»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
A Linguistic Question
| Philosophy 101 |
|
A Linguistic Question |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
At dictionary.com (whose source is The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language) we find yin and yang. Just because these words are in the english dictionary, do you consider them "English"? What do you think makes a word "English"? |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Usage. When enough "English speaking people" start using it, that it becomes commonplace. Yin and Yang, I would say, could now be considered English words of Chinese origin. (I'm guessing, "Chinese", it may actually have come from somewhere other than China)". Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But how is it right to call another language's words our language's, when these have their own roots and histories, and identities etymologically and linguistically distinct from each other? If we wish to use Chinese among our english words, why not call it Chinese? It just seems wrong and misleading to use words from other languages and call them "English." It's done so casually today by all people that it is not really questioned anymore. That doesn't make it right. It seems to me a word from Chinese should be called Chinese. And a word from English should be called English. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-08-2005 03:01 AM).] |
||
|
Capricious Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 89California, USA |
How far back will you go, then? Modern English is a mishmosh of words borrowed from many languages ... and furthermore, many of those languages were borrowed largely from other, older languages, all the way back to the first time some primitive man grunted with a purpose. If you insist on being a purist, then say we all speak various dialects of Caveman.  OR we could just say that Yin and Yang, rather than being actual English words simply because they were included in a dictionary of the English language, are used often enough in English-speaking countries and publications to deserve some recognition and definition in our tomes of reference. After all, most English speakers couldn't exactly pick up a Chinese dictionary and read it, in Chinese, for the sake of learning the definition of yin or yang, could they? Shall we have a thousand dictionaries, ie "The English dictionare of the Chinese language," etc? That's a lot of dead trees.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: with the affinity for philology / etymology that you have, Essorant, I am surprised that you don't realize that most of the words we speak come from histories which are not our own ... from indeed pre-English languages. Should we not, therefore, call them English words? "English" in the sense of present linguistic usage, not in the sense of origin. Perhaps that is the answer, to make a distinction in what we mean by "English". Just like my Chinese daughter (adopted) is just as American as any Joe Smith. Her nationality is American. Her ethnicity is Chinese. We can make the same distincition when we say "English". Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hi Capricious "How far back will you go, then?" English! As it was founded as distinct group of dialects, that is not, and was not from Latin, not from Greek, and especially not from Chinese! I'm not saying there should may be no exceptions i.e. the word cup is a good example of a word that came very early into English from Latin. But cup looks and feels especially like Germanic and English so despite it being foreign, it at least has reasonable likeness that "chimes" with the characteristic familiarities of Germanic and English. But making exceptions and accepting words as "English" still doesn't make them "English" It just means we overlook, ignore, or don't know where they are from. And I think more and more people are making the less distinction, not conciously, but by learning less and knowing less about languages in general. They don't have a strong knowledge about Germanic from Italic, Italic from Germanic, and others, especially when most of what they enounter is in a mixed state and treated as one. Therefore they make less and less distinction, and mixing more and more words and elements of these differnt languages and treating them as one language "english" only encourages them to learn less and less any in its purity, and to make less distinction and know where those distinctions come from. It pleases their ignorance to just treat and call it all as "English" I find it disappointing that something our ancestors much emphasis on, language, is so unmindfully spoken with today. It is a "constant" among everything we do. Yet learning in language, seems to be treated like "the bottom of the barrel" subject. People shall put Calculus on the table before they'll put learning about what they use every day: language. "Shall we have a thousand dictionaries, ie "The English dictionare of the Chinese language," etc?" No; but I think there could be two section in the dictionary: one for English and one for foreign words. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And you see this as a bad thing? The Tower of Babel was a curse, not a boon. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You are right Stephenos. English did come from a wider Ancestor, but that is because it evolved into a distinct group itself, distinct from that ancestor and distinct from even the closest relatives: Frisian, German, etc and any distant: Latin, Greek, etc. It's didn't become english for being latin or any other language it became english for being English! "Just like my Chinese daughter (adopted) is just as American as any Joe Smith. Her nationality is American. Her ethnicity is Chinese. We can make the same distincition when we say "English"." Yes but I doubt you treat your daughter as one and the same as another member in your family do you? She is her self, and your daughter, not your other daughter, or your son, or your cousin, etc. That's what I'm saying about English, it is distinctly a "member" on its own, distinct from latin, greek, and chinese, and any other members. We are not making the distinction, when we call and treat it all as "English"Usage of English does define English, I believe. But when we use Latin, Greek, Chinese etc as "English" instead of English itself we are trying to define English with Latin, Greek, Chinese etc, not with English. We are trying to define or express something in the shapes and terms of something else, which we as Poets may recognize as a metaphor. Metaphorically words from other languages may be "English" But literally they are not. Modern English is to English somewhat like "Free Verse" is to Poetry, taking it more and more away from historical "roots" , but furthering and overfeeding this metaphor. I don't mind some "Free Verse" and "metaphors, But I think that the traditional elements that literally are and come from English, just like I believe the traditional aspects of Poetry that come from Poetry of the past themselves, should be put first, and this metaphor (latin, greek, etc words used and accepted and called "English") should be used with much more moderation and discretion. "Usage" ought to follow closely after founding roots and traditions, or we accept something else in too many places and only metaphorically refer to what we used to literally have "English" [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-08-2005 03:38 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"And you see this as a bad thing? The Tower of Babel was a curse, not a boon." Confusion is confusion. It shall not stop being confusion for calling it all "English" But I'm not trying to say English is confusion. I'm just trying to say English is English! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Who's confused, Essorant? I know what yin and yang mean. I know from whence they came into our language. I know that arborvitae, the trees I'm planting next week, is Latin for "tree of life," and that deja vu is a French phrase with no ready equivalent in any other language. I don't speak Chinese, Latin, or French, but any or all of those words are ones that might surface in any daily conversation of mine. I wouldn't expect any of those words to confuse anyone. Languages are living creatures, constantly evolving, and they do that at least in part by borrowing, both from within and from without. That's simply the way it is, I think. Kay sera, sera Of course, my original point was that as English and other languages merge and become more intermingled, which I think is both inevitable and good, our ability to communicate with everyone will increase. Knowing a word's history is cool and even marginally useful. Knowing its meaning, I think, is much more important. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Who's confused, Essorant?" Only I.  "I know that arborvitae, the trees I'm planting next week, is Latin for "tree of life," Why the need to translate it to "tree of life" then? I think many people know what arbor and vita mean. But there are many words out there where the latin pieces really don't express anything for them. They memorize the meaning of the word thro a translation in an English dictionary that uses more english words or at least more english-like words. Indeed it means the same, but I don't think it is the same as truly saying: Lifetree/tree of life. We know most english right away, but these foreign words are still always somewhat distant, and for many speakers "arbor" doesn't do it for them. They don't really think of a tree right away, rather their mind perhaps may wander a bit until it comes to an actual english word tree which brings the tree to mind. I think that shows more that these words are not English, but foreign. "deja vu is a French phrase with no ready equivalent in any other language. " again? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: But this is how we learn all words, English or other. There are many thousands of English words that I don't know. If I need to define one, I read other describing words from the dictionary. There are also thousands of English words where the meaning can't readily be determined from the infividual parts. Finally, I believe most, if not all, the words in the dictionary are given some derivation. I suspect none will be listed as "English." I'm afraid English is a borrowing language. As the world shrinks, we will adopt many more words from other languages. Unless, of course, we eventually manage to convert everyone to ours  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I can't really explain it well. But if you look at words in two groups, Foreign English, and Native English (some still used, some not, in word or in meaning), you may perhaps feel what I'm trying to express:
|
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, You're still making a false distinction. The words on the left are more "Latinate" words, while those on the right are more "Germanic". Both of these influences on our English language may be considered "foreign" in the sense that the orignal languages were not "English" at all, being before English. Besides that, there are different nuances of meaning in those words too. "Hug" is of Germanic origin. "Embrace" is of Latin origin. They each contain subtle differences that end up being valuable for expression. Our language is richer for having both. Ancient Greek was the same way. The Greek language contained many words for what would only be one or two words in English. But Greek, for that reason, is more expressive that English. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"You're still making a false distinction. The words on the left are more "Latinate" words, while those on the right are more "Germanic". Both of these influences on our English language may be considered "foreign" in the sense that the orignal languages were not "English" at all, being before English." Stephenos This is the only point of yours above that I strongly disagree with. The words I put under Native English are not just "more" Germanic; but they truly are Germanic. In particular, they are a specific dialect of Germanic though, which is known as English. I don't think the compromise of Foreign and Native, is one that is false. Where the native was and is being lost so harshly in places, I think it is needful and helpful to have such a distinction, so we may more mindfully hold onto the Native English again, and even go back to the past and bring Native English words, and also meanings back whereever possible. That shall not take anything away. Anyone may still use foreign words, but none should be reproached for using words such as rede (advice) yare (ready) and yode (went) or Healend (Savior); or meaning "brave" when s/he saith keen or meaning "alive" when s/he saith quick. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Unfortunately, you are proposing something that is impossible. Language evolves, and where words have become obsolete, they have been pragmatically replaced. To try and make them popular again, would be too arbitrary ... and practically impossible. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Unfortunately, you are proposing something that is impossible. Language evolves, and where words have become obsolete, they have been pragmatically replaced. To try and make them popular again, would be too arbitrary ... and practically impossible." Unspeedly, you are foresetting something that is mightless. Tongues unfold, and where words worth idle, they have been indeed overcome. To strive and make them folkish again, would be too willy-nilly...and indeed mightless. Not if I wend everything into English again |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, We're awful tolerant of you here in PIP, my eccentric buddy. We even like you, and love your uniqueness. But see how far that plan gets you, and how far it gets others to go back to early English, out in the community. Let me know in 5 years how it goes. Stephen. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
What goes around, comes around? I've been following this thread [post/response/talk/communique/memo] throughout and am enjoying every part of it. Who knows, Ess' use of archaic/obsolete/old fashioned English verbiage may well indeed be picked up. Give it to the kids that rap - and they could make it FLY! Keep talking, Pipsters... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos Thanks. I hear you. It's not something anyone should try to artificially enforce on oneself or another. I didn't mean to suggest you shouldn't use latin/greek or other foreign words; I just wished to demonstrate that you could use English ones. Sunshine, I agree. But It doesn't even necessarily need to begin "on the street". Better grammar is not usually on the street, nor is better diction, nor purer English, but it is where people learn more and study more, and therefore more learndly and studiedly hold the language. From stronger influences of learning then, comes a stronger learning that is held in common, on the street, in casual, etc . Therefore this may begin with the "standard" makers. The people that make dictionary-standards, and standards for teaching the language by. If the standardmakers start to take the simple step of distinguishing and grouping Native English from Foreign English in one dictionary, and encouraging learning in Native English (of all ages) a bit more, I believe folk may have more Native English on their tongues again. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-13-2005 12:45 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Here are some points that may help one distinguish Native/foreign: * No Native English word begins with z. * No Native English word begins with x. * No Native English word begins with v. (with the exception of vat that is a variant of earlier fat) * No Native English word begins with dz-sound (as the j/dg in judge, or ge in george) * No Native English word begins with sk-sound (skirt is Norse, shirt is English; scatter is Norse, shatter is English; skill, sky, scare, scrape, skin, skive, skip, skua, scall and skald are also Norse) * No Native English word usually has more than three or four syllables unless it is a compound (afterfollower, heavenkingdom, winterweary, wonderworker). [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-14-2005 01:19 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
After thinking more about this I remembered another native v-word: vixen. Then I took a look at dictionary.com and met this interesting comment that explains this word and the other native v-words (including vane). Just thought to post it for interest: "Word History: Why does the word fox begin with f but its female counterpart, vixen, begin with v ? The answer lies in English dialects. In the speech of Devon, Somerset, and Cornwall, counties of southern England, words that begin with the voiceless fricative sounds (f) and (s) are pronounced instead with voicing, as (v) and (z). (The local rendering of the county name Somerset, in fact, is “Zomerzet.”) The voicing is due to a Middle English sound change and may have roots even earlier. At least three examples of this dialectal pronunciation have entered standard English: vat, vane, and vixen. The first of these is a variant of an earlier word fat the pronunciation with (f) was still used in the 19th century before being displaced by the southern pronunciation (v  t). Vane, which used to mean “flag,” has a cognate in the German word for “flag,” Fahne, showing the original f. Vixen, finally, represents the southern pronunciation of a word that goes back to Old English fyxe, the feminine of fox. It was formed by a change in the root vowel of fox and the addition of a suffix -e or -en. Besides being one of the rare southern English dialect forms to have come into standard English, vixen is also the only survival of this type of feminine noun in the modern language. [dictionary.com]" |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Unicorn and Onehorn are literally of course made from words that come from the same roots, both meaning "one" and "horn" but the different shapes and sounds they take betoken their place in two different languages. Uni and one are the same word, but uni is the latinish shape, and one is the english shape of that word. And corn is latinish (just as in cornucopia), and horn is the english shape for the same word that means "horn" Other correspondences like corn/horn include: (lat. = Latin, Gk = Greek)
From Dictionary.com: "Word History: Derivatives of Indo-European roots have often acquired starkly contrasting meanings. A prime example is the case of the root *ka-, “to like, desire.” From it was derived a stem *karo-, from which came the prehistoric Common Germanic word *horaz with the underlying meaning “one who desires” and the effective meaning “adulterer.” The feminine of this, *horon-, became hore in Old English, the ancestor of Modern English whore. In another branch of the Indo-European family, the same stem *karo- produced the Latin word carus, “dear.” This word has several derivatives borrowed into English, including caress, cherish, and charity, in Christian doctrine the highest form of love and the greatest of the theological virtues. ·Another derivative of the root *ka- in Indo-European was *kamo-, a descendant of which is the Sanskrit word for “love,” kamah, appearing in the name of the most famous treatise on love and lovemaking, the Kamasutra." I think the most interesting and contrasting words above may be Latin caelum "heaven" and english hell. But if you think of them in context of the original meaning of the root: "hide" "conceal" (in deed the -ceal of conceal is related to hell as well, from caelere "to hide") you may see how both heaven and hell similar in a more common meaning toward "covering" or "concealment" Heaven is like a covering over all the earth. While Hell is like a covering or concealment within the earth itself, as in a grave. These words have a very interesting list of relatives: Hell: http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE214.html Heaven: http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE8.html Who ever guessed that heaven and hammer were related?! [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-17-2005 10:03 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Linguistic Note: "Old English" is Young, "Modern English" is Old. I newly said at a different forum that has some linguistic discussion, that we should actually call what we call "Old English" today "Young English" The English we speak today is called "new" or "modern" but is come from an evolution of over a thousand years. It is a wonder that after such a long life/evolution of it self it--the language itself is "new"! But the English language spoken and written in early times, when it was taking its first fresh steps into history hundreds of years ago is "old"! It seems like having a picture in which someone is in his youth but calling him "old" because the picture itself is old. The evidence we have of the English back then itself is old and the english language of the evidence itself so far is it it is still come down with the whole english language is old because the english language itself is old now. But in the context of the Anglo-Saxon period, from which it comes, and seen in the light of such a long life/evolution thereafter though, the English language in the shape it was back then should more accuratly be called Young English "Old English" is the same self English, but distinguished by a different shape. That shape was not the oldest, but the youngest shape in comparison to how far that self is evolved overall. |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
I think most of us speak "American English". Because of our "melting pot" heritage we have come to speak a little of everything. A composite if you will. I personally am not English and prefer to speak American. If it is a mixture of many other countries speech, it is because that is who we are, a mixture. We are ordinary "MUTTS" no pedigrees here. LOL. When a word is used enough to be recognized by many it goes into our dictionary. I find no quarrel with that. When I look up a word I have heard and want to know the meaning and where it came from I enjoy finding the answer. Knowing that Ped = foot I had to look the word up to find how it relates. Pedigree… French ped de grue a cranes foot the shape made by the lines of a genealogical chart.. Far fetched to me.. enjoying the reads. martyjo |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Here is a proposal for a new approach to the English Language:
|
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Translating (Wending) the Sciences (Knowledges) and Arts (Crafts) Back into English. Below is an attempt at wending knowledge's names and art's back into English. The suggestion that native English is inferior is groundless. Less syllables and ability to recognize the meaning of the word more strongly, to use a more consistent group of English end-words -dom and -craft are a few things I believe are strengths in using English words instead of foreign ones.
|
||
|
Knubian Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35Louisiana, United States |
I don’t think any word is an adopted English word simply because it is given an English definition. Didn’t our use of languages as far as we know originate in Greece, then to Rome, then to England, then here, along with there definitions? If we should limited our ways of thinking in turn of what belongs to the world, and what is for the general use of Americans, our own words, “Native English”, would that not reduce us to American Indian and Spanish? Anything after that was all imported here over our meager 515 years since Columbus? And always remember, as powerful as America is, it is still in its infancy – a continuing melting pot of past and new cultures. The United States is the youngest country, or close to being the youngest on the planet, with very little history, respectively… and no true language of its own, except those mentioned above. It all came from somewhere else. Originally people came here as an extension of the Crown, so they brought their own diction with them, but our history tells us that subsequent immigrants included full and partial measurements of their history into the pot. Theirs and our ancestors’ languages and culture are the structure and back-bone that this country was founded on. Therefore, all languages is inheritently ours by inclusion by and of those individuals whom sought and are still seeking peace, asylum, justice, new lives, better jobs, freedom, etc… I think it was best said by late arrival, which of us is truly pure American today, in 2006? Regards, |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Knubian, Thank you for validating me. It feels good to know that someone understands my thoughts. martyjo |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Didn’t our use of languages as far as we know originate in Greece, then to Rome, then to England, then here, along with there definitions?" The dialects that became English came from Germanic/Teutonic Europe, where the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and Frisians and other Germanic tribes lived. After coming to Britain these dialects slightly changed shape and became the English language. They didn't come from Latin or Greek at all. The only Latin or Greek that was among the English back then was minimal borrowings . Not at all like the excess we find today. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Wending the Adjectives back into English. Below we may see how almost any noun that has a corresponding latinish or greekish adjective used to express the meaning "of, relating to, having the qualities of" the corresponding noun, may have an english adjective instead by using the english suffix -ly on the noun itself. Not only does this remove the confusion of adjectives being based on completly different forms, but it avoids the confusion of so many suffixes such as -ous, -ic, -ine, -al, -ary, (that all mean basically the same thing) by using only one simply and consistently.
|
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, Variation may be considered "confusion", but it may also be considered enrichment. I think that the literary power of the English Language would be diminished by what you are proposing. I, for one, am glad of all the influxes which have produced what we know today as "English". Did you ever notice that all of the adjectives in your far right list, sound monotonously the same? The form never changing, makes for boring speech in my opinion. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The "variation" is already in full force Stephanos. No one is going to remove it; especially not I. I just don't think English speakers should be bound and locked into using an adjective like ecclesiastical to correspond to the word church, and cardiac to correspond to heart. There's no reason why an English speaker that likes simplicity and consistency shouldn't be able to use churchly to correspond to church, and heartly to correspond to heart, the same way as ecclesiastical originally corresponds to ecclesia, marine "of the sea" to mare "sea", and arboreous to arbor. We should make it well known that the earliest speakers of English used adjectives formed from nouns in just this way, because it is only natural that an adjective formed from a noun should be used with the noun it corresponds with in root and form(mouth and mouthly, instead of mouth and oral). Anyone that likes variation of forms though may use it within their own discretion. But they shouldn't enforce that variation on others, and then make out anything else as if it is less and out of place. English already had a great variety for adjectives and ways to form adjectives before the excess of foreign ones came and made so many disappear. /pip/Forum32/HTML/000202-2.html#34 [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-26-2006 09:36 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Fair enough, if your intent is to restore what's old rather than to replace what's new. Sorry I misunderstood your intentions. But I think the formation and popularization of language is a macro thing which is (for all practical purposes) beyond our control. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Indeed; we may not be able to control language, but we may influence it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Here are some words I hope may be revived into the English tongue. Some I only knew from earlier spelling-forms, but thro judging other words that came into later spellings they were given modern-looking shapes so that they chime with modern sounds and spellings and so they may be read by common folks. My opinion is, even if my "translation" from the earlier spelling isn't as good as evolution's it is still better than abandening so many native words, and ones so unique and lovely as those below.
[This message has been edited by Essorant (05-23-2006 01:05 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
[This message has been edited by Essorant (05-24-2006 03:36 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
|
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
[This message has been edited by Essorant (05-28-2006 10:27 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Note: the dash in the word sw-anker is added to get around the word filter that kept interpreting it as an inappropriate word!. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-10-2006 12:55 PM).] |
||
|
The Shadow in Blue Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493EL, Michigan |
Umm...Holy Crap!...I never realized there was so much debate on whether we should have a strictly "American dictionary" because as stated before no matter where you are there are influences from other lands imposed on our languages. And I personally think that the more integrated languages are the more unity our world has. Because if you can become more "together" and a melting pot then the better we as a people can be. For example if we all can unite/integrate in a common thing-like language or in a extreme-government then the world would be a better place. It might be a bad example but I'm just saying that reverting back to old english from the middle ages and beyond would be...well downright...ludicrous. But that is just one person's opinion /\/The Editing Queen\/\ It's strange that words are so inadequate. Yet, like the asthmatic struggling for breath, so the lover must struggle for wo |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think diversity is sometimes good thing. But so is preservation and restoration wherever possible. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Strong Verbs. Many of the strong verbs were forgotten or confused in English. But it is by no means impossible to remember them again and unconfuse and regain as many of them as possible. Below are about 175 examples of what I mean:
|
||
|
The Shadow in Blue Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493EL, Michigan |
I agree with you on preservation of one nation's identity, but at some point in your life it is harder to adapt to a different style of language or anything else for that matter. If the school systems taught the younger kids this type of old english then it would be easier to incorporate, but for me I just can't seem to completely jump ship to this form of english. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I have been working on and off this project for a few months, and recently felt well enough to give it its own seat on the internet. If you have time, take a look at www.ednewenglish.com . |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ess~ I think you're marvelous. I love languages and learning about them. Preservation is very cool, in my eyes, though I do accept other ideas as well. Balance is important to me so I can communicate, or what's the sense in knowing a word that no one knows and it poses as a communication barrier. We can educate people, but in my experience, some people don't want to be educated, they just want to chat. You know? Andgitan, annehmen, comprendre, comprender, capire, etcētera. Incidentally, I know you mentioned Germanic tribes as being a source of our English. There were so many of them, but I believe they evolved from the Celts, so the term Germanic, is not an original term, but a derived one from the Celtic language, I think. I'm just recalling some history classes here and that's been a while, but you may want to check that out. Parts of your thread reminded me of the father Gus in the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding: "Give me a word, any word, and I show you that the root of that word is Greek." "You know, the root of the word Miller is a Greek word. Miller come from the Greek word "milo," which is mean "apple," so there you go. As many of you know, our name, Portokalos, is come from the Greek word "portokali," which mean "orange." So, okay? Here tonight, we have, ah, apple and orange. We all different, but in the end, we all fruit." I try to have a dictionary handy that shows the etymology which helps me to develop my skills in writing, my vocabulary, and my word comprehension. Needless to say, I'll never be perfect and I'll never be able to say I'm done. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
P.S. Impressive site! What about "nigh". I see you listed "nigh + bour= neighbor, but just "nigh". I've seen people use this word often in modern poetry, but I feel they misuse it to mean No instead of close or approaching. I look forward to all you add there and studying what you do have. Kudos to you Ess! |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Ah, the trumpetting of swans! (Which, as Ess micht ken, is a play on two words of ME origin.) ((Which parenthetical remark plays with ME and Sots dialect.))) (((etc.))) Gotta run. I'm off to the taco stand for a breakfast burrito. Best, Jim |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Jim, on (what) kind of dialect? Laughing wildly here. Actually, that's perfect. Sots have a dialect completely of their own and the origin of the brew may have a slight influence on inflection? you're too funny. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Regina! Actually, the use of "Sots" ME, was intentional, being, as you saw, a play on Scots (allusion suggested by the use of Scottish dialect) and Scotts are noted tipplers, ME. The etc. in the final set of paren's, BE, or "Butchered English," was meant to suggest anyone could go on and on this way. As in, a "tippler" ME, is also one who engages in "tippling," ME, or dumping coal into a carriage. Thus, a drunken miner readily be called a "tippling tippler," which in turn leads to associations of "tippling" and "carriage," ME. Etc. (from the Latin) I offer the above liittle exegis because, I think, one is not supposed to be "funny" in Philosophy 101 and I wanted to assure all that my comments were deathly, ME, serious. The remark about "going to the taco stand for a breakfast burrito" is equally germane, German Origin, as it addresses the discussion concerning the use of "foreign," FO, or Foreign Origin, words in the English language, particularly if it is a pastrami and egg breakfast burrito. As far as I can tell, there are no direct English correlatives for "taco," "burrito" or "pastrami," making it extremely difficult for the English only speaker to order in four out of five Los Angeles area restaurants. Sombreroly, Jim PS: Does this thread remind anyone else of Swift's dialogue of the relative merits of Big Enders vs. Little Enders? PPS: "Sots" was really a fortuitous typo, the kind of misteak I rarely meak. JDA [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (06-22-2007 08:15 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I'm smiling because I have another to learn from. that's both amusing and serious. "tippler" great word, lots to play with. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Not sure where they came up with that. From what I understand both the Germanic and the Celtic people are derived from the Indo-European, but the Germanic aren't derived from the Celtic, nor the Celtic from the Germanic.
Thanks Reg. I agree with you about the word nigh. I will add that to the Wordbook as soon as possible. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I decided to downgrade the Ednew English site back to the "free" status. Here is the new address: http://www.geocities.com/ednewenglish There is not that much of a difference. But now I don't pay about ten $'s a month, and the site may still live on even if I could not. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
My goodness! People seem to get so lathered about the yin and yang of things. Are folks actually saying there is such a thing as pure English? When was this extraordinary artifact in use? Gaelic is interesting, but it isn't English, is it? I don't know of any Pictish residue in English, though there may be some. Norse, yes, a dash of early latin, and germanic elements. Shake them all up, and you still don't have english. Maybe by the 8th or 9th century, somerthing like English. Is that where folks want to return to for the sake of purity? By the time the Normans came over, dragging some latin (but there was church Latin in England already), some sort of french, and varieties of norse (the normans were certainly in part descended from norse raiders) French gaelic things were already a pretty mish-mash over here. Dialects spoken in various parts of the country were not understandable as "english" at all in other parts of the country. By the time of Chaucer, Middle English was only one of several dialects that were not mutually understandable floating around the country. This is not the English you were thinking of returning to, was it? That would be as bad as babel. By the time that Shakespeare came along, you know, people thought that Chaucer was great, but they'd lost the art of reading him. The Elizabethans gobbled up great chanks of foreign language and coined a lot of their own. Shakespeare was apparently responsible for coining a fairly large proportion of the English language; wantonly, recklessly and irresponsibly simply creating it on his own. Think of the terrible damage that one man alone did to the purity of ther sacred language. Let alone the who issue of English grammar! Why, before the middle of the 18th century it was perfectly Okay to split infinitives and to end sentences in prepositions! The horror! The Horror! Then (and I do so wish I could remember the man's name; he deserves to be as widely reviled as possible) decided that English grammar sould be based on Latin Grammar, though the two langauges have few similarities. He bamboozled 200 years of English teachers! Have I mentioned linguistic drift? No? Well, just because there is a word, say "enthusiasm," that's firmly and usefully thumbtacked into the language in the 18th century, and it stays there, doesn't mean that it says the same thing now. Today, your average "enthusiast" is a weekend mechanic, or goes hiking with friends for two weeks in the summer. When Dr. Johnson's friend Christopher Smart was an "enthusiast," he was a religious fanatic whose behavior got him repeated confined in lunatic asylums. And the era was remarkably accepting of fervor. Other words have simply dropped out of the language. Some for excellent reason. Try checking out the word "lanting," for example; it had to do with the manufacture of beer. Yuch! French is the language you want, if you want purity. It has an academy of intellectuals to keep French the way it was in the 18th century. It fights a constant furious battle to exclude anglicisms from the language. When Montreal picked up a baseball team, they weren't allowed to have a pitcher; they had to have "le lanceur." My spelling is probably off, Etcetera. I don't know what they've used to replace the ubiquitous "le weekend," but it seems sort of silly to me. I don't think anything like pure English can be defined at this point, not through grammar, not through vocabulary. Where are the ideas and concepts that you'd feel better without? The word "shampoo," I'd like to remind you, is Hindi. Yours happily, BobK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob
I am not saying it is "pure". But I am saying that there is an English language as distinct from other languages, and that we should retain English words as much as we may at the same time as having so many foreign words. I don't think the current state of the language is going to be interrupted much, let alone overthrown, by trying to restore some words that are actually from that Germanic dialect known as English, instead of from Greek, Latin, Chinese, etc.
Not sure what your basis is here. If Middle English were as bad as you seem to suggest, why did it come to prevail above the other languages being used as well, French and Latin, and eventually into the language that is now used the most in the world?
There is no split infinitive in any Old English text and there is only a rare few in Middle English. If Wikipedia is correct there is only one split infinitive found among all of Shakespeare's work. Not something that suggests that it was "perfectly okay". [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-03-2007 11:42 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
