|
|
Is English a bastardised German?
"If Chinese borrowed dictionary entry words up to 60% from Latin, would it therefore no longer be a Sinitic language?"
Yes, in a way, it would. "Would it be latin?" Of course not. "Chinese grammar is less complex than English." Both are very simple, indeed. They are about equally "complex".
<<"If Chinese borrowed dictionary entry words up to 60% from Latin, would it therefore no longer be a Sinitic language?"
Yes, in a way, it would. >> What would it be then? Well then, according to this "logique", Korean would not be an Altaic/Isolate language. It would be remotely Altaic in its distant past, but now it would be a what?--Sino-Altaic Language? Even though it has no tonality, and most words are polysyllablic, and it conforms to agglutination (even on borrowed words), vowel harmony (likewise on borrowed words), Altaic syntax and so on? curious
"The thing, though, is that all the change that has occurred to English grammar over the centuries has been almost purely internal in nature - and thus still Germanic, albeit in a progressive rather than conservative manner. Consider that most Germanic languages today, other than Icelandic, Faroese, and Elfdalian have largely lost or at least severely pared down the noun declension characteristic of the old Germanic languages - and yet their syntax and morphology is still just as much Germanic as a whole."
Yes, most Germanic languages went through simplifications, but they didn't turn into a Chinese mish-mash of about 30% Germanic and 70% Latin/French words. That is what English is. "and yet their syntax and morphology is still just as much Germanic as a whole." Please exemplify.
<<"and yet their syntax and morphology is still just as much Germanic as a whole."
Please exemplify. >> Here: English borrowed the substantive noun "review" from French. In English, "review" is "declined" (so to speak) as a standard English noun: review, review's, reviews and reviews'. So even though the original word was borrowed, it was borrowed as a stem and is employed in English like any other normal germanic noun--on a germanic pattern established from Old English and Proto-Germanic. Same with verbs. We made a verb out of "review": "to review" (not reviewER, reviewARE, etc) We use it in English on a germanic pattern established from Old English: I review you review he reviews I reviewed you reviewed they reviewed we are reviewing we will review we have reviewed we will be reviewing we were reviewing we had been reviewing etc. you get the point So although a word has been borrowed, it is treated no different in English than a native English word. We don't say "I reviewERAI" or "reviewABO" for 'I will review'. We use the Germanic pattern of English for all future tense verbs. Same for all tenses. We do the same for borrowed adjectives, adverbs, whatever. Only the stems are borrowed. Everything else about the originating language is excluded. It is this undergirding structure that touches all words that come into English regardless of their origin that makes English Germanic
So what he said there is that the English "declension" patterns, no matter how silly and insignificant, are still "Germanic"? I would agree with that, but it's only a grain of sand of "Germanicness"... That is why I would agree that the Lexicon matters more in the case of English. A monoglot English speaker would have a much better shot at deciphering a French or Spanish text than a German text.
<What "grammar" for God's sakes? Modern English HAS PRACTICALLY NO GRAMMAR!>
Lol, I just wanted to write the same thing!
'Guest' : « English is nothing like French--which incidentally is itself a very Germanicized form of Romance language. »
Ah ! le retour de l'Arlésienne... Ça faisait longtemps. Puisque tu as pris la risque de t'aventurer en territoire miné, je t'invite à nous montrer ce que tu vaux en sautillant d'exemple syntaxique en illustration lexicologique. Si tu t'en sort indemne au bout du troisième exemple, tu auras le droit de revenir nous faire rire en seconde semaine... "Germanic-ness&quo : « ♫ ♫ and ♫: ♪. ♫ ♫ in ♫ of ♫ ("♫ ♫"): ♪. ♫ ♫, ♫ (♫ ♫, ♫ ♫, ♪) and ♫: ♪. ♫ (ou ♪) for ♫ (-e/-es), ♫ for ♫(more + , most + ; -er, -est), ♪: ♪. Hmmmm, seems pretty much ♪ to me ». C'est une belle chanson que tu nous chantes là. Malheureusement la ritournelle est trop connue pour entraîner... ♫ → emprunté au français ♪ → emprunté au latin
Thanks for posting in French!
Your comments were completely ignored LOL
<<"I think you're sorely confused about what "germanic" means, and what constitutes it."
Lol, oh, no problem then, please do "illuminate" me. What is it that "Germanic" means to you? >> I am still waiting for the light to strike me.
>>Ah ! le retour de l'Arlésienne... Ça faisait longtemps. Puisque tu as pris la risque de t'aventurer en territoire miné, je t'invite à nous montrer ce que tu vaux en sautillant d'exemple syntaxique en illustration lexicologique. Si tu t'en sort indemne au bout du troisième exemple, tu auras le droit de revenir nous faire rire en seconde semaine...
"Germanic-ness&quo : « ♫ ♫ and ♫: ♪. ♫ ♫ in ♫ of ♫ ("♫ ♫"): ♪. ♫ ♫, ♫ (♫ ♫, ♫ ♫, ♪) and ♫: ♪. ♫ (ou ♪) for ♫ (-e/-es), ♫ for ♫(more + , most + ; -er, -est), ♪: ♪. Hmmmm, seems pretty much ♪ to me ». C'est une belle chanson que tu nous chantes là. Malheureusement la ritournelle est trop connue pour entraîner... ♫ → emprunté au français ♪ → emprunté au latin<< Du musst doch dir erinnern, dass die zitierte Sätze zuerst sehr literarisch sind. Sie zeigen keinen gewöhnlichen Gebrauch auf Englisch auf. Folglich machen sie ein gute Beispiel des romanischen Einflusses auf wirkliche Englisch nicht.
Congratulations, Travis, you are already able to write 3 phrases in broken German.
The correct form is: "Du musst diCH doch erinnern". Jeez, what a bunch of German wannabeez!
My German's rusty, as I really have not used it much in quite a while; I just sometimes use German on here to respond to posts in French by greg myself.
<<I am still waiting for the light to strike me. >>
Ok, Keep waiting and please keep up informed |