Why do some here wish that English was linguistically pure?
<<Nah. Basically, all Western alphabets have the same origin: Latin, Runic, Greek, etc in Phoenician
I have no problem neeting (using) the Latin variety of it >>
By that same logic, you should have no problem with Latinate words since Latinate words, Teutonic words, and Hellenic words are all ultimately Indo-European anyway.
"These people who advocate purging the English language of Latinates are like the Nazis who advocated purging society of Jews, even though the Jews were the most productive members of society."
Funny you should say that. The whole purity of language business was a part of the crackpot "science" of ethnology* that soon arose out of Darwinism. The Theory of Evolution was rather quickly perverted to assume an ascending hierarchy of races, with the "Nordic Aryan" as the "best type."
From such notions sprang crank ideas about purifying the language. Both German and English had proponents of purging "Latinate" words.
We all know where this ultimately led: Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich and the ovens of Auschwitz.
So anyone anxious to be considered a nutbar, keep spouting your insane ideas about "language purity."
* The Nazis used to "prove" people were Aryan by measuring the features of their heads according to a specific formula.
<<How would you call "potassium hydride" using Germanic roots? >>
greg is correct.
However, the etymology he cites is not one that I am familiar with. We didn't borrow it through French. It comes from a pseudo-latinized (i.e. not Latin, but made to look latin) form of the English word 'potash' (< 'pot' + 'ash')
<<By that same logic, you should have no problem with Latinate words since Latinate words, Teutonic words, and Hellenic words are all ultimately Indo-European anyway. >>
No. Alphabets are not truly part of the language itself. It only represents how the language appears in written form. It's not ab apples to apples analogy.
What's an ab apple? Does that mean orange?
<<^^ just this could get english going back in the right direction. >>
I agree wholeheartedly.
<<But "rendezvous" sounds so much more refined than "meet". >>
Really? You think so? "Rondayvoo" --sounds like voodoo to me. Maybe "ren-dezz-vowse" (rhymes with 'house'). In any even, it means "Present yourself/yourselves!". It's an imperative form verb. We're using it as a noun. Makes no sense. This is not sophisticated. It's street-talk creole. Let's just say "Show-yourself".
Meet us at the showyourself--that's basically what you're saying. You think it's "refined" (?) because you don't really understand the true literal meaning, or it's abject simplicity.
<<What's an ab apple? Does that mean orange? >>
That's a typo. "an apple"
u know the 'b' is next to the 'n'! on an english keyboard
"I suppose, we ought to get rid of the Latin alphabet, too. Any plans to start writing English with the Runic alphabet? "
Why not. While we're at it we should start worshipping Woden and Thor instead of that false Christian deity.
<<Why not. While we're at it we should start worshipping Woden and Thor instead of that false Christian deity.>>
No--we neet (use) the Roman alphabet now and we don't worship Jupiter, Venus and Mars.
Laughworthy
<<Why not. While we're at it we should start worshipping Woden and Thor instead of that false Christian deity.>>
But we do say "Wednesday" (Woden's day) and "Thursday" (Thor's day) in bemend (remembrance) and oare (honor), don't we?
Yes, it's a relic of an ancient past.
-How can you be poetic if you have to replace words like 'rendezvous' with 'meeting'. -
Dating is preferred.
I have some questions for those lean toward the side of purification.
If you get what you wish, what will that leave for Shakespeare and other great English authors who used many latinisms (Read: almost all of them since La3amon)? Will they just be ignored as relics of the "degraded age of English"? Is the purification of English such a noble endeavor that it would be worth making classic literature, which has brought pride and fame to the English tongue, incomprehensible?
<<Yes, it's a relic of an ancient past. >>
Not so ancient--I used those words today.
<<If you get what you wish, what will that leave for Shakespeare and other great English authors who used many latinisms (Read: almost all of them since La3amon)? Will they just be ignored as relics of the "degraded age of English"? Is the purification of English such a noble endeavor that it would be worth making classic literature, which has brought pride and fame to the English tongue, incomprehensible? >>
I'm not all for complete purification, just a cleaning-house.
As far as Shakespeare and other great English writers, the Latinisms they note ("used") would still be largely understood, just like they are today. They may require a footnote--just like today.
Is purification such an athal (noble) undertaking? --Yes.
Will it negate historical English words? --No. They will still be in the language and accouth (familiar) to those who read the classics.
They will however not be the more almean (common) or stathal (basic) type words we brook (employ) every day.
"the Latinisms they note ("used") would still be largely understood, just like they are today. "
I doubt it, people are generally too lazy to learn a whole new vocabulary if it's no use to them in daily life. Assuming we're purging most of the latinisms from the language, it would also make the past four or five hundreds years of literature read like Chaucer reads to us today.
By the way, I'm guessing that if a common word such as "use" is not allowed in the purified tongue then the criteria for acceptable latinisms are quite stringent.