to /i/ following a consonant and before another vowel in unstressed positions very often getting reduced to [j]. Furthermore, /z/ is actually very common in English in intervocalic positions, and was so historically as well, because Old English /s/ was realized as [z] intervocalically, which got fixed as /z/ during the Middle English period; most instances of intervocalic /s/ in Germanic words in English today is either due to such being /s:/ in Old English or Old Norse, as such was never voiced intervocalically, or due to the reduction of consonant clusters containing /s/ and other unvoiced consonant(s) which just happen to be in intervocalic positions. Consequently, one can get OE /VsiV/ -> ME /VziV/ -> MdE /VZV/ or /VziV/ -> [VzjV] -> [VZV] or [VZjV], where /V/ is any given vowel phoneme, and [V] is any given corresponding vowel phone.
i think filipino language is the most mixed language than any language in the world. we filipinos were conquered by americans, japanese and spanish. we were able to adapt their languages. we use tag-lish(tagalog english) in our daily lives. we use spanish terms and we can also count in spanish
Yes, mary anne. I've noticed that Spanish loan words predominate in all of the languages of the Philippines except perhaps, the most isolated like Tasaday. For instance, the word for "ice" in most filipino languages, 'yelo' is from Spanish 'hielo' (derived from Latin gelus 'frost') . Sometimes a Spanish loan word and a native word will even coexist as in Ilocano pwerta / ruangan "door."
Loan words from American English and even Chinese are also present. Afterall, the Chinese had been merchants and traders in the region for a long time.
Loan words from American English and even Chinese are also present. Afterall, the Chinese had been merchants and traders in the region for a long time.
Travis et Kirk,
L'apparition de la mi-occlusive affriquée [d_Z] — inconnue en latin — est antérieure à l'ancien français et est probablement apparue dès le début du IIIe s.
L'exemple de LV (latin vulgaire = latin parlé) <diurnum> —> Fr <jour> = Al <Tag> le montre.
1/ Avant le Ier s. av JC : LV (acc) <diurnum> [diurnu]
2/ Ier s. av JC : LV <diurnum> [djurnu]
3/ IIIe s. ap JC : LV <diurnum> [d_Zjurnu]
4/ IVe s. : LV <diurnum> [d_Zjornu]
5/ Ve s. : LV <diurnum> [d_Zjorno]
6/ VIIe s. : GR (gallo-roman) [d_Zorno] —> [d_Zorn]
7/ XIIe s. : AF (ancien français) <jorn> [d_Zurn]
8 / XIIIe s. : AF <jorn> / <jor> [Zur]
9/ XVIIe s. Fr <jour> [ZuR]
-----------
LV <gaudiam> —> Fr <joie> = Al <Freude>.
1/ Avant le Ier s. av JC : LV (acc) <gaudiam> [gaUdia]
2/ Ier s. av JC : LV <gaudiam> [gaUdja]
3/ Ier s. ap JC : LV <gaudiam> [gaUjja]
4/ Ve s. : LV <gaudiam> [gaUjja] —> [daUjja] —> [d_ZaUjja] —> [d_ZOjja]
5/ VIIe s. : GR (gallo-roman) [d_ZOja] —> [d_ZOj@]
6/ IX e s. : GR [d_ZOi@]
7/ XII e s. : AF (ancien français) <joie> [d_Zue@]
8/ XIII e s. : AF <joie> [d_Zwe@] —> [Zwe@] —> [Zwa@]
9/ XVe s. : MF (moyen français) <joie> [Zwa2]
10/ Depuis le XVIIe s. Fr <joie> [Zwa]
-------------
L'exemple <diurnum> / <jour> est une fausse palatalisation en position forte.
L'exemple <gaudiam> / <joie> une vraie palatalisation en position forte.
Wenn ich mehr Zeit zu Verfügung habe, werde ich in Langcafé sollche Phänomene erklären (mit artikularische Details).
L'apparition de la mi-occlusive affriquée [d_Z] — inconnue en latin — est antérieure à l'ancien français et est probablement apparue dès le début du IIIe s.
L'exemple de LV (latin vulgaire = latin parlé) <diurnum> —> Fr <jour> = Al <Tag> le montre.
1/ Avant le Ier s. av JC : LV (acc) <diurnum> [diurnu]
2/ Ier s. av JC : LV <diurnum> [djurnu]
3/ IIIe s. ap JC : LV <diurnum> [d_Zjurnu]
4/ IVe s. : LV <diurnum> [d_Zjornu]
5/ Ve s. : LV <diurnum> [d_Zjorno]
6/ VIIe s. : GR (gallo-roman) [d_Zorno] —> [d_Zorn]
7/ XIIe s. : AF (ancien français) <jorn> [d_Zurn]
8 / XIIIe s. : AF <jorn> / <jor> [Zur]
9/ XVIIe s. Fr <jour> [ZuR]
-----------
LV <gaudiam> —> Fr <joie> = Al <Freude>.
1/ Avant le Ier s. av JC : LV (acc) <gaudiam> [gaUdia]
2/ Ier s. av JC : LV <gaudiam> [gaUdja]
3/ Ier s. ap JC : LV <gaudiam> [gaUjja]
4/ Ve s. : LV <gaudiam> [gaUjja] —> [daUjja] —> [d_ZaUjja] —> [d_ZOjja]
5/ VIIe s. : GR (gallo-roman) [d_ZOja] —> [d_ZOj@]
6/ IX e s. : GR [d_ZOi@]
7/ XII e s. : AF (ancien français) <joie> [d_Zue@]
8/ XIII e s. : AF <joie> [d_Zwe@] —> [Zwe@] —> [Zwa@]
9/ XVe s. : MF (moyen français) <joie> [Zwa2]
10/ Depuis le XVIIe s. Fr <joie> [Zwa]
-------------
L'exemple <diurnum> / <jour> est une fausse palatalisation en position forte.
L'exemple <gaudiam> / <joie> une vraie palatalisation en position forte.
Wenn ich mehr Zeit zu Verfügung habe, werde ich in Langcafé sollche Phänomene erklären (mit artikularische Details).
Travis : der Terminus « Old Norman French » ist missverständlich, weil Altnormannisch und Altfranzösisch zwei Nebenformen die Oïlsprachfamilie sind. Außerdem war Altnormannisch keine geinigte Sprache : es gab Südaltnormannisch (Westoïlfamilie : Gallo, Poitevin usw) und Nordaltnormannisch (Nordoïlfamilie : Pikardisch, Wallonisch usw). Und war die Oïlsprache die, in die Britischen Inseln gesprochen wurde, keine "Altnormannisch" stricto sensu : sie war mit verschiedenen Oïlsprachen "gemischt". Deshalb ist der Terminus übermanicanisches Altfranzösisch gerechter.