French one of the most touched languages by English?!

Sander   Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:18 pm GMT
According to Mr Adam, French is, and I quote, "French nowadays is Anglo-Americo-Saxon-French." of course this is totall nonsens,but try ramming that in that twisted and sick mind of his.My reaction on this post was the following:

"apart from some brandnames French is one of the most untouched languages by English in the world.Your language however is more French than Germanic."

On which he said "No it* isn't. It's one of the most touched languages by English.",*French.

The reason for me to start this topic.Because apperantly Adamn doesn't know that English isn't assimilating all the langauges of the world and that the world will never by "Anglo-Saxon".


Message for Adam,

See that you can get out of this one loser.
Sander   Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:20 pm GMT
A message he just posted;

=>There are many English words in French than you think.

The French word "yupé" comes from the English word "yuppie."

The French word "brunche" comes from the English "brunch."

The Academie Francaise, worried about the amount of English words creeping into the French language, invented the word "un aeroglisseur " to mean "a hovercraft." However, the average French person calls it "un overcraft."

There is "un t-shirt."

The French also use "e-mail", but the Academie Francaise wants it to be something stupid like "une lettre electonique".

"Le top-model." "Le hit-parade."

But French sounds stupid and ugly with all the Englishisms in it, especially when they put "le" or "la" in front of them. And that's a good thing. <=
Sander   Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:30 pm GMT
Do you know Adam,how many %(1) of the English language(2) is derrived(3) from French and Latin?It's a miracle(4) you're still in the Germanic language(5) tree.Why don't I hear you talk about that?The few words in French that are of English origin(6) can't be compared(7) with the ones in "Anglo-Saxon"(8).
Travis   Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:34 pm GMT
Now now there, Sander. Remember that most of the influence of French (whether Old, Middle, or Modern) and Latin on English is fundamentally superficial, and has had very little influence on the underlying grammar of English, which is still thoroughly Germanic. Practically all the changes in English grammar which may make it seem less Germanic in character are due to loss of inflection due to historically having a strong initial forestress (like practically all Germanic languages historically) and significant reduction in unstressed vowels (like practically all Germanic languages today), which have stripped English of its gender and case marking, for the most part, as well as the replacement of many inflectional forms descended from Common Germanic with periphrasic forms.

Hence, the loss of "Germanicness" in English is not directly due to French influence as much as due to the general trends in the development of Germanic languages overall being taken to an extreme level. However, of course, some outside factors likely accelerated such, in particular the influence of Old Norse upon later Old English, because in many cases it seems that Old Norse speakers did not "correctly" learn Old English, which accelerated the loss of inflection in Old English, as if any part of Old English were to be not fully learnt by Old Norse speakers who settled in England, it would be the inflectional paradigms of Old English, as in many cases, if languages are imperfectly learned, inflectional paradigms are what are most likely to be not fully learned. One should remember that by the time of the Norman Conquest, English was already well on its way towards losing much of its inflection, and also that Old Norse speakers would likely have had much more contact with the English-speaking population than Norman French speakers, as Norman French speakers in England were actually quite small in number, relative to the English-speaking population, unlike with Old Norse-speaking settlers in England, and also were significantly separated from the English-speaking population by class differences which did not exist between Old English and Old Norse speakers. Hence, if any outside influence can be said to have had a significant influence on the *grammar* of English as it exists today, it would be likely not Norman French speakers who invaded at the time of the Norman Conquest, but rather Old Norse speakers who settled in England a significant period of time before the Norman Conquest occurred in the first place.
Damian in Edinburgh   Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:36 pm GMT
My guess is that there are far more words in everyday English use which are of French origin than the other way round. I could rattle off a list a mile long.....sorry....I mean 1.6093km long....of such words. OK the French have adopted some English words in recent years, like "le weekend" etc. So much so that it has caused some concern and resentment in some parts of the French Establishment. That is the result of modern life and modern society, largely under American influence rather than British I reckon. I'm not really aware of the strength of French resistance in the general population against this incursion of "l'anglais terrible" without doing some research, for which I really can't spare the time. :-)

The English vocabulary is full of words that are of French derivation going back centuries as I say.

As I've mentioned before, the official Language of the English Royal Court at one time was actually French.

As far as I know, English was never ever a Language used in pre-Revolution French Court circles or in any part of French society at any time.....except perhaps in Calais for a short period of time! :-) LOL
Sander   Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:40 pm GMT
=>Now now there, Sander. Remember that most of the influence of French (whether Old, Middle, or Modern) and Latin on English is fundamentally superficial, and has had very little influence on the underlying grammar of English, which is still thoroughly Germanic.<=

Did I mention the grammer ;) ? I know English is Germanic.But people like Adam must not forget that 80 percent of the total English vocabvulary is derived from Latin languages.
Travis   Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:53 pm GMT
But the thing though is that you can't simply say "such-and-such percentage of the vocabulary is from such-and-such source". The matter is that you have to take into account what portions of the vocabulary are actually used in everyday speech, and with what frequency, as the vast majority of words are probably not used very frequently at all, *especially* outside of literary contexts. This is especially true in the context of words that have come from French (whether Old or Modern), Latin, and Greek, the vast majority of which are specifically literary in nature, and in many cases very specialized in nature as well. If one actually takes frequency of usage into account, the impact of French, Latin, and Greek upon English appears to be not nearly as much as if you just say that "such-and-such percentage of the dictionary is from French or Latinate sources".

What is interesting, though, is that unlike with French, Latin, and Greek words, which significantly fall in significance if you take frequency of use into account, words of Old Norse origin, seemingly paradoxically, actually rise in significance. This is probably because most of such words are actually everyday rather than literary in nature, due to the influence of Old Norse on English being an adstratum rather than superstratum, as is the case with French, Latin, and Greek influence on English. Unlike with French, Latin, or Greek words in English, most English-speakers do not have any idea that words of Old Norse origin in English are not native to English, which clearly shows that such words are more significantly integrated into the English language, and are not literary in nature either, unlike most French, Latin, and Greek words in English.
Trawick   Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:55 pm GMT
This is a completely random English paragraph that I took from the New York Times:

"Normal facial expression, the raised eyebrows and lopsided grins so essential to social interaction, is impossible. Often the structurally complex eyelids and mouth cannot even be made to open or close properly. Even after dozens of operations, many disfigured patients must feed themselves through tubes. "

In this quote, 60% of the words come from Old English or Norse, 31% come from French, and 9% come directly from Latin.

So in theory, that would be 60% Germanic, 40% Romantic. But even given these numbers, I still have a hard time categorizing English as a Germanic language. Because within the words that fall into the Old English/Norse category are words like "is," "be," and "to" which are of vague Indo-European origin, thus not definably Germanic.

Obviously, no European language is purely Germanic or Romantic. But both influences are so vitally important in English that it almost seems it should fall into its own category.
Sander   Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:56 pm GMT
And Travis you have to agree with me that the only form of English which was 'truely' Germanic (*) was Old English (AngloSaxon)**.


*You know what I mean.


And AngloSaxon is unreadable for most modern English speakers,

This is OE or AS:

hwæt ic swefna cyst secgan wylle
hwæt me gemætte to midre nihte
syðþan reordberend reste wunedon
þuhte me þæt ic gesawe syllicre treow
on lyft lædan leohte bewunden
beama beorhtost eall þæt beacen wæs
begoten mid golde gimmas stodon
fægere æt foldan sceatum swylce þær fife wæron
uppe on þam eaxlgespanne beheoldon þær engel dryhtnes ealle
fægere þurh forðgesceaft ne wæs ðær huru fracodes gealga
ac hine þær beheoldon halige gastas
Sander   Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:00 pm GMT
Trawick,

=>In this quote, 60% of the words come from Old English or Norse, 31% come from French, and 9% come directly from Latin.<=

I can asure you that this isn't right... :)

=>So in theory, that would be 60% Germanic, 40% Romantic. But even given these numbers, I still have a hard time categorizing English as a Germanic language. Because within the words that fall into the Old English/Norse category are words like "is," "be," and "to" which are of vague Indo-European origin, thus not definably Germanic. <=

Indo European doesn't excist anymore,and Germanic was IndoEur just as the Romance languages are.It's their common ancestor.
Travis   Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:10 pm GMT
The main thing is that one should wholly ignore literary vocabulary in English when considering this matter, as such is not part of the everyday spoken language, for the most part, which from a linguistic standpoint is the "real" language. Secondly, what matters most here is the underlying grammar and core vocabulary being directly descended from Common Germanic, even if it is not representative of the features and vocabulary usage of most other Germanic languages today. Hence, just because English does not look like Dutch or German, for instance, and in writing generally contains large quantities of French and Latin words, does not mean at all that it isn't Germanic in nature. As I said before, most of the seemingly "non-Germanic" aspects of the grammar of English are not due to any outside non-Germanic influence in the first place, and also, a very large portion of the French and Latin vocabulary in English today is literary in nature, and not used much in actual everyday speech, and thus must be discounted here.
Sander   Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:02 pm GMT
We pulling away from the topic and I haven't seen a Frenchman... ;)

Like I said I'm fully aware that English is Germanic,just saying that we must not and cannot ignore the enormouse latin influence.I mean,it's not that every Latin word has a Germanic counterpart...
Adam   Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:12 pm GMT
This thread is pathetic. Sander just loves winding people up.
Adam   Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:20 pm GMT
"And AngloSaxon is unreadable for most modern English speakers,"

I'd say about 80% of the most words most commonly spoken everyday in English are of Anglo-Saxon origin.
Sander   Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:50 pm GMT
=>This thread is pathetic. Sander just loves winding people up. <=
No,this thread is just how you like them,inacurate,offensive and stupid.The point of this thread is something you said,which was totall rubbish now face the consequences.

=>"And AngloSaxon is unreadable for most modern English speakers,"
I'd say about 80% of the most words most commonly spoken everyday in English are of Anglo-Saxon origin. <=

So? All the words of both the Rom. and the Germ. language tree are Indo-European of origin can you read those as well?!Besides you said something that doesn't relate to the sentence you quoted,it seems you're trying to say that you can read 80% of AngloSaxon...if so please tell me what does it say?

=//=hwæt ic swefna cyst secgan wylle
hwæt me gemætte to midre nihte
syðþan reordberend reste wunedon
þuhte me þæt ic gesawe syllicre treow
on lyft lædan leohte bewunden
beama beorhtost eall þæt beacen wæs
begoten mid golde gimmas stodon
fægere æt foldan sceatum swylce þær fife wæron
uppe on þam eaxlgespanne beheoldon þær engel dryhtnes ealle
fægere þurh forðgesceaft ne wæs ðær huru fracodes gealga
ac hine þær beheoldon halige gastas =//=