|
|
Does English sound like other Germanic languages?
"<<I'm afraid to say that maybe the reason so many people don't think it sounds Germanic>>
What people? where?"
You can find a ton of stuff on Google about what English sounds like to people who don't speak it. Nobody says it sounds Germanic. They almost seem to like it because of how un-Germanic it sounds! They don't talk about its character. They just say, "Oh, I like English," or, "English is pretty good," or they say they really love English because of how melodic it sounds. That's the only reason they like it - because it's melodic. I really don't get the feeling they think it sounds Germanic. A lot of times they go out of their way to say how un-Germanic it sounds.
"Scots is the most Germanic language, English is less so. The language that sounds the least Germanic is German. Danish is a little more Germanic than German."
As somebody on this forum said twice, all Germanic languages sound Germanic by definition.
<<They almost seem to like it because of how un-Germanic it sounds!>>
Do you think they mean "un-German"?
Granted, English does not sounds like German, at least not to me. But English sounds like Dutch, like Scots, like Norwegian and Danish a little, but not German, especially Southern vaieties of German.
"Do you think they mean "un-German"?
Granted, English does not sounds like German, at least not to me. But English sounds like Dutch, like Scots, like Norwegian and Danish a little, but not German, especially Southern vaieties of German."
If it sounds like Norwegian and Danish even a little, it must sound kind of like German. I would still like to know if it has Germanic coolness. Also, if you're talking about the English accent, I think what it sounds like is German.
German and Dutch sound the most Germanic - cool and harsh.
The reason why English sounds different compared to the other Germanic languages is because it is a vowel-accented language. That's also why it sounds melodic in a way. If you listen to English, you almost miss the consonants, compared to, say Dutch or German.
Another reason is the shortening of English words, the scarce pre- and suffixes you can find in German and Dutch:
lost - verloren - verloren
won - gewonnen - gewonnen
This makes German and Dutch sound very similar.
"The reason why English sounds different compared to the other Germanic languages is because it is a vowel-accented language. That's also why it sounds melodic in a way. If you listen to English, you almost miss the consonants, compared to, say Dutch or German.
Another reason is the shortening of English words, the scarce pre- and suffixes you can find in German and Dutch:
lost - verloren - verloren
won - gewonnen - gewonnen
This makes German and Dutch sound very similar."
Good points. I still ask, though if it has that cool Germanic sound. I'm not just talking about German. There's also Dutch, but that may be to close to really know what it sounds like. The Scandinavian languages also sound quite sophisticated. Does it sound like that?
<<The reason why English sounds different compared to the other Germanic languages is because it is a vowel-accented language. That's also why it sounds melodic in a way. If you listen to English, you almost miss the consonants, compared to, say Dutch or German.
Another reason is the shortening of English words, the scarce pre- and suffixes you can find in German and Dutch:
lost - verloren - verloren
won - gewonnen - gewonnen
This makes German and Dutch sound very similar. >>
People often don't think English sounds very Germanic because of little differences like that above between itself and its closest relatives in West Germanic. But, sometimes English can appear more North Germanic like than the other West Germanic languages.
Take the "ge-" prefix for example. Still very common in German and Dutch but practically obsolete in English (surviving only in disguised forms such as 'aware' and 'enough'). But this prefix is not incredibly common in Scandinavian languages. Compare the following:
English: bring, braught, braught
Dutch: brengen, bracht, gebracht
German: bringen, brachte, gebracht
Norwegian: bringe, brakte, brakt
English: eat, ate, eaten
Dutch: eten, at, gegeten
German: essen, ass, gegessen
Norwegian: ete, åt, ett
There are numerous examples of this. Even word order is often more similar with English and languages like Danish and Norwegian. Scandinavian languages tend to bunch verbs together in a sentence like English rather than putting them on the end of the sentence.
In many ways, such similarities between English and the continental North Germanic languages seem to be more a matter of convergent evolution than anything else, as Old English definitely seems far more West Germanic-like and less North Germanic-like in this regard.
>>But, sometimes English can appear more North Germanic like than the other West Germanic languages.<<
In the same way, I might claim that German and Dutch are in that way more similar to the North Germanic languages (excluding Icelandic), as all of them lost the th sound (more or less).
I agree with Travis. It's nothing more than convergent evolution.
In generally speaking jordan shoes are a function that specifies the output of running, jumping, or an entire economy for all combinations of inputs. A pair of air jordan shoes compares the practice of the existing entities converting inputs X into output y to determine the most efficient practice shoes function of the existing entities, whether the most efficient feasible practice production or the most efficient actual practice production.In either case, the maximum output of a technologically-determined production process is a mathematical function of input factors of production .Take everyone convenit is the aim of [url=http://www.hijordans.com/]jordan shoes[/url] Put another way, given the set of all technically feasible combinations of output and inputs, only the combinations encompassing a maximum output for a specified will set of inputs would constitute the production function. Alternatively, a production function can be defined as the specification of the minimum input requirements needed to produce designated quantities of output, given available technology. It is usually presumed that unique [url=http://www.hijordans.com/]air jordan shoes[/url] can be constructed for good materil.
By assuming that the maximum shoes technologically possible from a given set of inputs is achieved, economists using a production function in analysis are abstracting away from the engineering and managerial problems associated with a particular that production process. The quality and managerial problems of technical efficiency are assumed to be solved, so that analysis can focus on the shoes problems of allocative efficiency. The air jordan shoes is assumed to be making allocative choices concerning how much of each input factor to use, given the price of the factor and the technological determinants represented by the production function. You will be pleased to [url=http://www.hijordans.com/]buy jordan shoes[/url] here when they cost the same price. A decision frame, in which one or more inputs are held constant, may be used; for example, capital may be assumed to be fixed or constant in the short run, and long run.and only labour variable, while in the long run, both capital and labour factors are variable, but the production function itself remains fixed.
The relationship of Nike shoes and air jordan shoes is non-monetary, that is, a production function relates physical inputs to physical outputs, and prices and costs are not considered. So you can believe the quality of the jordan shoes.Thank you to visit [url=http://www.hijordans.com/]www.hijordans.com[/url]. You are very welcome to see it. [url=http://www.hijordans.com/]www.hijordans.com[/url]
English is a mongrel language, some call it a bastard language. Because it is a mishmash of so many languages it has not developed properly, its grammar is still very crude, its pronunciation still very primitive.
The fact is that it is globally recognized as a poster boy for a lisp.
English infamous lisp isn't limited to the “th” sound. It is practically everything. But consider many other sounds, such as “r”!
Not being able to properly pronounce a rolled 'r' is a speech impediment which causes the Anglos to pronounce their r's as w's. Correct? Can you say c o r r e c t ?
In schools around the world small children learn about the Greek orator Demosthenes overcoming a severe speech impediment, an inability to pronounce the “r” sound, by practising speech with pebbles in his mouth. Probably his example isn't used or his name known in the English speaking world.
It is a speech impediment to improperly pronounce of 's' and 'z' and 'l' and 'a' and many other sounds Anglos can't properly pronounce.
But to feel good about their lispy language they have developed their own definition of what a lisp is. Just like the Spaniards, of course. Who also don't lisp.
Guess what? Nobody who can hear and see you speak is buying it.
Anglos permanent speech impediment is much more obvious and tragic when they attempt to speak in other languages. God give me patience to hear those Anglos singing Oremus.
Anglo's mispronunciation presents problems in scientific nomenclature expressed in classical Greek or Latin. Important words are often mispronounced, causing confusion among legal and healthcare professionals.
I am sure you have seen those phrase books for travellers attempting to provide guide to foreign pronunciations? They are full of hilarious ways of spelling meant to bring simple sounds closer to the Anglo's twisted concepts of pronunciation. But don't get me even started on an absolutely idiotic spelling in that barbaric language.
To most foreigners ALL English speakers sound lisping, most visible (yes, also visible) in the UK and least disturbing in the guttural, nasal 'Merican English.
Experts say this isn't technically a lisp but it doesn't change anything because to outsiders it looks and sounds like a terrible lisp.
Most people feel self conscious pronouncing ‘th’ with their tongue stuck between their teeth as it sounds like speaking with a lisp.
Lazy tongue, wet, spitty, “hot potato in your mouth” type of pronunciation is normally associated with English pronunciation.
To all Latin American speakers of Spanish the sounds of the Castilian (European) Spanish resemble a frontal lisp, as in "Bar-the-lo-na", speech impediment and just like English protruding and escaping tongue are unpleasant to hear and see.
http://spanish.about.com/cs/qa/a/q_lisp.htm
Frequent response from the ESL teachers:
“How do you put your tongue when you pronounce English words?
If those tricks don't help, just try to imitate someone with a bad lisp.”
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t438.htm
Latin was spoken throughout half the civilized world for centuries, inclusive of the “Terra Barbara”(Land of the Barbarians - Britain). Unfortunately only a little rubbed of the Brits from the near perfect Latin grammar and exquisite Latin sounds. Because of that today's English is limping along with savage Germanic grammar, crude spelling, and arbitrary lispy pronunciation.
English hasn't survived that long yet as a world language and one can only hope it will perish for good.
I always thought Spanish sounded nasty: harsh and labial, it sounds like a motor. It's a language that sounds especially nasty on a high-pitched woman.
It's all subjective.
|