Second Language?

[Brasil]

In Lusitania (today Portugal) there were two ethinic groups living: Celtics and Iberics. The language spoken was a mix of two languages: Celtic + Iberic = Celtiberic.

Then, began the foreign invasions.
- Came the first invasion: Ligore
- The second invasion:Phoenicians (they came from where we call today Lebanon). The Phoenicians were sailors and they founded a port in Lusitania, called "Porto Cale", today Porto City, north of Portugal (indeed, the name of the country came from the name of the old port founded by the Phoenicians sailors).
- The third invasions came from Greece. The greeks were sailors as well. So, Since the begining, the tradition of sailing became very familiar to the Lusitan people.
Until that moment, the language was a mix of Celtiberic + Ligore + Phoenicians + Greek.
- Then came to Lusitania the most important influence, the Latin (Roman Empire invasion). Latin is the basic structure of any Romance language.
- After the fall of the Roman Empire, came the Visigoths. So, Germanic became another influence.
- Another invasion came: Arabs (called Moors). They were Islam (Muslims) - for 300 years in Iberic Peninsula. A Great contribution in architecture, language, sciences and agriculture.
- The book Os Lusíadas (Lusiads) by Camões is a epic poem, it tells about the war between the kingdom of Portugal (Catholic) and the Muslims. But the main theme of Os Lusíadas is the navigation around the African continent trying to find a new route to India. The Portuguese sailors became heros in that poem (Indeed, Portugal was the first european nation, the political power became centralised and the Portuguese people, with the tradition of sailing and the strategic geographical position, went to the sea before anyone). Till today, the Fado (Portuguese folk song) have the sea as main theme. In songs, girls cry for their husbands in sea, and the feeling is "saudade" (= to miss something).

- So until this moment, the Portuguese language were a mix of Celtiberic + Ligore + Phoenicians + Greek + Germanic + Arabic; and the main structure is the Latin language.

Colonization of Brazil by the Portuguese people:
Some words entered into the Portuguese language:
-From Tupi-Guarani (one of the groups of languages, spoken by native indians in Brazil);
-From Bantu (came from the African people);

Independece of Brazil:
- The languages of the immigrants (Italian, German, Japanese) gave some words to Portuguese language. New words came especially from the Italian.
- French was the language that had the greatest influence at the time.

Today:
Portuguese has influence from English, in some words (about information technology, marketing terms, etc)

[Brasil]

English
- First, the Celtic people lived in Britain.
- Then, came the Romans (with the Latin language). They gave politic and economic terms (vocabulary till that time unknown).
- So, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the barbarian invasors came to Britain: the Anglo and the Saxon people. That is the basic structure of the English gramatic. The Germanic influence was the most important to the English language structure.
- A new period came with the Christians, the Latin once again gave a vocabulary of abstract words to the British people. Before it, the commuincation was very simple.
- Another invasion: the Vikings, from Denmark. Another influence in gramatic and vocabulary.
- Normans period: the French became the official language in Britain, for 300 years, but spoken only by the elite (high class). Some expressions and vocabularies from French remain in English language till today.
- Another period came: press, post system, literature (Shakespeare), first gramatical book, Industrial Revolution, dictionaries.

That was the history since the old English (Germanic and Latin influence) to the Modern English.
Definition: English is a Anglo-Saxon language, from the Germanic group, from the Indo-European family.

English in other languages:
In French: Anglais
In Italian: Inglese
In Portuguese: Inglês
In Spanish: Inglés

England in other languages
In French: Angleterre
In Italian: Inghilterra
In Spanish and Portuguese: Inglaterra
It means Anglo Land (land of the Anglos) originally.

- In U.S, English won influence from the vernacular language (black english).
- Till today, English wins (receives) influence from other languages: French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Japanese, etc...

[PeterL]

English
- First, the Celtic people lived in Britain.
- Then, came the Romans (with the Latin language). They gave politic and economic terms (vocabulary till that time unknown).

Those had barely any influence on the English language. The Romans were long gone, and the Celts were moved off the land as the Angles and the Saxons moved in.

- So, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the barbarian invasors came to Britain: the Anglo and the Saxon people. That is the basic structure of the English gramatic. The Germanic influence was the most important to the English language structure.

They were the 'Angles', not Anglos. Old English was a purely Germanic language.

[QUOTE]- A new period came with the Christians, the Latin once again gave a vocabulary of abstract words to the British people. Before it, the commuincation was very simple.

Christianity was an exceedingly small influence on the English language.

- Another invasion: the Vikings, from Denmark. Another influence in gramatic and vocabulary.

The Vikings raided. The ones who settled were mostly Angles. The Viking invasion that was importnt was the one by the grandson of Hrolf the Ganger.

- Normans period: the French became the official language in Britain, for 300 years, but spoken only by the elite (high class). Some expressions and vocabularies from French remain in English language till today.

This was the Viking invasion that eventually led to the development of Middle English. Frpm 1066 and the end of the 14th cen. was the period when English became what it is now

- Another period came: press, post system, literature (Shakespeare), first .gramatical book, Industrial Revolution, dictionaries.

By Shakespeare's time English had become what it is today.

That was the history since the old English (Germanic and Latin influence) to the Modern English.

The history of the English language is a little more involved than that. Don't forget the Great Vowel Shift.

[JBI]

The new period he speaks of he has misunderstood. The period came with a general spelling, and general definition created by Johnson with the publication of his Dictionary of the English Language which essentially created what we have today. Post-Milton English is slightly different than renaissance, to a degree that is higher than most western languages (so I am told). I am told that it is easier for a French speaker to read Moliere than an English speaker to read Shakespeare. Either way, PeterL you are right in the sense that English didn't really change much on the Island itself.

Either way, as anyone who has studied Old English can attest, it shares very little with modern day spoken German.

[Brasil]

The History (historia) I told about English language (lingua) is a resume (resumo), yes, very simple (simplice) resume, I know.

English is a Germanic language, I told that.
But the influence (influentia) of Christians (christianu) and Latin was very deep. I read once a English dictionary (dictionariu) till the end. It was full of Greek-Latin words.

The History I told about Portuguese language is also a resume. How could I tell all the details in a forum on line (linea)? If I wanted to tell all the periods (periodu), I would have written a book.

But the History of Portuguese language is very interesting (interessante), try to read my (meu) resume above.
I wait commentaries (commentariu)

Obs: all words between ( ) are from the Latin language, except "history", from Greek. See how English and Latin have similar words.

[slobone]

I am told that it is easier for a French speaker to read Moliere than an English speaker to read Shakespeare.

No doubt, but Molière lived 60 years later than Shakespeare. A better comparison is Molière vs. Milton, and Milton is substantially easier to read than Shakespeare.

One of the reasons Shakespeare is hard to read is that he used a lot of language that was unusual even for his time. He used words that are found nowhere else, and stretched ordinary words to the limits of their meanings. Marlowe, who was actually dead by the time Shakespeare wrote most of his best-known plays, is easier to read. And Shakespeare's early plays are easier than his later ones.

[slobone]

Obs: all words between ( ) are from the Latin language, except "history", from Greek. See how English and Latin have similar words.

Yes, but words with Latin roots (radices) entered English by two different routes (itinera) -- indirectly through French in the Middle Ages, and directly later on during the centuries when every educated Englishman learned Latin in school.

[Brasil]

Machado de Assis (Rio de Janeiro, 1839 — Rio de Janeiro, 1908), in his book The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas, created a currious narrator: Bras Cubas is a ghost (a deceased) that comes from the grave to tell his own history.

- Bras Cubas (Narrator): I am a "deceased author", not an "author deceased" reporting his memoirs, and more, describing his own delirium.
(sorry about the translation, maybe it will make no sense in English)

Often, the narrator drives his words to the reader: "Come with me, dear reader, let's see this little house..." It's a common thing in Machado's books.

So, the narrator says a curious detail about himself:
Perhaps, the frankness (meaning: sincerity) that I expose and stress my mediocrity alarmes the reader ; I warn that openness (=frankness, sincerity) is the first virtue of a deceased. In life, the look of view, the contrast of interests, the greed of people... oblige (requires) us to silence the old rags, disguise the tears and passions, ... because in that case, you can save the shame, which is a painful feeling, and hypocrisy, which is a horrible addiction. But in death, what a difference! What freedom!

I think that is a photography of our society till today. Even now, in this very forum, we're trying to hide the poorness of our speech, or in Bras Cubas narrator's word: "to silence the old rags".

Quincas Borba, a philosopher caracter from another Machado's novel, appears also in this book, the Posthumous Memoirs, talking to the living Bras Cubas (not to the "deceased author" and narrator, but to the living one).
So, in this intertextuality, we can see a caracter (Quincas Borba), as a living person with a past, a full history (from the homonym novel), talking to another caracter (Bras Cubas) as a living person, and all this scene is narrated by the "deceased Bras Cubas".

So, I think (as Bras Cubas did after his death) we must apart ourselves from the things which we think we know, then in fact, we will have a little idea about what life means. You don't need to wait for your death to do that (as Bras Cubas did), you can do that while you are reading this text (or latter, but not to late).

My advice for all:
Learn another language, know more about other cultures, travel a lot, search for other readings, study philosophies, analyse your life before it is too late...
Open your eyes for unknown.

[JBI]

No doubt, but Molière lived 60 years later than Shakespeare. A better comparison is Molière vs. Milton, and Milton is substantially easier to read than Shakespeare.

One of the reasons Shakespeare is hard to read is that he used a lot of language that was unusual even for his time. He used words that are found nowhere else, and stretched ordinary words to the limits of their meanings. Marlowe, who was actually dead by the time Shakespeare wrote most of his best-known plays, is easier to read. And Shakespeare's early plays are easier than his later ones.

Milton easier than Shakespeare? I disagree. Miltonic syntax isn't even really English; the word order seems borrowed from Greek, and the word usage irregular. The plot of Milton (especially his later works) is far more difficult to understand on the basic levels than Shakespeare. If I wanted an exact person I probably would have gone with Montaigne, though I am sure a more accurate comparison can be drawn. The point was really just to stress how the language has changed drastically, relative to French, in terms of pulling in more influences, and adapting to accept Colonial words and pronunciations. Honestly though, most languages (written languages) have gone under such changes. The root of the language exactly has no bearing on whether it is better or not. I am told Esperanto is the easiest language to learn, but I doubt anyone is going to run and learn it just because it is so easy.

[slobone]

I don't think you'll find many people to agree with you that Milton is harder to read than Shakespeare (if you mean without reference to footnotes). Yes, Milton's syntax is unusual, but it can be deciphered, which Shakespeare often can't be, except by scholars (who usually disagree).

But I do agree with you about 17th century French being closer to 21st century French than is the case in English. Particularly if you read the English book with the original spelling and punctuation.

[Brasil]

- Shakespeare: "God, have mercy! What cannot be racked from words in five centuries? One could wring, methinks, a flood from a damp clout!" (Shakespeare about a literature class where a lot of analysis were made about his work) - Taken from "The Immortal Bard" by Isaac Asimov (1954).
Did anybody here read about the New Criticism?


Does it mean for anyone who is harder to read or who is easier?
Art is not for criticize or judge, art is for apreciate, enjoy.

To criticize is the same of assume you know something.

"all I know is that I know nothing".
Socrates.

it means: We must know ourselves and ending the prejudice inside our heads.



I also love Shakespeare! And I love all novels about King Arthur.
I apreciate H. G. Wells, Alan Poe, Tolkien, Oscar Wild...
but literature is not just English. Literature is not just Shakespeare!


Try to learn something beyond Shakespeare, ok?
Shakespeare is too basic, everybody who studies literature begins with Shakespeare. Machado de Assis was as great writer as Shakespeare. But no english person knows about Machado's novels. Typical egocentrism of culture!
The day I find a english person that tells me "I have read Machado de Assis" I will have found a interesting person.

Till there...Read my post before, it talks about knowing other cultures, self analysing, leaving the prejudice, and enjoing the life.

[JBI]

Machado de Assis and Shakespeare are not on the same level. Shakespeare is significant because of his time period, Assis came much later, and thereby wasn't important in world literature the same way. By the time Assis was alive, Shakespeare was already the ideal of perfection in English letters. Everything after seems to be under his influence, to the point where Shakespeare is still the focus point. Perhaps it is your nationalism that tries to drag Machado de Assis on par, to play the devils advocate (not saying I quite agree). In terms of Brazilian letters you perhaps are correct, but let us remember we must look at literature as a whole. Discrediting the bard seems as ethnocentric as crediting him. Just because he is considered the strongest of English letters, doesn't mean he isn't.

[Brasil]

...many of the Greek playwrights, Arthur Brooke, Seneca, Ovidio and Greek Mythology.

By your logic, we could say Shakespeare is under the Greek Mythology.

So, is Shakespeare better than Machado just because Shakespeare came first?

Did you read any Machado's novel?


I read Dante, Cervantes, Machado and Shakespeare.
For me, Machado is as great as any one of them.

Machado was very poor. He learned how to write and to read by his own ways, all alone. He became self-educated reading the classics of literature and philosophy. He translated his books to other languages. How did he learned a lot of foreign languages? Alone, by his own will.

Don't tell me "Shakespeare was the godness of inspiration for all world literature", that is arrogance.

Machado's literature is rich by his own credits.

[Brasil]

O Alienista (the alienist, I do not know how to translate it) -
A doctor, owner of a hospice, discover a pattern to classify madness: everything that is beyond the normal is madness.
The doctor put into his clinic some people who have such behaviour.
Later, almost all the city people are hospitalized, and the city almost empty, because he discovered that almost all people have this pattern of behaviour.
But he thinks "the majority must provides the standard of behaviour". Then he begins to consider mad the "balanced people". He gives freedom to the mad ones to submit the minority "healthy" of individuals to an intensive treatment.
In the end, all are healed, but the doctor hospitalizes himself.

That was just a resume about a book of Machado de Assis.
Machado was very ironic and original in his works.
His books have a fine sense of elegance and sarcasm, both working together.

[JCamilo]

For god's sake Brasil, he never said Shakespeare come first and that was the reason of Shakespeare superiority over Machado, he said Shakespeare was stabilished and changing texts even 200 years after his death when Machado was starting.
THere is a handful of writers that are equal to Shakespeare, Machado is just not one of them. Even monsters like Borges, Cervantes, Ovid, Chaucer or Keats are not as good as him, they may even had momments (like Machado, Camões, Guimarães Rosa and Fernando Pessoa had) that they are almost good as Shakespeare. But Shakespeare had those momments over and over and over. Just think how about all main myths, archetypicals stories have some greek root and Shakespeare alone produced the moderm revenge story, the moderm love story, the moderm envy story, etc. He alone make up for centuries of classical culture. It is not when or where he was born, it is looking the literature today (A work of critic, you like to complain about critics but you are so prone to produce critical vallues, misguided as they are). Think about Pele. It is Shakespeare - the perfection all must attain, all try and a few manage to do (by the way, the handful of writers that could be as good as shakespeare are Dante, Virgil, maybe Homer and Goethe and who knows in a few centuries we we know if Joyce too).
Knowing that Shakespeare is superior to Machado does not hurt at all Machado's merits. But the two guys are talking about difference of language and it was you who come with the need to compare both. Your nationalism is hurting your sense of judgement over and over.

By the way, I found Milton easier to read than Shakespeare too. And when I read Milton long ago it was the first time I got something in not moderm english to read. But then, even Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde was sometimes more easier to read than a few Shakespearean works. I wonder if that have anything to do with the fact I understand portuguese...