Regarding the topic at hand, well, who cares what non English speakers think we sound like?
What English sounds to Non English Speakers
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
<<" I once met a European who thought that Turkey used to be in the Soviet Union. So the score's 1:1 "
Well that's not so stupid, since there were many countries in former soviet union that were speaking Turkic languages. Actually most Turkic areas were in the soviet union (central Asia). One country being called Turkmenistan the confusion could exist. Also Turkey was bordering the soviet union.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png>>
That was in response to:
<<once met an American woman who didn't even know that fries are made from potatoes, really. Her reaction was like "Ugh!" >>
Which is also not so stupid (according to your abysmally low standards). Why should she know what fries are made of? Remember in America they're called "French fries" not "potato chips" so there is no clue in the name. So, if someone doesn't know basic geography (Turkey), then why should they know basic food facts?
Well that's not so stupid, since there were many countries in former soviet union that were speaking Turkic languages. Actually most Turkic areas were in the soviet union (central Asia). One country being called Turkmenistan the confusion could exist. Also Turkey was bordering the soviet union.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png>>
That was in response to:
<<once met an American woman who didn't even know that fries are made from potatoes, really. Her reaction was like "Ugh!" >>
Which is also not so stupid (according to your abysmally low standards). Why should she know what fries are made of? Remember in America they're called "French fries" not "potato chips" so there is no clue in the name. So, if someone doesn't know basic geography (Turkey), then why should they know basic food facts?
<<I once met a European who thought that Turkey used to be in the Soviet Union>>
Your average American dumbshit couldn't even point out Turkey on a map, and most likely assumes Turkey is Arab.
Your average American dumbshit couldn't even point out Turkey on a map, and most likely assumes Turkey is Arab.
Visit Lithuania and know a lot about Lithuania in www.way2lithuania.com– Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, best resorts in Lithuania, guide tours, tour packages and other stuff that is necessary for great holiday. www.way2lithuania.com is dedicated to be your guide in Lithuania and will take care of you with accommodation, car rent and other equipment! With www.way2lithuania.com medical tourism is also available. Discuss in way2lt forum, ask your questions and be informed well!
>>Remember in America they're called "French fries" not "potato chips" so there is no clue in the name.<<
There is no German word for French fries. They're called "pommes frites" or just "fritten", so you can't get a hint from the name either, or you have some knowledge of French (though pomme means apple in contrast to pomme de terre). But never mind, keep your low standards alive, mate.
There is no German word for French fries. They're called "pommes frites" or just "fritten", so you can't get a hint from the name either, or you have some knowledge of French (though pomme means apple in contrast to pomme de terre). But never mind, keep your low standards alive, mate.
<<I personally feel that elites in some anglophone countries (the people that are educated about the belonging of the different countries in different linguistic/cultural groups) contribute in a great part in spreading this idea that every language (or at least every European language) derive from latin; that is why this idea seem to be integrated in the education system.
My guess for this reason is that British and American elites since the 18th century began to construct stongs "universalist" empires and societies based in democracy. revendicating roots in classical latin culture (which once was one "universalist" empire; when such a think did not existed in northern European ancient civilisations) would have helps them in that goal, to be able to legitimate their wishes to appear to be the heirs of ancient Greek democracy and roman republic.>>
???? This whole argument is news to me, and I went through the US education system from kindergarten to grad school. (I can't remember anyone saying "all languages are descended from Latin". It was mostly "French, Italian, and Spanish are descended from Latin".)
<<It was it seems more valuable to link their cultures to the mediterranean ancient civilisations than to their own cultural roots of northern European civilisations (this is quite obvious the wish was to emphase a Greek/roman herency when we see the official neo-classical architectures that those countries had developped at those times (Washington main offical admiistrative buildings for exemple): the idea that the power was seated inplaces that should look like Greek or roman temples) >>
The architecture of Washington, DC was indeed deliberately based on classical design, for two main reasons: first, to distinguish it from the distinctive and much pointier Gothic style favored in British governmental building design, as the founders were looking to shape a new identity for the country; and secondly, because the US was rejecting monarchy in favor of a republic, and where were the major republics of the past? In Greece and Rome. (That's why we also have a "Senate".)
Plus, I have a feeling G.W., T.J. and Co. just happened to like that style of architecture personally, as both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had neoclassical elements built into their own homes (T.J.'s Monticello is a better example than G.W.'s Mount Vernon.
It may also just have been a sign of the times; a popular fad: neoclassical architecture and republic-minded revolutions went hand-in-hand during the late 18th century. The French also adopted neoclassical art and architecture as part of their republican makeover after their revolution, largely as a reaction against the Rococo style so embraced by the French aristocracy. So there really wasn't anything "British or American" or "elite" about it (the Brits never did add any ionic columns to Parliament that I know of, so there's not much reason to include them). As for evoking notions of "empire", that certainly didn't apply to Jefferson's ideals at the time DC was being designed; he envisioned a bucolic and isolationist nation of farmers. He changed his tune a little bit with the Louisiana Purchase, but still, that was a consensual land deal with Napoleon, not an attempt to create an empire. Manifest Destiny and all that was still a few presidents away.
My guess for this reason is that British and American elites since the 18th century began to construct stongs "universalist" empires and societies based in democracy. revendicating roots in classical latin culture (which once was one "universalist" empire; when such a think did not existed in northern European ancient civilisations) would have helps them in that goal, to be able to legitimate their wishes to appear to be the heirs of ancient Greek democracy and roman republic.>>
???? This whole argument is news to me, and I went through the US education system from kindergarten to grad school. (I can't remember anyone saying "all languages are descended from Latin". It was mostly "French, Italian, and Spanish are descended from Latin".)
<<It was it seems more valuable to link their cultures to the mediterranean ancient civilisations than to their own cultural roots of northern European civilisations (this is quite obvious the wish was to emphase a Greek/roman herency when we see the official neo-classical architectures that those countries had developped at those times (Washington main offical admiistrative buildings for exemple): the idea that the power was seated inplaces that should look like Greek or roman temples) >>
The architecture of Washington, DC was indeed deliberately based on classical design, for two main reasons: first, to distinguish it from the distinctive and much pointier Gothic style favored in British governmental building design, as the founders were looking to shape a new identity for the country; and secondly, because the US was rejecting monarchy in favor of a republic, and where were the major republics of the past? In Greece and Rome. (That's why we also have a "Senate".)
Plus, I have a feeling G.W., T.J. and Co. just happened to like that style of architecture personally, as both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had neoclassical elements built into their own homes (T.J.'s Monticello is a better example than G.W.'s Mount Vernon.
It may also just have been a sign of the times; a popular fad: neoclassical architecture and republic-minded revolutions went hand-in-hand during the late 18th century. The French also adopted neoclassical art and architecture as part of their republican makeover after their revolution, largely as a reaction against the Rococo style so embraced by the French aristocracy. So there really wasn't anything "British or American" or "elite" about it (the Brits never did add any ionic columns to Parliament that I know of, so there's not much reason to include them). As for evoking notions of "empire", that certainly didn't apply to Jefferson's ideals at the time DC was being designed; he envisioned a bucolic and isolationist nation of farmers. He changed his tune a little bit with the Louisiana Purchase, but still, that was a consensual land deal with Napoleon, not an attempt to create an empire. Manifest Destiny and all that was still a few presidents away.
On another thread of this forum, I demonstrated a way to figure out how certain English words sound if you don't understand them. Just add one letter to a word. If only one letter is added, the word will still sound basically the same, but it will be unintelligible. This can be proven by adding all the letters that can be added to a word, while still conforming to standard English combinations of letters. Here I've done this with the word "other."
cother
dother
fother
gother
hother
lother
nother
pother
rother
sother
tother
vother
wother
yother
All these altered forms sound like the same language. This is strong evidence that the original word must also sound like that, because all the altered forms sound the same, no matter what letter is added. That must mean that the distinctive sound comes from the original word. No added letters can change the sound of the word. However, to absolutely prove that this is how the word sounds, just add another letter at another place in the word. That will make it so the word can't sound like anything else, because no letters at the beginning could change the sound. You see, since no letter at the beginning could change the sound of the word, than adding a letter somewhere else confirms that not having any letters added on at the beginning doesn't change the sound of the word either, because it still sounds the same when a letter is added somewhere else. So, I'll just add an "m" at the end, and that makes "otherm." It still sounds the same. That tells you it doesn't matter where the letters are added.
cother
dother
fother
gother
hother
lother
nother
pother
rother
sother
tother
vother
wother
yother
All these altered forms sound like the same language. This is strong evidence that the original word must also sound like that, because all the altered forms sound the same, no matter what letter is added. That must mean that the distinctive sound comes from the original word. No added letters can change the sound of the word. However, to absolutely prove that this is how the word sounds, just add another letter at another place in the word. That will make it so the word can't sound like anything else, because no letters at the beginning could change the sound. You see, since no letter at the beginning could change the sound of the word, than adding a letter somewhere else confirms that not having any letters added on at the beginning doesn't change the sound of the word either, because it still sounds the same when a letter is added somewhere else. So, I'll just add an "m" at the end, and that makes "otherm." It still sounds the same. That tells you it doesn't matter where the letters are added.
I've done this with many words, and it makes sense. Words that come from Old English like "other" sound very German-like. Other words sound a lot like Italian, and some sound like French, Greek, and a Scandinavian language. English takes words from relatives of all these languages.
If you wanna make it read more germanic use thorn the old english symbol for th þ (alt 0254 on number pad)
mei fahþur seys Inglisc kaime frum þah uld Sakson.
mein fadder sag inglish kom von das alte saksish
my father says english came from the old saxon
mei fahþur seys Inglisc kaime frum þah uld Sakson.
mein fadder sag inglish kom von das alte saksish
my father says english came from the old saxon
Yeah, that does make it look more Germanic. Also, changing the spelling like that is another way to make it clearer how English sounds.
I think this goes to show partly how the bias for latin spelling makes our language look much more romance based than it really is. I really think we should try harder to preserve english as a language independant of other influences. Not for some crazy right wing Idealism. But for cultural diversity around the globe. The Ideal of a melting pot of culture is truly bizzare. Could you Imagine melting down all the worlds great pieces of art into one great big blob?
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3 4 5