"English is based on Latin"

<<I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. >>

It was Dryden who devised the notion that a preposition could not be used at the end of a sentence. Where he got that idea is beyond me. Maybe he ate bad Italian food the night before and had an indigestive vision while he slept...

In the 18th century prescriptivist, latin-want-to-being grammarians tried accepting it, and then they tried to make it a rule. Yet sentences ending with prepositions can be found in the works of almost all great English writers since the time of the Edbirth (Re-birth).

English syntax doesn't only allow for prepositions at the end, but also requires it in some instances (cf "I didn't want to bring it *up*.")

All this talk about it being incorrect is nonsense.

<<Maybe he ate bad Italian food the night before and had an indigestive vision while he slept... >>

Sorry, that should be

Maybe he ate bad Italian food the night before and had an indigestive sweven while he slept...

My Bad

There seems to be a bit too much xenophobic and nationalistic prejudice on this site, both pro- and anti-German, pro- and anti-Italian, and so on. There are already plenty of sites on the Internet where one can spew ethnic hatred. Please head there if that's an important part of your worldview. Do not contaminate this forum.

As for English being a 'Romance' language, that is silly, of course. But one should remember that while over 80% of the 1000 most frequent English words are of Anglo-Saxon, i.e. Germanic origin, 62% of the top 10,000 English words are of French or Latin origin.

As a joke, English has been called a creole Latin by more than a few people (although the same can be said of French, of course). There's no specific definition of a creole language, but "educated" English certainly pushes the boundary.

As for the English grammar being Germanic or not, it's hard to say. The modern English grammar is closer to modern French than to modern German, but to what extent this is the result of borrowing on one hand and independent development on the other is hard to say. Plus, the French grammar has also been heavily influenced by Germanic languages.

I was looking at some German verb tables recently, and I was struck by how close to English German actually is, mirroring the strong/weak verb paradigm in most cases. It seems to me that English verbs are like German ones with all the inflections cut off. For all the talk that English is far more distant from other Germanic languages than say the respective Romance languages are to each other...it is a bit exaggerated in my opinion.

" The modern English grammar is closer to modern French than to modern German "

german gramar is not the reference of what an germanic gramar should be. german is a quite different language among germanic languages.
on the other hand, french and english gramars are very different.



" Plus, the French grammar has also been heavily influenced by Germanic languages "

not true. french gramar is not more "germanic" than in the other romance laguages.

<<" Plus, the French grammar has also been heavily influenced by Germanic languages "

not true. french gramar is not more "germanic" than in the other romance laguages. >>



Due to the closer neight (i.e. nearness, proximity) of French and Italian and their immediate kin (eg. Friulian, Franco-Provençal), these groups of Romance languages ARE more influenced in grammar by Germanic than other Romance languages like Portuguese, Spanish, Sardinian.

What you said, in the way you said it, is not 100% correct, and could be misinterpreted. But one thing is correct, it is not only French: it is French, Italian and the others.

<<Maybe he ate bad Italian food the night before and had an indigestive sweven while he slept... >>

<<There seems to be a bit too much xenophobic and nationalistic prejudice on this site, both pro- and anti-German, pro- and anti-Italian, and so on. >>

Oh, my aplogies, I didn't mean anything specific about the Italians--that is just an expression here where I live: "to eat Italian food and have a *vision*" which is based soley on the food rather than on divine communication...it was not a dig at Italy or the Italians.

Sorry if I caused any hurt feelings. I didn't intend to (well...not in this way hehe ;)

Well, I, not having a drop of Italian blood that I know of, totally buy into this whole 'romantic Italy' thing. The joie-de-vivre France, too. This has nothing to do with reality, of course, modern France and Italy are mostly as bland as Lawn Guyland. I just love this sybaritic fantasy that I can pretend to be a part of when I visit those countries... or the local Olive Garden, whatever.

And I love the Roman civilization, too, so it's pretty obvious that I love the fact that English is so heavily Latinized.

Latin became the language of the Roman Catholic Church, and when the Normans had England after 1066, it co-existed with English in England, along with Norman French. Yes there are many words in English, particularly scientific words, that are based on Latin. But, here's the part nobody seems to understand yet. English, French and Latin are all based on a much older language that originated in Africa, as all men originated in Africa. For example, English words which start with GR ( like GREAT, GRAND, GROW) and even words which have a GR-sound (like GIRL, AGRICULTURE and GARDEN) - mostly have to do with GROWING and GETTING LARGER, simply because animals GROWL in order to make themselves appear .... LARGER.
The oldest roots of English are inspired by no other spoken language. They are inspired by mimicry of nature ( onomatopoeia ) and a verbal extension of our previous body/sign language. Another good example is that L-words in English are about 40% about LIFTING simple because one has to LIFT one;s tongue to say EL. Its that simple. I have written a book called "Deciphering the English Code" which explains how most English words can be traced back in such a simple and logical manner. It is not yet published ( shopping ) , but you are welcome to reach me here to discuss or inquire into this; also at joe@wigsalon.com .

And my the way, there is a lot more Hebrew ( and Arabic ) in English than most people realize. The same Holy Roman Church disassociated English and Hebrew/Arabic/Sumerian in the 9th century to they could do their Crusades thing and loot their lands. ( sound familiar ...George Bush... the military-industrial complex?)

<<Well, I, not having a drop of Italian blood that I know of, totally buy into this whole 'romantic Italy' thing. The joie-de-vivre France, too. This has nothing to do with reality, of course, modern France and Italy are mostly as bland as Lawn Guyland. I just love this sybaritic fantasy that I can pretend to be a part of when I visit those countries... or the local Olive Garden, whatever.

And I love the Roman civilization, too, so it's pretty obvious that I love the fact that English is so heavily Latinized. >>

What about all of the other options you have to "love"? I'm just curious, what made you choose the Italy-Joie route?

>>English is based on Latin<<

like many europeans languages I think, even german have alot of latin influence, don't forget that latin was the lingua franca in Europe.

with a preposition in English is not allowed,

And this example?? Who did you go to the cinema with?

Rant alert: In general, English isn't "based" on Latin. I take issue with the phrasing "based on" because it perpetuates the notion that somebody sat down and invented the language, basing it on other existing ones. You can say a programming language like C++ is based on C, because somebody used C as a base and modified/extended it sufficiently so that it is a different language. But for natural language it's really misleading to use that phrasing.

Likewise, French, Italian, and other Romance languages aren't "based" on Latin, either. They are descended from Latin.

English has a lot of Latin in its vocabulary, either through French borrowing or whatnot, yes - this is true. The only times I might use the phrasing "based on" would be for borrowings and made-up words (e.g. science, medicine, etc.). So I could say the English word "beef" is based on the French word for cow meat, back when the borrowing occurred. Or the term "atom" is based on the Greek word "atomos" or something like that. But these are things that happen consciously - people borrow words consciously, and they stick, or people deliberately make up terms for things they discover/invent. So in those cases people don't just make up a novel; they have some basis for choosing what to call cow meat, or elemental units. Hence, "based on".

This is sometimes applicable to grammar as well. The rule that you can't end sentences with prepositions is "based on" the fact that Latin doesn't do that. Of course, this is a purely made up prescriptivist rule that is arguably not a part of most people's natural speech, never has been, but if you really want to press the issue, it would be a place where you would say English is "based on" Latin.

But as a language, English is not "based on" Latin. English prescriptivist grammatical rules sometimes are. English non-core vocabulary often is, particularly in science/technical fields (although Greek is notably a major source for medical terminology).

Also, when making a statement about the purported similarity/difference between languages or language families, back it up with something. Otherwise I'm liable to think you're just regurgitating something somebody else told you. Like if you say that French grammar is influenced by Germanic languages...when? How? In what ways, specifically? And how do you know it wasn't French that influenced the Germanic languages? Show me the change, and the directionality, and then I'll be tempted to believe you.

There's no doubt that nearness/proximity of languages will cause those languages to mutually influence one another. That's a generalization that goes without saying. I mean, I don't know German, but I can guess that the German word for "champagne", whatever it is, is probably not a native German word.

But if you're going to go so far as to say "heavily influenced", be prepared to back it up. I would say that English vocabulary is heavily influenced by Latin and French. For example, in this paragraph alone, I can pick out non-Germanic words "doubt", "proximity", "language", "cause", "mutual", "influence"...need I go further? It's not difficult to show where vocabulary comes from, in terms of its influences. But tread carefully if you make statements about grammar. Syntactic structures can be quite complex and judging similarity or non-similarity is often very difficult, especially when you're trying to separate borrowings from independent innovations. And even then, will you just count up the differences and similarities, will you assign relative weights to them, or what? I just think it's really difficult to say unless you know the two languages in question very well, and also know a thing or two about syntax. And historical linguistics. And maybe for that matter, the syntax of the two language FAMILIES in question. And maybe the languages' sister tongues as well.

<<So I could say the English word "beef" is based on the French word for cow meat, back when the borrowing occurred. >>

"Beef" *descends* from Anglo-Norman "beof" from Old French "boef"



<<The rule that you can't end sentences with prepositions is "based on" the fact that Latin doesn't do that. Of course, this is a purely made up prescriptivist rule that is arguably not a part of most people's natural speech, never has been, but if you really want to press the issue, it would be a place where you would say English is "based on" Latin. >>

This was a "rule" made up and set forth by English writer John Dryden, who said that Engish shouldn't end sentences with prepositions because Latin didn't. It really didn't go any further than that. People used preps at the end of sentences before he said this, and they continued to use them at the end of sentences after. They didn't change their speech habits for sake of him. He might have well have saved his breath.
Besides, it wasn't a ruled based on anything but an *observance* of his.



<<English prescriptivist grammatical rules sometimes are. >>

Other examples, Please?



<<English non-core vocabulary often is, particularly in science/technical fields (although Greek is notably a major source for medical terminology). >>

Scientific, Medical and Technical terms are borrowed more from Greek than from Latin.



<<Also, when making a statement about the purported similarity/difference between languages or language families, back it up with something. Otherwise I'm liable to think you're just regurgitating something somebody else told you. >>

Hmmm, and what would make you think that young sir? Surely not because you are a pro at it, huh?



<<Show me the change, and the directionality, and then I'll be tempted to believe you. >>

No one is desirous to try and convince You of anything. You're not Jesus Christ...Who made you a Judge?



<<I would say that English vocabulary is heavily influenced by Latin and French.>>

I would say English vocabulary is heavily indebted, not influenced. Although we often say English vocab is "influenced", it really isn't. It's outright robbery, thievery and reft of French and Latin words.

"Influence" is more subtle. In English "I will come with" is an influence from German "Ich kome mit". i.e. we say it in English in a way that is like German, without it being German...



<<But tread carefully if you make statements about grammar. >>

One more time, who the hell are you again...?

Gee, didn't realize I came off THAT high-falutin'.

<< <<English prescriptivist grammatical rules sometimes are. >>

Other examples, Please?>>

I'm not 100% certain of this one because I heard it from a linguistics professor and haven't seen it corroborated anywhere else, but the idea of "split infinitives" being disallowed.

<<Hmmm, and what would make you think that young sir? Surely not because you are a pro at it, huh? >>

I am NOT a pro at it. But I am a skeptic, and I need to see evidence before I can believe something...I feel like linguistics is one of those things that lots of people have instincts, observations, and realizations about, and then they have a tendency to get excited and tell others about it, thereby perpetuating ideas that may be true, partially true, false, true-but-exaggerated-to-falsehood, etc. I just think we should be careful. For example, Guest a few posts ago mentions a certain degree of similarity between English and German verb forms. This is one of those observations about language I mentioned earlier, and here it's being shared, which is all well and good. But Guest doesn't exaggerate or make of it something that isn't there - there's no claim that "English is therefore heavily based on German", or that "German is easier to learn than French for English speakers." I know plenty of people who *would* go to such conclusions, and spread them upon the unsuspecting.

I guess my main point was that using phrases like "based on" or "heavily influenced by" seem to perpetuate some notion that English is in some way deficient, or indebted, or less original than other more "pure" languages. They're all just languages, they've all suffered change and borrowing (to varying degrees), and there's nothing inherently more or less sacred about any particular language. Well, to me, anyway. But then again, everyone's free to think whatever they want about languages.