Dogface while you’re alot nearer the mark than Matchka with this:
The Angles were South denmark/North Germany/North Netherlands (near the Elbe anyway) whilst the Saxons at the time probably resided in Lower Saxony/Netherlands not Saxony (which is on the otherside of Germany). The Jutes were probably in Denmark whilst the Frisians were almost certainly in Frisia.
Not quite. The Romans had considerable linguistic influence on the Germanic tribes who afterwards migrated to England. The Germanic tribes took words like “candela” (cf. Eng. “candle”), “vina” (cf. German “wein”), “portus” (cf. Eng. “port”), “vallum” (cf. Eng. “wall”). These entered the Germanic languages in the first 500 years after Christ, thus they predate even the “Dark Ages”.
UnuMondo
No, it is unlikely that h. sapiens ever shared one language. They had spread out over a large area before developing language.
There are two schools of thought, one says that all languages are descended from one prehistoric language, others say that several languages developed independantly.
There is some evidence that all languages are related in the attempt to group most languages into a large superfamily but this is inconclusive. I think that all languages ARE related, because the humans that came out of Africa were almost anatomically identical to modern humans meaning that the necessary organs had formed for high levels of speech. This suggests to me that they were already speaking some sort of language.
Iceland was throughout the middle ages very isolated (after a mass immigration from Norway 800-1000). Our language changed/evolved very little and is therefore considered “pure”. I have read old English texts that I know are more understandable to me than most English only speaking ppl. I’d wager that the larger part of English derives from Denmark/N Germany.
There are absolutely no pure languages, at all. There are however more conservative languages, and that’s what Icelandic is, much more conservative than English (which is far less conservative).
A pure language would be one without any outside influence and has never changed and never adopted loans. In other words, exists in a bubble.
Even Sanskrit has words from the Dravidian languages (which are a different family). Latin borrowed from germanic quite a bit, and also absorbed loans from other italic languages.
English’s closest Germanic relative is Frisian:
Frisian - English
Dei - Day
rein - rain
wei - way
neil - nail
And a saying in Frisian and English:
bûter, brea, en griene tsiis, wa’t dat net sizze kin is gjin oprjochte Fries
“butter, bread, and green cheese, whoever cannot say that is no upright Frisian”
Well, no. Only about 1% of the English lexicon even has Old English roots. However, that 1% does contain more than half of the most commonly used words.
hazel-rah: Got a cite for that? Nichol_storm said Germanic, not Old English.
Sure, page 95 of “The Power of Babel” by John McWhorter. Or you could check the OED.
I realize Germanic and not Old English was said, but seeing as how Old English is Germanic and only around 1% of English words have Old English roots, do you really expect that other borrowings from non-English Germanic languages are going to make up the additional 40-50% required for the “bulk of English vocabulary” to be Germanic? We didn’t get that much from the Danes in the 8th century, and borrowings from modern non-English Germanic languages aren’t nearly enough… what else is there?
The bulk of the English lexicon comes from French and Latin, neither of which are Germanic.
-fh
Yes, but most Old English words that survive in the lexicon are very common words, but apart from that French and Latin vocabularly dominate.
No, it is not. The “root language” of Arabic, Hebrew, and Canaanite is Proto-Semitic. Arabic does not come from Hebrew any more than Italian comes from Spanish. They are related but one is not the origin of the other. They are related because they come from the same origin. Semitic is one branch of the Afro-Asiatic family. The other branches are Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic.
Arabic, Hebrew, and Canaanite are all in the West Semitic subgroup. One classification puts Hebrew and Canaanite in Northwest Semitic and Arabic in Central, but another classification groups them even more closely: they are all Central West Semitic. South Semitic is represented by Ethiopic. East Semitic is Akkadian.
Sanskrit is not the origin of English, either, although you still hear some people saying that. Look at it this way: you’re not descended from your aunt, but you and your aunt are both descended from your grandmother. English and Sanskrit are both descended from Proto-Indo-European, in two different branches. English is in the Germanic branch and Sanskrit is in the Indo-Iranian branch.
Yes, hazel. I really do expect some proof that your substituting the name of a particular stage of one language with the name of an entire language group does not radically skew the statistics.
You still haven’t supplied that.
More than half of English’s vocabularly is from Latin, including borrowings from other Romance languages (1).
A Survey of roughly 80,000 words from the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary (2):
-Latin, including modern scientific and technical Latin: 28.24%
-French, including Old French and early Anglo-French: 28.3%
-Old and Middle English, Old Norse, and Dutch: 25%
-Greek: 5.32%
-No etymology given: 4.03%
-Derived from proper names: 3.28%
-All other languages contributed less than 1%
(1) History of the English Language by A C BAugh and T cable
(2) see link
Still doesn’t matter. The assertion above was that the STRUCTURE of English is Germanic. Y’all got any proof that it ain’t?
The grammar of English IS Germanic, ableit with much of the inflection taken out.
Monty, no-one was disputing the assertation that the structure is Germanic, it was the assertation that “the bulk of it’s vocabulary” was Germanic that was disputed.
Hey, great argument! Sorry, discussion!
For what it’s worth, I have always understood that the French spoken in England following the Norman invasion was specifically “Norman French”, that is to say the language spoken by the Vikings who had colonised that part of France, hence the name - Norman (as the English “Norsemen”).
As an Englishman I would hate to think that we owe anything to the French! Can someone please reassure me that they were really just Vikings with silly accents?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. If I am skewing the statistics, then I’m skewing them against my own assertion. Someone says the bulk of English vocab is Germanic, and I point out that English’s primary Germanic language influence, Old English, supplies only 1% of the English lexicon so it’s unlikely the other less influential Germanic languages are going to make up the difference. Sure, it’s possible something could have happened in English history that would lead to the bulk of our lexicon being of Germanic but non-Old English origin, but knowing that history I know nothing did.
Now, what MC Master of Ceremonies quotes is interesting. Baugh and Cable’s general statement is solid, but 25% is a pretty big jump from 1%, especially considering McWhorter is referring to an analysis of the OED as well! I’ll see if I can find any other sources.
And the alt.english.usage FAQ puts the figure at around 22%, quoting a breakdown from “Syllable Stress & Unstress” by Howard Woods, a 1978 Govt. of Canada publication.
nikotime, sorry. They were Vikings speaking a silly language called French.
-fh
I think Baugh and Cable had figure simliar to 1% (I’m not sure tho’ cos I couldn’t find the refernce in the book), but that 25% includes loanwords from Old Norse (from the Viking incursions and Danelaw) of which there are quite a few.
The Norman’s spoke Norman-French a dialect of Old French.
The Normans were “really just Vikings” the same way that the French were “really just Franks”.
The Normans adopted French as their mother tongue, although they probably did have a silly accent.