What do you think about Language???

[Lioness_Heart]

I've just been reading Translations by Brian Friel. In it, the character Hugh is dismissive of the English language, saying that it is a language of commerce, and not one of culture or beauty. Hugh's motives are complicated, and Friel in no way suggests that this is his view. But it got me thinking about the meaning of language in general.

What do you think? Is the English language just a tool for business? Is it just useful in getting where you want to go? Or is it a rich and beautiful language in its own right?

[Bii]

Hmm, interesting question! I'd be inclined to think that the English language is what you make of it, but because it's use is so widespread it is most commonly associated with commerce, business and trade. That being said, the English language is the language of Shakepeare, Tennyson, Shelley, Milton, Donne, to name but a very few so I'm pretty sure there's some beauty and culture in there somewhere!

I think, as well, that it's often forgotten that the English language is comprised of words which have many and varied backgrounds, given the numerous invasions Great Britain has been subject to over the centuries - so as a language it has been built upon many other languages - latin, french, german, scandinavian etc, many of which will be associated with culture and beauty. So, if the language doesn't have it by it's own right, it's kind of still in there by default, or inheritance perhaps?!

So I vote a rich and beautiful language in it's own right (but I may be a little biased here!). ;)

[kathycf]

I tend to think there may be some personal bias in most people's responses.

Every language will have it's detractor's and English isn't an exception to that. There have been too many beautiful poems and other literary works composed in Engish to dismiss the language as simply a "tool", in my opinion.

[Seami]

Hm, English isn't my native language and so I can't judge but I can say that it's easy enough (so, it's an international language) and it's an advantage, it doesn't mean that English isn't a beautiful language. No, it is!

[Lioness_Heart]

I find that the only problem with English (as my mother tongue) is that sometimes it can be taken for granted in lots of ways (as with any other language I suppose), as people often mis-use the language. In a way, because English is such a widely-used international language used for business and commerce, it lacks a certain glamour and romance associated with other languages, but I'm glad that you guys think that it can be beautiful too.

Do you think that any language is particularly more beautiful than others, or has more of a cultural significance?

I've always wanted to be able to speak Welsh, because my family comes from Wales, but some languages like Italian seem to be very glamorous.

[Shannanigan]

If this sort of thing interests you, lioness, I would really suggest taking a course on the History of the English Language if you ever get the chance...I took one and it really got me thinking about things like this. English really did grow and yet, simplify, over the years mostly out of a need to communicate across cultures of different languages. It's really interesting if you're into history...

As for me, I don't think English really sounds all that romantic or beautiful, but that might be because it's the only language I speak. I'm learning Spanish out of both want and necessity, and I have days where I feel expressing myself is easier in Spanish. If I ever master Spanish, I want to move on to French...then maybe Japanese for a change of pace :D Still, English is the most popular language in terms of how many countries it is used in, so it's more useful if you're a traveller or business person, definitely.

[Lioness_Heart]

If this sort of thing interests you, lioness, I would really suggest taking a course on the History of the English Language if you ever get the chance...I took one and it really got me thinking about things like this. English really did grow and yet, simplify, over the years mostly out of a need to communicate across cultures of different languages. It's really interesting if you're into history...

Thanks Shannanigan! I will try to find out more about said courses...

[white camellia]

Do you think that any language is particularly more beautiful than others, or has more of a cultural significance?

if you mean langue, then one can hardly tell which langue of a language is more beautiful, and maybe, can equate such beauty of an abstract system of rules to that of math, psychoanalysis, etc.
if you mean parole, or the utterance, then the beauty of a language tends to be more subjective and culturally integrated, thus diversified. we have the saying "language is the carrier of its culture".

[white camellia]

If this sort of thing interests you, lioness, I would really suggest taking a course on the History of the English Language if you ever get the chance...I took one and it really got me thinking about things like this. English really did grow and yet, simplify, over the years mostly out of a need to communicate across cultures of different languages. It's really interesting if you're into history...
that may be said the change of the english language for cultural reasons in general-"a cultural significance".

[PeterL]

duplicate, see below

[PeterL]

Is the English language just a tool for business? Is it just useful in getting where you want to go? Or is it a rich and beautiful language in its own right?

That's a good laugh. English may not be the most beautiful sounding language, but it is the language with the largest vocabulary. With all of those words there are many, many shades of meaning that can't easily be expressed in other languages. English provides more opportunites for word play, from metaphor to punning, than most languages.

[Matrim Cuathon]

english is so messed up that it is full of awesome chances to make a play on words. i quite agree with what peter said.

[Cien]

Every language that exists is rich and beautiful in its own right.

[Themis]

That's a good laugh. English may not be the most beautiful sounding language, but it is the language with the largest vocabulary. With all of those words there are many, many shades of meaning that can't easily be expressed in other languages. English provides more opportunites for word play, from metaphor to punning, than most languages.

How would you know? Have you studied so many languages that you are able to decide which provides the largest vocabulary?

[Neil Thomas]

Hey, I take great offense to what he said there. Check out what I wrote. geocities.com/newportale If your short on time just read the poem that opens the story. What he said is obsurd. Neil Thomas

[ennison]

English steals words without shame and calls them its own. It's a good tool. a handy weapon and a fair means of communication. It's also a blundering, blustering bullying braggard of a tongue.

[SheykAbdullah]

English steals words without shame and calls them its own. It's a good tool. a handy weapon and a fair means of communication. It's also a blundering, blustering bullying braggard of a tongue.

How does a language 'steal' words? When any language encounters a foriegn idea not present in its own idion it either creates a new word or takes a loan word, sometimes one happens, sometimes the other. Languages don't 'steal' words from one another, every language borrows and exchanges their vocabulary just as every culture borrows and exchanges ideas.

As for English having the largest vocabulary of any language, while it could be true there is actually no full list for the vocabulary of ANY language, there are always unrecorded slang forms, so it is not fair to say English has the largest vocabulary and merely having a large vocabulary does not mean that expression is infinitely refined. After all, Classical Greek had more words for love than we do and Persian has several more commonly used verbs for to remove/destroy than we do.

[PeterL]

How would you know? Have you studied so many languages that you are able to decide which provides the largest vocabulary?

Yes, thank you

[PeterL]

English steals words without shame and calls them its own. It's a good tool. a handy weapon and a fair means of communication. It's also a blundering, blustering bullying braggard of a tongue.

Yes, it is those things also. Neat, isn't it?

[Cien]

How would you know? Have you studied so many languages that you are able to decide which provides the largest vocabulary?

I'm not the one you're asking this of, but even I (with such a beginner's knowledge of linguistics) am aware of English's large vocabulary. Most languages in the world, for instance, do not have books entirely made up of words that mean the same things as other words -- the thesaurus, for instance. I don't know if your native language has such a book, but the reason most languages do not have it is because most don't need it. Read up on comparative linguistics. Really.

[Black roses]

English does take words from many other languages, even phrases, such as et cetera, and turns them into it's own, but there is a sort of savage beauty in that. It is a very confusing language, with many exceptions, but, it does have a very large and comprehensive vocabulary, which is constantly growing to meet the times as it is a very commonly used language.

[Themis]

Most languages in the world, for instance, do not have books entirely made up of words that mean the same things as other words -- the thesaurus, for instance. I don't know if your native language has such a book, but the reason most languages do not have it is because most don't need it.
My native language is German. We do have such books. They're also called "thesaurus" or "Synonymenwörterbuch.



Read up on comparative linguistics. Really.

Read the question more carefully next time. I didn't ask to be provided with a lecture on all languages. I merely wanted to know if PeterL had arguments to back up his statement.

[Cien]

Read the question more carefully next time. I didn't ask to be provided with a lecture on all languages. I merely wanted to know if PeterL had arguments to back up his statement.

His statement concerned English in comparison to other languages, so I don't think bringing up languages in general was an odd way for me to respond to you -- and as this is a public forum rather than a private message, I also don't think it's odd that I responded to a question originally meant for PeterL. However, I wasn't trying to lecture you, and I see how it may've come off that way. I apologize for not paying more attention to how I sound.

[Koa]

English has a large vocabulary but for every meaning there is at least one anglosaxon and one latin word. Have you tried to learn Russian? That has also an incredibly wide vocabulary which I'll never master, while I make why into the English one well enough to survive with not much effort (certainly thanks to its share of latinness).

A lot of languages have loanwords and words of odd origins. I'd say most languages, at least to some extent, since none of them (or almost none) is isolated. All languages have an expanding, ever changing vocabulary.

English is beautiful in its own way and a pleasure to write in. And you're much more aware of it if you're not a native.

[ennison]

Monoglot speakers of English are always saying in sneering tones things like 'But language X is so weak! It doesn't have a word for a or b or c' And they think they have scored a point about the superiority of their one-and-only language.

'for every meaning there is at least one anglosaxon ... word.' ?? Now that's what I call hyperbole!!!

[Cien]

The truth though is that I'd probably adore English even if I hadn't grown up speaking it; I have never met a language I didn't like. I don't think such a language exists. It seems weird to me, actually, to dislike a language. What, disliking a mode of communication? It seems odd to me.

[JBI]

I feel the beauty of the English language is its vast amount of words. In terms of poetic syntax, and the musical quality of the words, the Latin languages seem to be far more beautiful.

When it really comes down to it though, the vast number of words, and the vast number of high quality writers in the English language really makes English literature far superior than most other literature.

[Sancho]

I just wish that in English we’d spell things the way they sound. I suppose we’re not as bad as the French (where you can have about fourteen or fifteen vowels all strung together in order to represent just one sound, like – “OH”). But nevertheless it bugs me, and I’m a lousy speller.

Of course written English and spoken English are separate languages and the written language can give us some great clues and insights into history of the people who've spoken the language.

Anyone who thinks that English is not a beautiful language hasn’t listened to Jamaican English Patois

[ennison]

'When it really comes down to it though, the vast number of words, and the vast number of high quality writers in the English language really makes English literature far superior than most other literature.'
It's not about numbers.
Most English speakers have a very limited vocabulary. So the fact that the language is so huge is of little consequence to them. You would not be able to specify how many high quality writers there are in English. Nor how many any other language would have.

[SleepyWitch]

I'm not the one you're asking this of, but even I (with such a beginner's knowledge of linguistics) am aware of English's large vocabulary. Most languages in the world, for instance, do not have books entirely made up of words that mean the same things as other words -- the thesaurus, for instance. I don't know if your native language has such a book, but the reason most languages do not have it is because most don't need it. Read up on comparative linguistics. Really.

if they really don't have thesauruses there could be lots of different reasons why they don'.
would you argue that France has the academie francaise (which keeps a check on Anglicisms in French) because they need it more than other countries?


interesting thread Lioness. i didn't realize ppl call English a language of commerce and a 'tool'.
I've been learning English for... 12 years? and we never learned much about the economy, business, commerce, trade etc.., which means we never learned "commerce" vocabulary...

while English may be used as a language of commerce one a global scale, native speakers use it for other purposes, don't they? e.g. everyday communictaion, small talk, literature, TV etc...
I think it's impossible for any language to be a "tool" that serves only a single purpose.. except maybe pidgins that arose as trading languages.. but even those developed into "more"

[PeterL]

I think it's impossible for any language to be a "tool" that serves only a single purpose.. except maybe pidgins that arose as trading languages.. but even those developed into "more"

English developed as a pidgin with bits of various German and Norse languages or dialects. Then a few hundred years later it became a pidgin of Old English and French. Particularly with the shift from Old English to Middle English it was a pidgin for commercial purposes.

[SheykAbdullah]

English developed as a pidgin with bits of various German and Norse languages or dialects. Then a few hundred years later it became a pidgin of Old English and French. Particularly with the shift from Old English to Middle English it was a pidgin for commercial purposes.

I have no idea where you got this information from, but you are wrong.

English evolved like any other language. In fact, at the same time English was evolving evolved so did Old Nordic AND German (though at the time referred to, meaning the post-Gothic phase, there were two forms of German, High and Low German. English, if I am not mistaken, is from Low German and Old Nordic and the Scandinavian languages from High German, though it might be the other way around), however Old Nordic is not in the same branch of Germanic languages that English is in. English has borrowed words from Old Nordic, 'they' and its permutations being among the most prominent, but English was NEVER a pidgin of Old Nordic and Old German.

Old English also never became a Pidgin of Old French. A pidgin is a language which borrows both vocabulary AND grammar from two parent languages, creating a new language. Enlish has no French grammar except a couple of strange pluarlization used mostly in military terminology like 'Sergeants Major' and 'Courts Martial.' While English did borrow extensive vocabulary from french our grammar is entirely and unabashadly Germanic down to the very exceptions mentioned on this thread which are the vestiges of many of the features, such as case, which German to this day has and English lost, and NOT because of French influence.

It is a common misconception to say English is a Romantic language because of our heavy reliance of French and Latin vocabulary, but the Romantic parts of our language are merely drapery thrown over the Germanic heart and skeleton of English. One can see a similiar thing in persian, whose vocabulary is 60% Arabic, a similiar percentage of our own vocabulary derived from french, yet Persian and Arabic grammar could NOT be more different and certainly no one could argue one is a pidgin of the other.

[PeterL]

I have no idea where you got this information from, but you are wrong.

English evolved like any other language. In fact, at the same time English was evolving evolved so did Old Nordic AND German (though at the time referred to, meaning the post-Gothic phase, there were two forms of German, High and Low German. English, if I am not mistaken, is from Low German and Old Nordic and the Scandinavian languages from High German, though it might be the other way around), however Old Nordic is not in the same branch of Germanic languages that English is in. English has borrowed words from Old Nordic, 'they' and its permutations being among the most prominent, but English was NEVER a pidgin of Old Nordic and Old German.

You forgot the plural of "cul de sac" - "culs de sac".

Old English also never became a Pidgin of Old French. A pidgin is a language which borrows both vocabulary AND grammar from two parent languages, creating a new language. Enlish has no French grammar except a couple of strange pluarlization used mostly in military terminology like 'Sergeants Major' and 'Courts Martial.' While English did borrow extensive vocabulary from french our grammar is entirely and unabashadly Germanic down to the very exceptions mentioned on this thread which are the vestiges of many of the features, such as case, which German to this day has and English lost, and NOT because of French influence.

It is a common misconception to say English is a Romantic language because of our heavy reliance of French and Latin vocabulary, but the Romantic parts of our language are merely drapery thrown over the Germanic heart and skeleton of English. One can see a similiar thing in persian, whose vocabulary is 60% Arabic, a similiar percentage of our own vocabulary derived from french, yet Persian and Arabic grammar could NOT be more different and certainly no one could argue one is a pidgin of the other.

While Old English wasn't a true pidgin, Middle English dropped a great many features of both Old English and French. During the period when the two were combining, gender was dropped for most words, verb forms were simplified, and vocabularies were combined. In addition, Germanic plural endings (mostly "en") were changed to "s" or "es"; that may seem minor, but the plural ending is one of the peculiarities of Germanic languages; it is interesting that English retains the "en" in "oxen". The reason for a pidgin developing was so that the Normans could communicate with their Anglo-Saxon peasants. Grammatically, German and English aren't very different; both share most of the syntactical and grammatical rules that are common to Indo-European languages. I don't know what definition you use for pidgin, but English was a pidign by the definitions that I know of.

[SleepyWitch]

English developed as a pidgin with bits of various German and Norse languages or dialects. Then a few hundred years later it became a pidgin of Old English and French. Particularly with the shift from Old English to Middle English it was a pidgin for commercial purposes.

well, not quite.. i think "pigin" means that the contact language is spoken exclusively in one domain, e.g. trade, but all the other areas of life are not covered by it's vocab, i.e. the original language is still spoken there.
this would mean that modern English would be used for commerce, but in all other areas of their life English ppl would still speak Old English/Middle English...

heehee, please save your linguistics lectures for someone else ;) no offence, but I kinda teach linguistics myself, so i know a thing or two about it, as well :D

[scotpgot]

To me, there seem to be two main questions when considering if a language is beautiful:
1) The way it can be used to express oneself, i.e. how fully or artistically an idea, emotion, etc. can be expressed using the language.
2) The SOUND of a language. The way it strikes the ear. The flow, accents, etc. of a language.

Number 1 obviously depends mostly on the user of the language. I live in a country/rural region of the Dominican Republic. It is interesting as far as the dialect that I hear spoken is so similar to dialects you might here in rural regions of the States (and I would assume any part of the world). There are even direct translations of phrases you might here in either country (for instance, the constant use of the the phrase tu ve? ("ya see?").) My point here is that it would be silly to compare the rural use of Spanish to the literature of English. One would have to compare the literature of both countries to see how they might be used to their full extent. If one were to do that, compare, let's say, Gabriel Garcia Marqués with an English writer, I believe it would be nearly impossible to say that one writer MORE fully expresses their ideas in their native language than the other.

Number 2 is similarly difficult to say objectively. The stereotype in the US is that a French accent or the French language is "romantic" (little "r"). I was surprised to find out here from French ex-pats that the French stereotype for an ENGLISH accent is parallel in France. So I suppose it all depends on the listener. I don't think a native speaker hears their language the same way a foreigner does. This is because a native speaker hears words and ideas more than they hear sounds. When one arrives in a foreign country not speaking the language, the ONLY thing they hear is sounds. I believe it is from this vantage point that the aural beauty of a language is most easily judged.

And so to me, it is a catch-22 in judging the beauty of a language: one depends on complete understanding, the other can be better judged with NO understanding. Both being widely subjective, it's probably more or less worthless to try and quantify the "beauty" of any language.

About English being a language of "commerce", it's probably true as much as the US is thought of as a nation of commerce. I don't believe it to be solely this. Commerce, among experienced businesspersons, is done mostly in the native language of whatever country the business is being done. Furthermore, English is used to try and impress, make friends, seduce, and many other uses as well.

[PeterL]

well, not quite.. i think "pigin" means that the contact language is spoken exclusively in one domain, e.g. trade, but all the other areas of life are not covered by it's vocab, i.e. the original language is still spoken there.
this would mean that modern English would be used for commerce, but in all other areas of their life English ppl would still speak Old English/Middle English...

heehee, please save your linguistics lectures for someone else ;) no offence, but I kinda teach linguistics myself, so i know a thing or two about it, as well :D

Then you should already know that Middle English started out as a pidgin used for the Anglo-Saxons to communicate with the Normans and vice versa.

[SheykAbdullah]

Then you should already know that Middle English started out as a pidgin used for the Anglo-Saxons to communicate with the Normans and vice versa.

I think this is where you are confused. English did not come from a need for the Normans to communicate with the Anglo-Saxons. That's why it's not a pidgin. English was already loosing many of its grammatical features BEFORE the Normans arrived and the trend simply continued. If you want a good history of the English language I suggest you read Thomas Pyle's book 'Origins and Development of the English Language' among others.

You are correct that English maintains certain strange plural forms such as 'en' (there where originally seven declensions in Old English and 'ox' is the only word of its particular group to survive in the original plural), however 's' and 'es' WAS an original native English pluralization for one of the declensions. We did not invent it, we simply lost many of the other plurals as we lost the other declensions, however certain declensions plurals survive aside from the 'en' and 's/es' example as the so called 'irregulars,' namely the pluralisations for words such as 'goose' and 'deer.'

A pidgin is a combination of two languages to create a form of limited communication. A pidgin becomes a creole after it becomes at least one person's native language, so even if you theory were right, English would not be a Pidgin, rather a Creole, however you are wrong. English did not change grammatically BECAUSE of the French, rather the French simply helped it change by adding words that failed to fit previous parameters. In fact, even before the French came Old English texts display a confusion of gender tense indicating that the distinction between masculine, neuter and feminine nouns occurred even before William the Conqueror.

What actually happened in the Norman/Anglo-Saxon exchange was not the Normans and the Saxons becoming, as you assume, mixed, rather the Normans were Anglicized just as the Danes in the Danelaw before them had been. This would mean, of course, that the language of the Normans was similarly lost by the conversion.

Also I don't understand exactly how the pluralization of nouns is a peculiarity of Germanic languages. Do you mean in that they use an 'n'? If that is the case you are also wrong. There are several Greek declensions which make use of an 'n' to pluralized nouns, particularly in the genetive. In fact, the pluralization in Persian for animate objects also ends in an 'n' being 'an.'

As far as both English and German sharing many features of Indo-European languages, that's because they ARE Indo-European languages. They both share those same features with Albanian, Farsi, Gujarati and Urdu, but the relationship between German and English is much closer than that, closer even than English to French, because English is a purely Germanic language, not, as you assume, a creole patois of French and Old English.

Your belief is not an uncommon misconception, however. In fact, a kind of linguistic crime based on it was carried out in the sixteenth and seventeenths centuries. An example is 'island.' At the time 'island' was spelled 'iland,' however the educated aristocrats wanted to prove English as having a stronger decendancy from French and Latin than English, so they assumed the word came from the Latin 'isla,' thus they decided that changing the spelling from 'iland' to 'island' thinking it would prove truer to its origins. This, to our current chagrin, was entirely incorrect. The word actually came from the Germanic 'iegland,' and the change in spelling brought it farther from it's original. There are many words that have suffered ignormious changes in this manner.

(And SleepyWitch is right about the definition of a pidgin. it is a smattering of two languages to create a ready-made medium of intercourse between two different people combining elements of a number of languages. Its vocabulary is necesarily limited to immediate needs, but can grow into a creole language if given time. This was, again, NOT what happened to English.)

[PeterL]

I think this is where you are confused. English did not come from a need for the Normans to communicate with the Anglo-Saxons. That's why it's not a pidgin. English was already loosing many of its grammatical features BEFORE the Normans arrived and the trend simply continued. If you want a good history of the English language I suggest you read Thomas Pyle's book 'Origins and Development of the English Language' among others.

You are correct that English maintains certain strange plural forms such as 'en' (there where originally seven declensions in Old English and 'ox' is the only word of its particular group to survive in the original plural), however 's' and 'es' WAS an original native English pluralization for one of the declensions. We did not invent it, we simply lost many of the other plurals as we lost the other declensions, however certain declensions plurals survive aside from the 'en' and 's/es' example as the so called 'irregulars,' namely the pluralisations for words such as 'goose' and 'deer.'

A pidgin is a combination of two languages to create a form of limited communication. A pidgin becomes a creole after it becomes at least one person's native language, so even if you theory were right, English would not be a Pidgin, rather a Creole, however you are wrong. English did not change grammatically BECAUSE of the French, rather the French simply helped it change by adding words that failed to fit previous parameters. In fact, even before the French came Old English texts display a confusion of gender tense indicating that the distinction between masculine, neuter and feminine nouns occurred even before William the Conqueror.

What actually happened in the Norman/Anglo-Saxon exchange was not the Normans and the Saxons becoming, as you assume, mixed, rather the Normans were Anglicized just as the Danes in the Danelaw before them had been. This would mean, of course, that the language of the Normans was similarly lost by the conversion.

Also I don't understand exactly how the pluralization of nouns is a peculiarity of Germanic languages. Do you mean in that they use an 'n'? If that is the case you are also wrong. There are several Greek declensions which make use of an 'n' to pluralized nouns, particularly in the genetive. In fact, the pluralization in Persian for animate objects also ends in an 'n' being 'an.'

As far as both English and German sharing many features of Indo-European languages, that's because they ARE Indo-European languages. They both share those same features with Albanian, Farsi, Gujarati and Urdu, but the relationship between German and English is much closer than that, closer even than English to French, because English is a purely Germanic language, not, as you assume, a creole patois of French and Old English.


You made some reasonable points, but you were also mistaken on some points. In Old English all nouns had gender, but gender was dropped from English, because the designations differed between English and French. Before the conquest English was a purely Germanic language, and it had inflections for cases. As it combined with French, the inflections were lost, the plural ending changed, and a great many words were added.

It is true that pluralization with an "n" is found in other Indo-European languages, but that is generally a distinction between Satem and Centum languages. The plural ending in English changed, and you may think that a minor thing, but it isn't.

As I pointed out earlier much of the basic structure of English, German, and French is common to Indo-European languages.


Your belief is not an uncommon misconception, however. In fact, a kind of linguistic crime based on it was carried out in the sixteenth and seventeenths centuries. An example is 'island.' At the time 'island' was spelled 'iland,' however the educated aristocrats wanted to prove English as having a stronger decendancy from French and Latin than English, so they assumed the word came from the Latin 'isla,' thus they decided that changing the spelling from 'iland' to 'island' thinking it would prove truer to its origins. This, to our current chagrin, was entirely incorrect. The word actually came from the Germanic 'iegland,' and the change in spelling brought it farther from it's original. There are many words that have suffered ignormious changes in this manner.


Yes, that explains why the meat of cattle is called beef, doesn't it?

If you don't think that Middle English started out as a pidgin, then do you have a better term for a language that develops as a limited language using features for two other languages, then, gradually, absorbs most of the vocabularies of the two languages and becomes the dominant language? More recently development of language from a pidgin to a creole has been observed, although there may be dispute about that.

[SleepyWitch]

If you don't think that Middle English started out as a pidgin, then do you have a better term for a language that develops as a limited language using features for two other languages, then, gradually, absorbs most of the vocabularies of the two languages and becomes the dominant language? More recently development of language from a pidgin to a creole has been observed, although there may be dispute about that.

sorry to disappoint you mate, but English did not absorb most of the vocab of French. During the Old English period, Norman French was restricted to the court and the justice system. What was absorbed was mainly words to do with jurisdiction and law, e.g. perjury.

Many Romance words in today's English were only taken over from Latin during the Renaissance.

[SheykAbdullah]

You made some reasonable points, but you were also mistaken on some points. In Old English all nouns had gender, but gender was dropped from English, because the designations differed between English and French. Before the conquest English was a purely Germanic language, and it had inflections for cases. As it combined with French, the inflections were lost, the plural ending changed, and a great many words were added.

It is true that pluralization with an "n" is found in other Indo-European languages, but that is generally a distinction between Satem and Centum languages. The plural ending in English changed, and you may think that a minor thing, but it isn't.

As I pointed out earlier much of the basic structure of English, German, and French is common to Indo-European languages.



Yes, that explains why the meat of cattle is called beef, doesn't it?

If you don't think that Middle English started out as a pidgin, then do you have a better term for a language that develops as a limited language using features for two other languages, then, gradually, absorbs most of the vocabularies of the two languages and becomes the dominant language? More recently development of language from a pidgin to a creole has been observed, although there may be dispute about that.

I hate to tell anyone they don't know what they're talking about, but I find myself coming dangerously close. As mentioned before, Persian pluralizes animate objects with an 'n' and Persian is most definitely a Satem language. You are wrong on that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit In addition, I would refer you to this page. On it is a list of declensions. Sanskrit, as you may know, was the basis of how the 'Satem' languages became called 'Satem.' I see a number of plurals ending in 'n.' I have never heard of the 'n' ending being a distinction between Centum and Satem languages, and I think you are mistaken on this point. I am not one hundred percent, but I also believe Pashtu uses an 'n' in some of its plurals.

You are right when you said all Old English words had gender, which is precisely what I said before. What I also said is that the gender system was breaking down BEFORE the Norman Conquest, and words like 'woman' which were gender neutral were becoming referred to in the feminine, i.e. the language was becoming levelled in terms of gender until it reached the genderless language we know today.

The plural ending DID NOT change as a result of the French influence. The 's' ending EXISTED in Old English. Most nouns, even if they were not of that particular declension, adopted the 's' plural as a general standard, however not all nouns regularized, which is why there are so many irregular plurals in English; they are left-overs from one of the other six declensions.

You are right in your definition of a pidgin; a pidgin is a language which borrows from two parents to create limited-use middle language, but English is not one, nor is it a creole either.

As a final word to this post, again I refer you to the many books written on the subject, and Pyle's is still my most highly recomended. It's a very well-known work.

(You are right when you point to the 'cattle' 'beef reference. Words in English often vary in status or use depending on their origin in Old English or French, see 'cupboard' and 'cabinet' and 'lamb' and 'mutton.' This fact, however, DOES NOT make English a creole.)

[Nightshade]

Im rattling my brain here but .... can someone tell me how germanic influences entered english?? Because as I remember my english history ( which is granted a bit weak) the I cant rember what they were called the 3 tribes that later became the germans conqured Rome...when did they come to England??:confused: I rember the danes and the vikings getting into england, oh and the french, the romans, the Celts, the picts, the Angles the saxons :confused:

[SleepyWitch]

Im rattling my brain here but .... can someone tell me how germanic influences entered english?? Because as I remember my english history ( which is granted a bit weak) the I cant rember what they were called the 3 tribes that later became the germans conqured Rome...when did they come to England??:confused: I rember the danes and the vikings getting into england, oh and the french, the romans, the Celts, the picts, the Angles the saxons :confused:

around 400 to 500 A.D., if i remember correctly, after the Romans had given Britain up. The Angles, Saxons and Yutes came to England from what is now northern Germany/ southern Denmark and settled there.
That's the classic version, but more recent studies say there might not have been so many Yutes.
In fact, the name "England" means land of the Angles.

so, basically, English ppl are Jerries :)
of course, not all English people are happy to be reminded of that what with the War and everything.
That's one reason why it's not widely known in England that English is a Germanic language :)

if your interested in this and want to read a nice "popular science" kind of book, I'd recommend
"The Stories of English" by David Crystal. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stories-English-David-Crystal/dp/0141015934/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/202-4832218-8755001?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176978248&sr=8-1)

[SleepyWitch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

hehe, in case you didn't know, the Queen would actually be called
Elizabeth of Saxe-Coburg or something, but they changed their name to "Windsor" (which is actually an imaginary name) during WW 1.

[Nightshade]

OK one more q if the angles and the saxons came from Germany who did the Romans invade??


EDIT : Stupid me I know this answer ...:rolleyes:

[SleepyWitch]

OK one more q if the angles and the saxons came from Germany who did the Romans invade??

before the Angles and Saxons, the British Isles were inhabited by the Britons (=Celts), but those were pushed to the Celtic fringe by the Angles and Saxons.

hehe, you'd better read it up in wikipedia. I'm not a historical linguist, so I'm a bit vague on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_settlement_of_Great_Britain_and_Irelan d

[SleepyWitch]

hehe, maybe i should ad that the queen is not "German" due to the Angles and Saxons but because the Eurpean dynasties intermarried later on.

[Eiseabhal]

Once a patronising monoglot asked me sneeringly "Ok so what's the Ghaidhlig for spaghetti?" I asked him what the English was. That put the kybosh on that line of arrogant linguistic superiority.

[PeterL]

I've just been reading Translations by Brian Friel. In it, the character Hugh is dismissive of the English language, saying that it is a language of commerce, and not one of culture or beauty. Hugh's motives are complicated, and Friel in no way suggests that this is his view. But it got me thinking about the meaning of language in general.

What do you think? Is the English language just a tool for business? Is it just useful in getting where you want to go? Or is it a rich and beautiful language in its own right?

I can understand someone thinking that, if the person was not fully familiar with English. English is the most versatile language; it has more words than any other language, and it imports words easily. It uses range from "Simple English", which is a limited number of English words that is used to train workers in certain tasks. At the other extreme is James Joyce, and some similarly eriudite people, who can effectively use several tens of thousands of words.

If one considers oly the sounds, then English is toward the middle, between languages that sound like water flowing, such as Polish and French, and languages that don't sound as pleasant, such as German and the Semitic languages.

English is whatever a fluent speaker wants it to be.

I wasn't paying attention, and didn't remember posting here in 2007. Maybe threads should be closed after five years.

[JBI]

I can understand someone thinking that, if the person was not fully familiar with English. English is the most versatile language; it has more words than any other language, and it imports words easily. It uses range from "Simple English", which is a limited number of English words that is used to train workers in certain tasks. At the other extreme is James Joyce, and some similarly eriudite people, who can effectively use several tens of thousands of words.

If one considers oly the sounds, then English is toward the middle, between languages that sound like water flowing, such as Polish and French, and languages that don't sound as pleasant, such as German and the Semitic languages.

English is whatever a fluent speaker wants it to be.

I wasn't paying attention, and didn't remember posting here in 2007. Maybe threads should be closed after five years.
I agree, I came off as a shmuck in my post, though not as bad as other early posts. This must have been one of my first posts.