Frisian (I guess West Frisian)

<<As far as I can tell, only 14 out of 207 words in the English Swadesh list are definately not Germanic (person, animal, forest, fruit, flower, vomit, count, push, river, lake, mountain, round, because, turn). >>

"forest" is a mixed word. It was a Frankish word first (cf. German "Forst"), then loaned into Old French. The word is mixed, because although the form of the word is assumed to derive from Late Latin (forestis [silva]), the meaning does not come from a Latinic development, but a germanic one, and does it represent anything that would naturally have developed in romance from the Latin root.

"lake" in English comes from Old English "lacu" (inland sea, watercourse, body of water), and still preserves the original meaning of "stream", "channel" in English dialects. The form helps to attest to this: long "a" from ME "lake" < OE "lacu" as opposed to short "a" of OF "lac".

<<Def. of JOY: [edit] Etymology
Via Middle English and Old French, from Latin gaudium (-joie-)
FREUGDE: Frysk
Freude: Deutsch
>>

I think some on the trhead are overestimating the Anglo-Norman position a bit. Romance never had a significant influence on English, as if English were impacted or acted upon by Norman French. The truth is rather that English conscientiously apprehended to itself fashionable words at the time, both Latinic and germanic in origin (French contributes both types to English indescriminately). There was also a huge amount of Old Norse coming into English as well causing it to differentiate from Frisian which was less affected.

Even if the Norman Invasion had not occurred, English and Frisian would still probably be different in regards to their words for "joy": English would be "win" (OE wynn), "bliss" (OE bliths), "seal" (OE sael) or "fay" (OE gefea) and Frisian would show the Dutch/German influenced "freugde"

Genetically, there is close relation, but the two have drifted apart: English independent + Old Norse + overlay of Romance vocabulary; and Frisian Dutch dominated.

the 'be-' of 'because' is Germanic...

>>[snip]

Genetically, there is close relation, but the two have drifted apart: English independent + Old Norse + overlay of Romance vocabulary; and Frisian Dutch dominated. <<

I have to completely agree myself. Romance influence is but one small part of why the Anglic languages differ so much today from the rest of West Germanic. Consider everyday spoken English - it is *far* more Germanic in character than literary English, and yet it still differs greatly from the rest of non-Anglic West Germanic even when one overlooks all the words that are Romance or Latinate in etymology.

>>I have to completely agree myself. Romance influence is but one small part of why the Anglic languages differ so much today from the rest of West Germanic. Consider everyday spoken English - it is *far* more Germanic in character than literary English, and yet it still differs greatly from the rest of non-Anglic West Germanic even when one overlooks all the words that are Romance or Latinate in etymology. <<

Yeah I have noticed that. I have wondered if the similarity of the other Germanic languages in their everyday vocabulary can be attributed to areal influence, whereas the insular position of English caused it to develop independently and because of this English will often use words from a different root. Compare 'Back' with the likes of 'Rücken' and 'Rug' which are cognate with 'Ridge' and 'Tree' with 'Baum' and 'Boom' etc. Icelandic also often uses words from a different root and has very little foreign influence.

>>"forest" is a mixed word. It was a Frankish word first (cf. German "Forst"), then loaned into Old French. The word is mixed, because although the form of the word is assumed to derive from Late Latin (forestis [silva]), the meaning does not come from a Latinic development, but a germanic one, and does it represent anything that would naturally have developed in romance from the Latin root. <<

Yeah, I see your point. Didn't the Latin root mean 'outside'? Peculiar sense development.

<<Yeah, I see your point. Didn't the Latin root mean 'outside'? Peculiar sense development. >>

Yes, "silva" was the Latin word for "forest, woods".

It was Charlemagne and his Frankish followers who first starting using the "forestis" part mistakingly thinking it meant "forest" in general ("forestis sylva" = "the royal forest" [Charlemagne's Capitularies]).

"forestis" in Latin simply means "outside"

Back to the intelligibility with Frisian, intelligibility would be easier for English speakers if Frisian were more familiar to us.

I read in one post where someone said that Spanish was more intelligible than Frisian; and I can see a point there. Spanish is familiar to many English speakers whether they've studied it or not. Here in the States, we are constantly exposed to Spanish (in one way/level or another) in the media, and print, etc. We pick it up in the way most Europeans pick up their neighboring languages, and our ears are already tuned-in to adjust to Spanish pronunciation so that we pick out cognates with a Spanish accent readily.

Intelligibilty with Frisian would be easier for an English person, especially a Southern English speaker.

For us here in the states, the unfamiliarity with the Frisian "accent" naturally keeps us from tuning in to what would otherwise be intelligible speech.

<<Compare 'Back' with the likes of 'Rücken' and 'Rug' which are cognate with 'Ridge' and 'Tree' with 'Baum' and 'Boom' etc. Icelandic also often uses words from a different root and has very little foreign influence. >>

Right.
Our use of 'back' is reminiscent of Scandinavian (Eng. back = Swed. 'bak'/'baksida' ("backside"), even where the adverb is concerned (cf. come back = Swed. 'kom tillbaka' (lit. "come to-back"), where German uses "zurück" (lit. "to-back").

'Baum' and 'boom' are relatives of our word 'beam' (large piece of wood), but Scandinavian uses the same root we do for the actual item (Ice. 'tré'; Dan. 'træ', Norw. 'tre', etc.)

Frisian:
kaai
tsiis
swiet
wiet
twa skiep

English:
key
cheese
sweet
wet
two sheep

Dutch:
sleutel
kaas
zoet
nat
twee schapen

German:
Schlüßel
Käse
süß(e)
naß
zwei Schafe

"Bread, butter and green cheese
Is good English and good Friese"

<<Frisian is suposed to be our closest relative - our sister language - and yet none of it seems to be intelligible; no obvious similarities.
>>
If you worked though a Frisian text with a dictionary I can guarantee that you would be a able to find an English cognate for almost every word. Of course you won't understand the spoken language at first but if you familiarise yourself with the differences in pronouciation, word-order and word-use, it should be possible to train yourself to hear Frisian as a variety of English.
Although English has adopted thousands of Romance words almost all of the Germanic core survives in some form - sometimes only in regional dialects or archaic words.
It is interesting that people have compared Frisian to Lalland Scots. The Frisians are supposed to have settled in Scotland after and perhaps during Roman times and given their name to places such as DumFRIEShire. Perhaps Lalland Scots comes from that invasion rather than later Anglo-Saxon expansion.
This is my first post - thankyou Antimoon for providing the opportunity to discuss such fascinating issues with likeminded people!

<<I read in one post where someone said that Spanish was more intelligible than Frisian; and I can see a point there.>>

Yes because so many English words derive from Latin via Old Norse/French, and Spanish is Romance. Not a huge leap there..

<<<<I read in one post where someone said that Spanish was more intelligible than Frisian; and I can see a point there.>>

Yes because so many English words derive from Latin via Old Norse/French, and Spanish is Romance. Not a huge leap there.. >>

Uh, no.
I think you missed the gist of my point there.

The false sense of intelligibility with Spanish comes from the fact that English speakers by and large are more familiar with Spanish than with their sister language Frisian.

Nice try again there, Span-Addict :)

Dutch and west Frisian are mutually intelligeble. Dutch will hence help you with Frisian, but mostly when spoken as West Frisian uses Dutch ortography for its writing, so many words are harder to recognize.

German will not help you.

<<Dutch and west Frisian are mutually intelligeble.>>

Really?
Reports of Dutch students living/visiting with exchange families in Friesland testify just the opposite... Many say that they cannot understand a word when Frisian is spoken to them.


<<Dutch will hence help you with Frisian, but mostly when spoken as West Frisian uses Dutch ortography for its writing, so many words are harder to recognize.>>

West Frisian uses Dutch orthography??? Some things are like Dutch, but other aspects--most aspects--of Frisian writing are not like Dutch...

No they really are. Omrop Fryslan for example has 3 times as many listeners and viewers than there are speakers of Frisian.

You misread my comment on orthography. Frisian is written with Dutch orthography. Frisian sounds are written down the way a Dutch-speaker would write them down.

That's why you end up with "kaai", "tsiis" and "swiet" instead of for example "kay" "chees" or "sweet".

It's also the reason why a Dutch speaker can simply speak Frisian by reading it from a paper.