 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / July 2008Why does some culture's language become replaced but others don't?
When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the East. Moreover, in modern-day-England, they only spoke a Celtic language, but not Latin. Was a Latin-based language ever spoken in England? When the Ottoman Turks controlled Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya area, they were never able to supplant the language of the people, but they were able to replace the religion. However, the Seljuks eventually spread their religion *AND* their language from Eastern Anatolia to Istanbul. Of course, it took ~400 years to do so (from Battle of Manzikert to Fall of Constantinople in 1453). Why was it easy for the Seljuks to spread Turkic language? Also, the Arabs were unable to spread Arabic language to Pakistan/ Afghanistan. Why? Why was it impossible to replace Albanian/Bosnian/Chechnyan language? I'm under the impression that good administrators and/or better organized rulers tend to do a better job of spreading a language. After all, the Romans did a great job of replacing the Celtic language of France with a Romantic language due to great administration, and perhaps prestige of their language, when compared to barbaric Gaullic. > When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals > there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > of France with a Romantic language due to great administration, and > perhaps prestige of their language, when compared to barbaric Gaullic. The language necessary for trade and commerce is the one generally used ... > > When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals > > there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - maybe mathematics? if it was trade...however I woulda thought population and print would have had the greatest overall influence? > When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals > there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the > East. Moreover, in modern-day-England, they only spoke a Celtic > language, but not Latin. Was a Latin-based language ever spoken in > England? As far as I know, no, except by the elite who still had to speak Welsh to the general population. > When the Ottoman Turks controlled Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya area, > they were never able to supplant the language of the people, but they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Manzikert to Fall of Constantinople in 1453). Why was it easy for the > Seljuks to spread Turkic language? They simply did not spread it as far. > Also, the Arabs were unable to spread Arabic language to Pakistan/ The languages of the area have a lot of Arabic vocabulary, as does Urdu, which originates from New Delhi and is now the official language of Pakistan. It has letters for all the Arabic sounds, which are only used for religious discourse. > Afghanistan. Why? > > Why was it impossible to replace Albanian/Bosnian/Chechnyan language? It isn't one language. Albanian is probably descended from Illyrian. Chechen is a Turkic language. Bosnians speak Serbo-Croat. > I'm under the impression that good administrators and/or better > organized rulers tend to do a better job of spreading a language. > After all, the Romans did a great job of replacing the Celtic language > of France with a Romantic language due to great administration, and > perhaps prestige of their language, when compared to barbaric Gaullic. Britain was at the limit of the empire and the administration was thinly spread.  SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals >> there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Britain was at the limit of the empire and the administration was thinly > spread. I know less than nothing in re. of linguistical question for Brittany, but I do know that the administration up to late 4th century was far from thinly spread in the Roman England. As I understood it reading Roman Historians and others works there were different situations in south eastern England than up north on the border to the 'barbarians' in today's Scotland. Thus it seems as if the Romans used more Roman troups from central Rome in parts of England than in others. Up in north I know there were soldiers from many areas of the Roman Empire as well as some from non-Brittish isles' areas outside the Roman Empire. I guess, and that's my personal guess that Latin had been hard to have ordinary people in England learning enough to understand and speak. My guess is also from what I read in regards of Roman artifacts found during excavations of Roman-Britain sites and the types of Roman artifacts found in workmen's housegrounds of much simpler types that the Roman soliders and their commanders might have had to speak with the locals on the locals' vocabulary. Now there are some who say that the mythic King Arthur might have been a Roman commander changing side. Don't know much about that, but I do believe it's possible that the interaction between locals living in Roman Brittany and the Romans might have been intensive or at least more intensive than what works today normally tells us. If that's true I believe that it was the Romans who had to speak on Celtic and other local dialects and languages. But that's only a guess. Inger E > As I understood it reading Roman Historians and others works there were > different situations in south eastern England than up north on the border to > the 'barbarians' in today's Scotland. The most romanised part of Britain (the SW) was the one first affected by germanic conquest. In many of the cases in discussion, the difference is between a permanent settling on conquered land vs simple administrative/military sway. SignatureAntónio Marques -- This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > Now there are some who say that the mythic King Arthur might > have been a Roman commander changing side. Don't know much about that, but I > do believe it's possible that the interaction between locals living in Roman > Brittany and the Romans might have been intensive or at least more intensive > than what works today normally tells us. I think you're getting confused with Macsen Wledig. Some believe Arthur was from a post- Roman family with military and decurial traditions, but if he existed at all, the Romans had long ceased to figure much in Briatin. And Brittany is a post- Roman phenomenon. JS >> Now there are some who say that the mythic King Arthur might have been a >> Roman commander changing side. Don't know much about that, but I do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JS No, you are the one who is confused if someone is, if you believe that. I am willing to discuss that part of the language question under a more proper thread outside sci.archaeology, if you want. OR if we look closer of the early documents, in other words pre 900 AD documents in common and those from before 650 AD in special looking closer at some of the easter tables and notes in documents mainly from Fathers of the Church which in that case needs to take the early cross into consideration and thus also falling under sci.archaeology. Inger E >>> Now there are some who say that the mythic King Arthur might have been a >>> Roman commander changing side. Don't know much about that, but I do [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >needs to take the early cross into consideration and thus also falling under >sci.archaeology. A Roman commander changing sides to what side? Invaders from the continent? And when is this supposed to be, Inger? Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >>>> Now there are some who say that the mythic King Arthur might have been >>>> a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Doug a part of my Gothic Mosaic's 14th chapter. (the chapter which due to my very consitent wish to present full ref is the reason why the manuscript haven't been published). Inger e > Thus it seems as if the Romans used > more Roman troups from central Rome in parts of England than in others. Up > in north I know there were soldiers from many areas of the Roman Empire Most Roman soldiers in England came from Germany, and spoke German, which evolved into English. > well as some from non-Brittish isles' areas outside the Roman Empire. I > guess, and that's my personal guess that Latin had been hard to have > ordinary people in England learning enough to understand and speak. In that period, Celtic and Latin were very close, and words flowed freely in both directions. The population in Britain spoke a modified form of Celtic called Romano-British, which evolved into Welsh. > > Thus it seems as if the Romans used > > more Roman troups from central Rome in parts of England than in others. Up > > in north I know there were soldiers from many areas of the Roman Empire > > Most Roman soldiers in England came from Germany, and spoke German, > which evolved into English. English didn't get to Britain until quite a while after the Romans had left. > > well as some from non-Brittish isles' areas outside the Roman Empire. I > > guess, and that's my personal guess that Latin had been hard to have > > ordinary people in England learning enough to understand and speak. > > In that period, Celtic and Latin were very close, and words flowed What is "this period"? The time when there were Romans in Britain? At that time, Celtic and Latin were most certainly not "very close." > freely in both directions. The population in Britain spoke a modified > form of Celtic called Romano-British, which evolved into Welsh. On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:41:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:0a43095f-9ec0-44d8-9691-f5e2b4bc6a4a@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> in soc.history.ancient,sci.lang,sci.archaeology: >> On Jun 12, 8:20 am, "Norah" <1732johans...@telia.com> >> wrote: >>> Thus it seems as if the Romans used more Roman troups >>> from central Rome in parts of England than in others. >>> Up in north I know there were soldiers from many areas >>> of the Roman Empire >> Most Roman soldiers in England came from Germany, and >> spoke German, which evolved into English. They all spoke Latin. Whatever Germanic tongue was spoken by the ones from Germany, it wasn't German, but rather a distant ancestor thereof. > English didn't get to Britain until quite a while after > the Romans had left. English didn't precisely 'get to' Britain at all, since it developed there. I believe that archaeological evidence suggests that there was limited British settlement by non-Roman speakers of Germanic dialects before the departure of the Romans, so if by 'English' you mean 'English and its ancestors', it probably did get to Britain before the Romans left. [...] >> The population in Britain spoke a modified form of Celtic >> called Romano-British, which evolved into Welsh. They spoke a language usually called British, Brittonic, or Brythonic, which evolved into Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. 'Romano-British' refers to a culture, not to a language. The British language borrowed a fair bit of Latin vocabulary but was not otherwise greatly influenced by Latin; indeed, British Latin remained somewhat closer to Classical Latin than did Gallo-Latin, for instance, precisely because Latin remained basically a foreign language in Britain even while it had native speakers there. Brian > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:41:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Brythonic, which evolved into Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. > 'Romano-British' refers to a culture, not to a language. Question: How far back can you trace the Brittonic language?/Inger E > The British language borrowed a fair bit of Latin vocabulary > but was not otherwise greatly influenced by Latin; indeed, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Brian >> English didn't get to Britain until quite a while after the Romans had >> left. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and its ancestors', it probably did get to Britain before the Romans > left. There is a poem called "English Begins" that says that English began with the 4 words bin, dun, crag and tor. The last two have Celtic roots, and since modern English is a mixed mongrel of a Germanic language with lots of vocabulary from the Romance side of the IE family, plus a few of these Celtic words (not to speak of later additions from languages all over the globe) and these ancestral pieces of English arrived in England by migration at some time or other, then it would be fair to say that it "got there". :-) Garry On Jun 12, 6:34 pm, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 8:20 am, "Norah" <1732johans...@telia.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Most Roman soldiers in England came from Germany, and spoke German, > which evolved into English. English didn't get to Britain until quite a while after the Romans had left. IEJ: Of curiosity I wonder how one can be certain of this given that no written record from the people living in Pre-Roman Britain exist and that the documentation from most part of the Roman Britany almost soly consists of Latin written 'sources'?/IEJ > > well as some from non-Brittish isles' areas outside the Roman Empire. I > > guess, and that's my personal guess that Latin had been hard to have > > ordinary people in England learning enough to understand and speak. > > In that period, Celtic and Latin were very close, and words flowed What is "this period"? The time when there were Romans in Britain? At that time, Celtic and Latin were most certainly not "very close." > freely in both directions. The population in Britain spoke a modified > form of Celtic called Romano-British, which evolved into Welsh. > On Jun 12, 6:34 pm, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the documentation from most part of the Roman Britany almost soly consists > of Latin written 'sources'?/IEJ Well, if you don't want to believe Bede, then there's no history of England in that era at all. See David Crystal, Stories of English. >> IEJ: Of curiosity I wonder how one can be certain of this given that no >> written record from the people living in Pre-Roman Britain exist and that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, if you don't want to believe Bede, then there's no history of > England in that era at all. There is Gildas, who may have been no historian but can't have made everything up either. SignatureAntónio Marques -- This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>> IEJ: Of curiosity I wonder how one can be certain of this given that no >>> written record from the people living in Pre-Roman Britain exist and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There is Gildas, who may have been no historian but can't have made > everything up either. But he doesn't speak specifically about languages...... There is a large hole in the history of Roman Britain: from Tacitus to St. Patrick, with the only things inbetween being a few mentions here and there, such as the list of commanders of the Saxon Shore and so on. So we depend on inscriptions and archaeology a great deal. >>>> IEJ: Of curiosity I wonder how one can be certain of this given that no >>>> written record from the people living in Pre-Roman Britain exist and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > there, such as the list of commanders of the Saxon Shore and so on. So we > depend on inscriptions and archaeology a great deal. NO NO NO!!!!! By NO means there is a hole as you describe it!!!!! At least 30 sources known by Cassiodorus and others in mid 500's exists. Almost all still are available today. There is some problems having access to two of them: The full version of the work which in English been called the golden oro, and a Saxon chronicle (not the ordinary Anglo-Saxon cronicle nor any of the others ususally discussed) which up to 1939 existed in three examples but from later years only is known from one example owned by Berliner Stadts Museum if Linköping's University Library who were the one who located it for me back in 1995 but who were told that I and others who wanted to look into had to go to Berlin. Inger E >>>>>IEJ: Of curiosity I wonder how one can be certain of this given that no >>>>>written record from the people living in Pre-Roman Britain exist and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > By NO means there is a hole as you describe it!!!!! > At least 30 sources known by Cassiodorus and others in mid 500's exists. Well, first my dear idiot Inger, Cassiodorus and "others in the mid-500s" all were a century and more AFTER, yes POST, St. Patrick, and so hardly fill the gap between Tacitus, late first/early second century and St. Patrick in the early 400s. > Almost all still are available today. There is some problems having access > to two of them: > The full version of the work which in English been called the golden oro, No such work, perhaps you are confusing it with the English translation of Orosius. > and a Saxon chronicle (not the ordinary Anglo-Saxon cronicle nor any of the > others ususally discussed) which up to 1939 existed in three examples but > from later years only is known from one example owned by Berliner Stadts > Museum if Linköping's University Library who were the one who located it for > me back in 1995 but who were told that I and others who wanted to look into > had to go to Berlin. Well, if by Saxon you mean "Anglo-Saxon", then no...no one knows about this, not Gneuss' list of manuscripts produced in England, not Ker's catalogue of manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon, both covering all of Europe and North America and Japan. If by "Saxon" you mean northern Germany, i. e. Saxony, so what? Then it would have been written in the 8th century at the earliest, and since it was largely the Anglo-Saxons such as Boniface who brought such information to them, they would have been dependent on English sources, which say next to nothing about the period between Tacitus and Patrick. Larry, the only idiot here is you. You are talking about Cassiodorus without even having read his Variae. If you had, you would have known that he delivered sources of the past to his days. Most of them were written by his predessors on one of his three higher posts. Among them Tacitus on one. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Inger E >>>>>>IEJ: Of curiosity I wonder how one can be certain of this given that >>>>>>no [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > to them, they would have been dependent on English sources, which say next > to nothing about the period between Tacitus and Patrick. > Larry, > the only idiot here is you. You are talking about Cassiodorus without even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > higher posts. Among them Tacitus on one. You have no idea of what you are > talking about. Nonsense, as usual. But easy to check: just where in Cassiodorus' Variae does he give us information about Roman Britain between Tacitus and Patrick? Its online at the Latin Library: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cassiodorus.html Just point us where Cassiodorus does this. (It really doesn't matter what Cassiodorus did or did not pass on to his day, since the point I made was about what WE HAVE TO READ, not what somoeone in the fifth century had to read. I know such distinctions are difficult for you to grasp, but do try.) I might add that I still await the texts that you claimed Arabic writers penned in the fifth and sixth century that every school child in Denmark is taught and knows about them. I still don't have any references to those texts. >> Larry, >> the only idiot here is you. You are talking about Cassiodorus without [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Patrick? Its online at the Latin Library: > http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cassiodorus.html I think it's time for you to get a full version and not the one edited there. One of the better, thought to be a B-version, is the Variae that is at Linköpings' vetenskapliga bibliotek. Don't forget to ask for the dissertation dealing with that version. You will be suprised when you read it. I believe you as usual wants everything served on a golden dish. Well that's not so. If you look closer at information Cassiodorus gives, especially where he refers to this or that historian etc in the past. Take Cassiodorus information down on a paper and check that against the historians or group of people he mention with only small words, then you will find that I am right. I don't intend to give more information to anyone who is so stupid that he believes he only has to read quotes or look up book N chapter S line T to be able to find answer within a minuite. That's not science! Science is to be able to analyse a text not only from a philologic view but also to compare texts in order to find out what two or more text gives for information, together as well as when text A refer to text B added together! Inger E >>>Larry, >>>the only idiot here is you. You are talking about Cassiodorus without [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I think it's time for you to get a full version and not the one edited > there. So give me citations, not verbiage. CITATIONS! CITE CASSIODORUS!!! One of the better, thought to be a B-version, is the Variae that is > at Linköpings' vetenskapliga bibliotek. Don't forget to ask for the > dissertation dealing with that version. You will be suprised when you read > it. I'm sure, now how about those citations? > I believe you as usual wants everything served on a golden dish. Well that's > not so. If you look closer at information Cassiodorus gives, especially > where he refers to this or that historian etc in the past. Take Cassiodorus > information down on a paper and check that against the historians or group > of people he mention with only small words, then you will find that I am > right. You made the claim, you support it. Where does Cassiodorus give us information about Roman Britain between Tacitus and Patrick in the Variae? Specific citations please. Otherwise just admit that you've neither read Cassiodorus and have no idea what you're talking about. We want specific citations from teh Variae. Use any edition you like. > I don't intend to give more information to anyone who is so stupid that he > believes he only has to read quotes or look up book N chapter S line T to be > able to find answer within a minuite. That's not science! Science is to be > able to analyse a text not only from a philologic view but also to compare > texts in order to find out what two or more text gives for information, > together as well as when text A refer to text B added together! So show us some evidence of your analysis and provide the references to support your claims. Still waiting.....and hey, those sixth century Arabic texts you promised? >>> IEJ: Of curiosity I wonder how one can be certain of this given that no >>> written record from the people living in Pre-Roman Britain exist and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There is Gildas, who may have been no historian but can't have made > everything up either. I agree Gilda can't have made everything up. Especially since part of what Gilda told us can be confirmed from Orosius, seven books against pagans (I don't have the latin title at hand) and of all some of the Sophists in eastern Mediterranian during Gilda's time..../Inger E > -- > This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** On Jun 13, 3:10 am, "Norah" <1732johans...@telia.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> skrev i > meddelandetnews:0a43095f-9ec0-44d8-9691-f5e2b4bc6a4a@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the documentation from most part of the Roman Britany almost soly consists > of Latin written 'sources'?/IEJ Well, if you don't want to believe Bede, then there's no history of England in that era at all. See David Crystal, Stories of English. IEJ: I do believe Hon. Bede. Especially since one of the information he gives is the same as I have learnt from oral tradition and I also know that Nial's clan's descendents also learnt even it's on collision-course on last 20 years scholars' interpretation of Bede. So the problem is a bit different what you seem to have comprehend from my lines. I have no problems with Hon. Bede nor with Roman historians or early Fathers of the Church who wrote about situation in Roman Brittany. But I do have large problems comprehend some of the later years scholar's assumptions and dissertations......./Inger E >> Thus it seems as if the Romans used >> more Roman troups from central Rome in parts of England than in others. Up >> in north I know there were soldiers from many areas of the Roman Empire > > Most Roman soldiers in England came from Germany, and spoke German, > which evolved into English. German did not evolve into English. The language of the Angles and Saxons, Jutes and related tribes evolved into English, Frisian and the Dutch/Low German/High German spectrum. >> well as some from non-Brittish isles' areas outside the Roman Empire. I >> guess, and that's my personal guess that Latin had been hard to have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > freely in both directions. The population in Britain spoke a modified > form of Celtic called Romano-British, which evolved into Welsh. No. The Celts in Britain, who became the modern Welsh, at the time of the Romans spoke a Q-Celtic tounge commonly called (Old) Brythonic, not some hybrid as you imply. It was the ancestor of Welsh, Breton, Cornish and the extinct Cumbric. While Welsh has some Latin loanwords, it doesn't have nearly as many as English. In fact, it has more English loans than Latin ones. >>> Thus it seems as if the Romans used >>> more Roman troups from central Rome in parts of England than in others. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > doesn't have nearly as many as English. In fact, it has more English > loans than Latin ones. That's what I have been taught but I wonder if it's possible to give some sort of timetable for the diversion into Welsh, Breton and Cornish if this is the case that was? /Inger E On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:56 GMT, Norah <1732johansson@telia.com> wrote in <news:U6p4k.74$U5.491@newsb.telia.net> in soc.history.ancient,sci.lang,sci.archaeology: [...] > That's what I have been taught but I wonder if it's > possible to give some sort of timetable for the > diversion into Welsh, Breton and Cornish if this is the > case that was? /Inger E Kenneth L. Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain, is the classic study, running to over 700 pages. Some of the details have been superseded by later research, but it's still the starting point for such questions, and it ought to be available through any decent library. Near the end of the book there is a chronology of the sound changes involved in the differentiation; it runs from the first century BCE to the 12th century CE. Brian > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:56 GMT, Norah > <1732johansson@telia.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Brian Brian, would you say that Jacson's book is a 'must' or only one I have to read and note essential parts from? Thanks in advance for your answer?/Inger E On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:38:22 GMT, Norah <1732johansson@telia.com> wrote in <news:yFC4k.99$U5.485@newsb.telia.net> in soc.history.ancient,sci.lang,sci.archaeology: >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:56 GMT, Norah >> <1732johansson@telia.com> wrote in >> <news:U6p4k.74$U5.491@newsb.telia.net> in >> soc.history.ancient,sci.lang,sci.archaeology: >> [...] >>> That's what I have been taught but I wonder if it's >>> possible to give some sort of timetable for the >>> diversion into Welsh, Breton and Cornish if this is the >>> case that was? /Inger E >> Kenneth L. Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain, >> is the classic study, running to over 700 pages. Some of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> in the differentiation; it runs from the first century BCE >> to the 12th century CE. > would you say that Jacson's book is a 'must' or only one I > have to read and note essential parts from? Thanks in > advance for your answer?/Inger E Depends on exactly what your interest in the subject is. For someone interested in the details of the linguistic history of Britain, it's a 'must', but I suspect that it's more detailed and more technical than you really want or need. Part I, roughly the first 260 pages or so, would probably be of the greatest interest. Brian > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:38:22 GMT, Norah > <1732johansson@telia.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Brian Thanks, I'll start by reading them and make up my mind buying after that./IEJ > >> Thus it seems as if the Romans used > >> more Roman troups from central Rome in parts of England than in others. Up [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > No. The Celts in Britain, who became the modern Welsh, at the time of > the Romans spoke a Q-Celtic P-Celtic - I presume that was a typo, since all the rest is correct. > tounge commonly called (Old) Brythonic, not > some hybrid as you imply. It was the ancestor of Welsh, Breton, Cornish > and the extinct Cumbric. While Welsh has some Latin loanwords, it > doesn't have nearly as many as English. In fact, it has more English > loans than Latin ones. >> No. The Celts in Britain, who became the modern Welsh, at the time of >> the Romans spoke a Q-Celtic > P-Celtic - I presume that was a typo, since all the rest is correct. Doh! Yes, my bad. >> Thus it seems as if the Romans used >> more Roman troups from central Rome in parts of England than in others. Up [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > freely in both directions. The population in Britain spoke a modified > form of Celtic called Romano-British, which evolved into Welsh. The languages were not at all close. Some vocabulary was transferred, which is not at all the same thing. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >> Thus it seems as if the Romans used > >> more Roman troups from central Rome in parts of England than in others. Up [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The languages were not at all close. Some vocabulary was transferred, > which is not at all the same thing. I supposed OP was referring to "Italo-Celtic," a prehistoric language unity accepted by many, though not all, Indo-Europeanists. >>> When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals >>> there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Inger E I think that is about right. Remember that we are talking about Welsh, not English, which developed from Old German dialects brought by invasion, mostly after the Romans left. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >>> When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals > >>> there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > not English, which developed from Old German dialects brought by > invasion, mostly after the Romans left. No, English did not develop from Old German. It's from a different branch of Germanic. On Jun 13, 2:36 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Norah wrote: > > "Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > not English, which developed from Old German dialects brought by > invasion, mostly after the Romans left. No, English did not develop from Old German. It's from a different branch of Germanic. IEJ: This is one of the basic assumptions I would like you to give more information if not proof for. Reading earlier linguists' works and later doesn't give a full consensus for this true or not./Inger E >> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> skrev i meddelandet >> news:7e75d284-d693-4fba-94ca-9ee2b85dab5a@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> I think that is about right. Remember that we are talking about Welsh, >>> not English, which developed from Old German dialects brought by >>> invasion, mostly after the Romans left. >> No, English did not develop from Old German. >> It's from a different branch of Germanic. > IEJ: This is one of the basic assumptions I would like you to give more > information if not proof for. Reading earlier linguists' works and later > doesn't give a full consensus for this true or not./Inger E Tacitus, in "Germania", referred to the Ingaevones, Irminiones and Istvaeones. Ingaevones = Frisians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons Irminiones = Alamanni, Hermunduri, Marcomanni, and Suebi Istaveones = Chatti, Hessians, Franks At teh time of Tacitus, all these tribes spoke a single language that probably varied no more than Modern English does across North Amerrica. The Old English dialects, made from Anglian, Jutish and Saxon underwent the so-called Ingaevonic sound shift along with the Frisians on the continent and the Saxons remaining on the continent hardly at all. The continental Saxons dialect became Old Saxon by around 800 CE, developing into Middle Low German by around 1200. It was heavily influence by Anglo-Frisian early on and High Germna laterly. Only a few texts of Old Saxon survive, predominantly in baptismal vows the Saxons were required to perform at the behest of Charlemagne and the only literary text preserved is Heliand. The language variants of the Istavaeones became Old High German around 800 CE as they underwent the High German sound shifts. The earliest testimonies of Old High German are from scattered Elder Futhark inscriptions, especially in Alemannic, from the 6th century, the earliest glosses (Abrogans) date to the 8th and the oldest coherent texts (the Hildebrandslied, the Muspilli and the Merseburg Incantations) to the 9th century. Frankish split into two parts by around 800 CE: Old Dutch, which did did not undergo the High German sound shifts at all; and the Franconian (Rhenish, Palatinate, Alsatian, etc...) dialects which. along with Hessian and Upper Saxon shared the consonant shifts with High German but only some of the vowel shifts. Especially on the continent, West Germanic languages are almost better regarded as a spectrum of dialects rather than separate languages after one discounts standardized literary versions. >>> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> skrev i meddelandet >>> news:7e75d284-d693-4fba-94ca-9ee2b85dab5a@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > At teh time of Tacitus, all these tribes spoke a single language that > probably varied no more than Modern English does across North Amerrica. Tacitus told us that. Others earlier and later that the language around the North Sea and the Channel in early days were so alike that they hadn't problem speaking to each other. Now that this is true I do know from 1970's when I had some songartists origin from the coast of Yorkshire who visited Sweden in a winter. We went up to Tanum's parish and they walked out on ice talked to a few of our Elderly who were fishing in the middle of the fjord. For over an hour they were talking before they arrived back to harbor. They told me that they had spoken Yorkshire local dialects with our Elderly who couldn't speak any language but Swedish and old Scandinavian. A mixture of Old Swedish, Old Norwegian, Old Icelandic and Old Faero Island dialects./IEJ > The Old English dialects, made from Anglian, Jutish and Saxon underwent > the so-called Ingaevonic sound shift along with the Frisians on the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > regarded as a spectrum of dialects rather than separate languages after > one discounts standardized literary versions. Norah (in sci.lang): >> Tacitus, in "Germania", referred to the Ingaevones, Irminiones and >> Istvaeones. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Scandinavian. A mixture of Old Swedish, Old Norwegian, Old Icelandic and > Old Faero Island dialects./IEJ Well, Yorkshire was under Viking rule for quite some time ("Danelaw"), and probably this similarity you mention goes not go back to Angle-Saxon but to that later influence (which also had a big impact on the English standard language). So you cannot derive an old similarity of all the languages "around the North sea" from that. Joachim f'up2 sci.lang > On Jun 13, 2:36 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Norah wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > information if not proof for. Reading earlier linguists' works and later > doesn't give a full consensus for this true or not./Inger E It is rather a convention followed by most linguists, about which the poster is wrong. It is not an a priori fact SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > It is rather a convention followed by most linguists, about which the > poster is wrong. It is not an a priori fact If you suggest that there was a "German" language in any meaningful sense of the word at the time Anglo-Saxons first appeared in Britain, you are plain wrong by "a priori fact". >> It is rather a convention followed by most linguists, about which the >> poster is wrong. It is not an a priori fact > > If you suggest that there was a "German" language in any meaningful > sense of the word at the time Anglo-Saxons first appeared in Britain, > you are plain wrong by "a priori fact". I don't. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I don't. So, it was not about convention, but about fact, after all. >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> It is rather a convention followed by most linguists, about which the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> you are plain wrong by "a priori fact". >> I don't. > So, it was not about convention, but about fact, after all. I have no opinion on this subject at all. I can add that I learned German reading texts in what people have said is called Gothic script. It is the one where the s and the f differ by only the horizontal line being to the left of the vertical or passing through it. I found no problem reading the old English words but figuring out what they meant was an effort. My high school was still using pre-WWII textbooks. The "font" does not indicate a connection as much as it likely indicates monks used the same font. But as this font is not found in southern Europe it does indicate some connection. I also find since never using German after that last college final exam some 43 years ago I can get the gist of German easier than Italian or Spanish simply by using meanings of similar words in English. (As to the Italian and Spanish one can add Catholic high school Latin to my education so is not completely unequal.) As a non-expert, real or self-styled, I find it difficult to see any argument against English having a greater connection to German than any other language. SignatureHodie nono Kalendas Iulias MMVIII est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7 On Jun 23, 12:46 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote: > As a non-expert, real or self-styled, I find it difficult to see any argument > against English having a greater connection to German than any other language. I guess you have never heard about Dutch or Frisian, let alone compared them with English. > On Jun 23, 12:46 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I guess you have never heard about Dutch or Frisian, let alone > compared them with English. This is nit-picking. Frisian is closest, it is true, but only workaday language remains. English is a Germanic language, with the riders I add above. [Thinks: riders, oh no. What will he come up with now?) SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jun 23, 12:46 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > This is nit-picking. Nope, it isn't. Frisian is a living language, at least the form of Frisian that is official in the Netherlands province of Friesland, and Dutch is objectively nearer to English than German is, because Dutch hasn't done the Second Shift. Don't you ever again try to teach the teacher. FYI: I might be an autodidact about many things linguistic, but when it comes to German, I am as professional as they come. Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:50:44 -0700 (PDT): Craoibhin66@gmail.com: in sci.lang: >Nope, it isn't. Frisian is a living language, at least the form of >Frisian that is official in the Netherlands province of Friesland, and >Dutch is objectively nearer to English than German is, because Dutch >hasn't done the Second Shift. True. OTOH, Dutch shares a lot of vocabulary with English, but also a lot (maybe more) with German. Also, word order is nearly identical between German and Dutch, including the strange splitting of words where one part can land 20 or 30 words ahead of the first part. *) There are some subtle difference bewteen Dutch and German word order (e.g. http://rudhar.com/lingtics/verbordr.htm ), but not the dramatic difference like those between English and German/Dutch. *) It's just that our sentences tend to be less long and less complicated than in German, because we don't have the support of cases to clarify structure. But otherwise, the distance can be as great. SignatureRuud Harmsen http://rudhar.com >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Jun 23, 12:46 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > autodidact about many things linguistic, but when it comes to German, > I am as professional as they come. Püttscherkram. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” ... > This is nit-picking. Frisian is closest, it is true, but only workaday > language remains. English is a Germanic language, with the riders I add > above. [Thinks: riders, oh no. What will he come up with now?) To be honest, I never realized Europeans were interested in what most all Americans would consider trivia. Maybe it is our experience with massive immigration with so many different languages like Italian and "Irish English" and Chinese and Japanese and Vietnase and so many others and now Hindu and Arabic that the subtleties do not register. Again, I have no dog in this fight but finding there is a fight is the most surprising thing of all. SignatureHodie octavo Kalendas Iulias MMVIII est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7 > ... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and Chinese and Japanese and Vietnase and so many others and now Hindu and > Arabic that the subtleties do not register. Hindu is not a language. "Europeans" may not be intterested in the facts about language, but linguists are. Which kind of suggests you're in the wrong place. >> ... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hindu is not a language. Well spotted. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>> ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> Arabic that the subtleties do not register. >> Hindu is not a language. > Well spotted. Should I ever need an editor who will do a perfect job which which I cannot afford, I need only post the article where he will see it. SignatureWhen in France do as the Romans do -- pillage. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4020 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 >> ... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> and Chinese and Japanese and Vietnase and so many others and now Hindu and >> Arabic that the subtleties do not register. > Hindu is not a language. > "Europeans" may not be intterested in the facts about language, but > linguists are. Which raises the question of why your interest. > Which kind of suggests you're in the wrong place. I did not start this thread. However I can point out people who are in any newsgroup in the sci hierarchy who do not consider physical evidence to be a sine qua non of any and every science definitely do not belong. Or you might petition to have sci.lang moved to the soc.culture hierarchy where there is much less interest in things like physical evidence. SignatureMicrosoft solved the piracy problem by bringing out Vista. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4023 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 >>> ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > hierarchy where there is much less interest in things like physical > evidence. Actually I did two terms of freshman linguistics and would have liked to pursue it further. Whether it is, strictly speaking, a science, is another question. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> ... >>>>> This is nit-picking. Frisian is closest, it is true, but only [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> hierarchy where there is much less interest in things like physical >> evidence. > Actually I did two terms of freshman linguistics and would have liked to > pursue it further. Whether it is, strictly speaking, a science, is > another question. I have no problem one way or the other. I do have a problem with the "certainty" of science being invoked by people who to not even pretend to play by the rules of science. If they do not want to play by the rules of science then I would like to know where I can find their rules. If they have no rules then that also should be declared. My interest in linguistics is just one more curious defined area of knowledge. Most of the languages and dialects I know are programming languages. But I have had computer scientists declare themselves to be scientists when it is no more of a science than political science. Trading on the word science is most annoying. However there is no question archaeology is a science. And that is primarily what I draw upon here. People imagine anything they want about the languages of bibleland but the archaeology rules as to whether their imaginings are credible. And we know for a fact because of the archaeological equivalent of creationists in bibleland and bibleland only there are people who have an entirely different set of rules for bibleland than the standard rules of archaeology. I presume you have seen that. We can walk through the ruins of Athens, Babylon, Rome and see the cities as described in surviving records. When it comes to bibleland the absence of ruins which would indicate the OT consists of surviving records requires different rules. Even the grammar has different rules. Was is replaced by could have been. Is is replaced by thought to be. Happened is replaced by may have happened. Linguists can play all the games they want but even it not a science they are not permitted to promote ideas which are contrary to the physical evidence. Whether they like it or not writing and the preservation of documents in ancient times is associated with cities for administrative purposes and a modest fraction of it appears as religious material. That is not what "linguists" here imply when they claim dirt farmers and goatherds _invented_ a history for themselves and preserved it in writing. When we do read ancient inscriptions we find them about events that occurred. They are recountings of battles usually. Only with Herodotus do we find recountings of what we call history. But those dirt farmers and goatherds were doing it centuries before Herodotus was born. Please explain to me how all of this is possible. SignatureHe poureth me out as milk. He curdleth me as cheese. Yeah though I walk through the Valley of the Cheesemakers I shall fear no evil -- The Iron Webmaster, 4032 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 > ... >> This is nit-picking. Frisian is closest, it is true, but only [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Again, I have no dog in this fight but finding there is a fight is > the most surprising thing of all. You only just got a toe in the water. As a native of Southeast England I tee off on people who call me a cockney, as cockneys come from a specific part of East London. In Birmingham, where I now live, people laugh at the accents of people from a few miles north and west in the same conurbation. I once tried explaining this in Houston. One of my interlocutors thought for a moment and said, "They talk different from us up Dallas". SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> ... >>> This is nit-picking. Frisian is closest, it is true, but only [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Again, I have no dog in this fight but finding there is a fight is >> the most surprising thing of all. > You only just got a toe in the water. As a native of Southeast England > I tee off on people who call me a cockney, as cockneys come from a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > interlocutors thought for a moment and said, "They talk different from > us up Dallas". Some years ago a man who was an expert in hearing differences in speech was making guest appearances on TV demonstrating his talent telling people where they were born and if they had lived some place else for a long time. The fact that he could hear what others could not hear was impressive -- or the speakers were his shills. This man was down to which part of a state and some times which city. Regardless of your history our immigrants from with so many languages are in the last two centuries. Radio adopting the flat midwest accent can't be much older than 1930. Yet Boston, Brooklyn, the generic South and its Texas variant are the only clear ones left and Boston is slipping away fast. I haven't heard anyone claiming a Bronx accent since I was a kid and don't remember what it was like. While we have had a lot of migration percentagewise they are to a limited number of places like Florida, Arizona, California, DC. There has been nothing to "average out" pronunciation. SignatureIt is said just before you die your life flashes before your eyes. What if this is the flash? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4022 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 On Jun 25, 10:17 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote: > >> ... > >>> This is nit-picking. Frisian is closest, it is true, but only [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > speakers were his shills. This man was down to which part of a state and some > times which city. You're probably talking about Henry Lee Smith's radio program, which aired in the 1950s and perhaps before. He was a professor at the University of Buffalo (now State University of New York at Buffalo), and he has been mentioned here frequently in connection with the phonemicization of English. > Regardless of your history our immigrants from with so many languages are in > the last two centuries. Radio adopting the flat midwest accent can't be much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > limited number of places like Florida, Arizona, California, DC. There has been > nothing to "average out" pronunciation. You would do well to study up on American dialects. There's a superb website from the University of Pennsylvania that could set you straight on some of the misconceptions presented in that paragraph. But we all know you have no interest in having your misconceptions corrected. > On Jun 25, 10:17 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> speakers were his shills. This man was down to which part of a state and some >> times which city. > You're probably talking about Henry Lee Smith's radio program, which > aired in the 1950s and perhaps before. He was a professor at the > University of Buffalo (now State University of New York at Buffalo), > and he has been mentioned here frequently in connection with the > phonemicization of English. I am talking about something I saw in TV in the 80s. The 50s might be more reasonable for the leveling out of the language in the US. >> Regardless of your history our immigrants from with so many languages are in >> the last two centuries. Radio adopting the flat midwest accent can't be much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> limited number of places like Florida, Arizona, California, DC. There has been >> nothing to "average out" pronunciation. > You would do well to study up on American dialects. There's a superb > website from the University of Pennsylvania that could set you > straight on some of the misconceptions presented in that paragraph. > But we all know you have no interest in having your misconceptions > corrected. Studying is not a matter of hearing it. When I was in DC working for the gov and handing out money I met people from all over the country who had moved from all over the country. I have described the differences I heard and which others heard. I worked with an ex-Amish for a while. No indication of it in his speech pattern and they don't have radio or TV. He might as well have been midwestern as is the common speech pattern in DC. Try C-SPAN for a while. Congresscritters from all over the country and not a dime's worth of difference among them unless from the places I mentioned. And this is in comparison to ME's description of England which confirms what I have heard on BBC America. SignatureThe only thing that argues for Judaism being an ancient religion is that it is so primitive. The problem is that it is more primitive than even that of ancient Egypt which makes it too old. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4018 http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7 >>> ... >>>> This is nit-picking. Frisian is closest, it is true, but only [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Florida, Arizona, California, DC. There has been nothing to "average > out" pronunciation. Interestingly the Cajun accent (not very broad, and with de-fricated "th", is still there with the old folks, though I couldn't get anyone to speak French. Does anyone try to speak New York in Law and Order and its spinoffs? With many characters I seem to hear the prairie wind in their voices. To most English people, of course, the Midwestern accent /is/ the American accent. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” ... > Interestingly the Cajun accent (not very broad, and with de-fricated > "th", is still there with the old folks, though I couldn't get anyone to > speak French. For which the French are probably eternally grateful. They have been cut off from France for nearly two centuries. Quebecese do not understand them and neither are understood by the real French. > Does anyone try to speak New York in Law and Order and > its spinoffs? The first thing is all TV back to radio adopted the unaccented midwest as a neutral pronunciation. Second there is no New York accent. The only one still prominent is Brooklyn. Bronx is essentially gone. The third is Phoebe Halliwell comes from Brooklyn. I took an interest in her when I read she has three albums that went gold in Japan. She is a multi-talented but the usual liberal flake. She is also the kidnapped daughter in Commando with Arnold the governor of California. She could not be much more than ten in that movie and no accent at all. > With many characters I seem to hear the prairie wind in > their voices. To most English people, of course, the Midwestern accent > /is/ the American accent. It was CHOSEN to be the accent. Once someone asked if I had been on radio after hearing my baritone speaking voice in that accent. Save I come from Cincinnati, Ohio so close to the midwest accent that I don't hear the difference. SignatureDual citizenship is the gateway to treason. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4014 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 > ... >> Interestingly the Cajun accent (not very broad, and with de-fricated [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > speaking voice in that accent. Save I come from Cincinnati, Ohio so > close to the midwest accent that I don't hear the difference. Then again, if you ever get south of Cincinnati................. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> ... >>> Interestingly the Cajun accent (not very broad, and with de-fricated [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> > Then again, if you ever get south of Cincinnati................. I spent my life between 1967 to 1991 in Wash DC which is parallel to DC and since 1991 in Florida which is decided south of both. However the South Georgia border is about 30 miles north of a rough line from Tampa through Orlando to Canaveral/Cape Kennedy. In the US the South ends south of that line. However before Disney discovered Orlando the locals pronounced it OrlandUH. My government time was kind enough to get me half million mile flyer status. Been everywhere as were the people I traveled with and met and whatever. What little was left of a southern accent back in the late 60s essentially vanished in the next 20 years. If it continued it was in hiding and not just from the professionals but from the local hotel and restaurant and car rental staffs. We can even get 24/7 calls routed to India and not notice an accent these days.;) They may stand out to you and the slight variations may be in the unnoticeable level for me. SignatureHow are Palestinians treated by Jews? Everything but the gas chambers. But there were no gas chambers! Then it is identical. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4029 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4 > On Jun 23, 12:46 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I guess you have never heard about Dutch or Frisian, let alone > compared them with English. My post does not go beyond what it said. SignatureYou can learn more about the Gospels watching the Life of Brian than can from a month of Sunday Schools. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4031 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 >>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> It is rather a convention followed by most linguists, about which the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > problem reading the old English words but figuring out what they meant > was an effort. My high school was still using pre-WWII textbooks. It's a bitch. My school did not use it, but I had to read a whole book in it for a class paper at uni. Oddly, the eszet is still in common use, the tezet not. > The "font" does not indicate a connection as much as it likely > indicates monks used the same font. But as this font is not found in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Spanish one can add Catholic high school Latin to my education so is not > completely unequal.) Especially as Church Latin is pronounced like Italian. > As a non-expert, real or self-styled, I find it difficult to see any > argument against English having a greater connection to German than any > other language. It is of that family, but it has admixtures of French and Danish, mainly natural, and Greek and Latin, mostly originally deliberate coinings, but often absorbed into the everyday language. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > > As a non-expert, real or self-styled, I find it difficult to see any > > argument against English having a greater connection to German than any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > natural, and Greek and Latin, mostly originally deliberate coinings, but > often absorbed into the everyday language. Which has nothing to do with the fact that English is more closely related to Frisian and Dutch than it is to German. >>> As a non-expert, real or self-styled, I find it difficult to see any >>> argument against English having a greater connection to German than any >>> other language. >> It is of that family, but it has admixtures of French and Danish, mainly >> natural, and Greek and Latin, mostly originally deliberate coinings, but >> often absorbed into the everyday language. > Which has nothing to do with the fact that English is more closely > related to Frisian and Dutch than it is to German. And how closely related are Frisian, Dutch and German to each other? And who the hell created the official versions of the languages down through history? You fake linguists are always trying to create issues to avoid admitting you are fakes. SignatureIsrael: The land of religious fanatics with their finger on the nuclear trigger. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4030 http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7 > >>> As a non-expert, real or self-styled, I find it difficult to see any > >>> argument against English having a greater connection to German than any > >>> other language. > >> It is of that family, but it has admixtures of French and Danish, mainly > >> natural, and Greek and Latin, mostly originally deliberate coinings, but > >> often absorbed into the everyday language. > > Which has nothing to do with the fact that English is more closely > > related to Frisian and Dutch than it is to German. > > And how closely related are Frisian, Dutch and German to each other? And who > the hell created the official versions of the languages down through history? Frisian and Dutch are extremely closely related to each other. Frisian and Dutch are somewhat closely related to German. Just like English, in both cases. > You fake linguists are always trying to create issues to avoid admitting you > are fakes. Your opinion might have some value if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:28:48 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> And how closely related are Frisian, Dutch and German to each other? And who >> the hell created the official versions of the languages down through history? > >Frisian and Dutch are extremely closely related to each other. But distant enough to make Frisian quite difficult to understand and read, for me. Now that I hear it more often due to digital tv, it gets easier, but it still requires close attention to get some idea what they are talking about. >Frisian and Dutch are somewhat closely related to German. I can't remember ever having learnt to understand German. It seems the basic vocabulary is so similar it more or less naturally. (The more advanced vocabulary is much more different, though). I think Dutch and Frisian are more distant than Dutch and German, where vocabulary is concerned. The situation is obscured somewhat by Modern Frisian having a lot of Dutch loans. This is especially true of the variant Stadsfries ("city Frisian"), which is much closer to Dutch than "real" Frisian. SignatureRuud Harmsen http://rudhar.com On Jun 24, 9:40 am, Ruud Harmsen <realemailons...@rudhar.com.invalid> wrote: > Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:28:48 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Dutch loans. This is especially true of the variant Stadsfries ("city > Frisian"), which is much closer to Dutch than "real" Frisian. Common vocabulary tells us little to nothing about relatedness of languages. As you very well know. You are deliberately trying to mislead people like Martin (who made a related comment) and M*** (who is beyond help). |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message