Evolution of English

[lazserus]

For years shortround and I have discussed in passing the birth of the English language, where it began and how it developed. After some heavy discussion we concluded there was a relationship with the Frisian Islands. He and I discussed the language developing as a trade language along the northern coasts of the Netherlands and Germany, but alas we were very wrong. Although we were correct in our Frisian ancestry, we were wrong about how and why the language developed. The study of linguistics is a massive undertaking, and there are a number of sub-branches of linguistics such as semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, phonetics, and so on, which hone in on all the little details of spoken and written language. In any case, the study of the history of any given language is no small task and takes many years to truly grasp and appreciate. However, here I can provide a little of the history behind the evolution of the English language in such a way we all can appreciate if only a little.

But first we need a little background on human languages in order to focus on a specific one. It's a process wherein we start by describing the nature of forests, then a forest, then a few trees, then a tree, then the branches, and finally the leaves.

Language Families
Every human language belongs to a phylum or family, though some families are a little more ambiguous in their relationships with others, particularly Native American language families. The English language is part of the West Germanic group of the Indo-European language family. The Indo-European phylum is the most well-known with the largest population of speakers.

In A Guide to the World's Languages, Merritt Ruhlen lists 17 phyla (large groups of distantly related languages), including nearly 300 major groups and subgroups and about 5000 languages, of which 140 are Indo-European. Although Indo-European languages are fewer than 3 percent of the number of languages in the world, nearly half the world's population speaks them.

There are 15 language families not counting the Native American languages. Those languages are: Afroasiatic, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, Khoisan, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese, Korean, Austronesian, Australian, New Guinea, Basque, Finno-Urgric, Altaic, Indo-European. There are three of these languages families that deserve a little extra explanation due to the migration of peoples.

Afroasiatic
This language family extends from the Middle East to the west coast of North Africa. It includes Hamitic, Semitic and Ethiopic, but it once included languages such as Akkadian, Aramaic and Phoenician. Hamitic and Semitic (Arabic and Hebrew) are not only from the same language family, the languages originally were very very similar. Arabic spread across North Africa as the Muslims moved west over the continent spreading their early Islamic empire. Egyptians originally spoke Coptic but more recently in history changed to Arabic.

Finno-Ugric
This language family encompasses the northern reaches of Asia, including Siberia, northern Russia, and extending into Finland. Moreover, Hungarian is a member of the Finno-Ugric language family. Finnish can sound like Swedish to someone unfamiliar with the two languages only because of geographic proximity. The Fins picked up Swedish intonations and in areas closer to Sweden the two languages are spoken in a similar pattern. The vocabulary and the grammatical construction of each language, however, is significantly different from one another being that they come from completely separate language families. Hungarians are the most isolated speakers of the Finno-Ugric language family, surrounded by Slovak and Germanic subdivisions of Indo-European.

Altaic
The Altaic language family stands out in Turkey, as Turkish is an eastern language. Mongolian and Turkish are related languages, both considered Turkic tongues, though they no longer resemble one another as much as they once did. The Turks come from Central-East Asia and migrated to the Middle East, Africa and eastern Europe in a number of migrations. They brought with them their language, and when the Turks overthrew the Byzantines in A.D. 1453 their language became dominant in Anatolia. Turkey is the western-most region employing the Altaic language family.

Each language family splits into subdivisions called subfamilies, which again breaks into language groups, and then from there we get into individual languages. For example, Italic is a subfamily of Indo-European and the subfamily over Latino-Faliscan, a language group that consists of the forms of Latin (Classical and Vulgar), which again breaks down into Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese to name the major ones.

Indo-European
Also called Proto-Indo-European and Common-Indo-European, this language family, as mentioned above, is spoken by close to half the human population. Before I describe Indo-European I should tell you that Wikipedia's mention of it being called Indo-Germanic is completely wrong. While the Germanic subfamily of Indo-European is perhaps the most prolific, it is by far not dominant among its brethren languages in any way. Indo-Germanic is a misnomer and should never be used as an alternative to Indo-European! PERIOD! I will demonstrate certain shifts from Indo-European to Germanic below using Grimm's Law and Verner's Exception. (These two laws are explained below.)

Indo-European as a title for a language family gets its name based on geographic diffusion and dates back to roughly 5000 B.C. That is to say the languages falling under this phylum ranges from Europe to India. The Indic languages (Hindi, Bengali, Urdu, Punjabi, etc.), particularly in northern India, were introduced after 1700 B.C. with the influx migrations of the Aryans from the Central Asian steppes. No one can pinpoint the origins of the language family, but it is certain believed to have existed as a language itself before recorded history, and possibly came out of the West-Central Asian steppes, perhaps as far west as the southern steppes of modern Russia.

There exists 10 subfamilies of Indo-European: Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenistic, Indo-Iranian, Italic, Tocharian. These subfamilies are separated into two categories: the centum and the satem languages. The satem languages consist of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian and the centum languages encompass all the rest. Satem and centum respectively come from the Avestan (ancient Iranian language) and Latin words for hundred.

English comes from the Germanic subfamily of Indo-European and there we see an intriguing change in the language, a change that truly separates the Germanic languages from the rest of the other Indo-European ones.

Germanic
The Germanic subfamily splits into three groups: West Germanic, North Germanic, East Germanic. East Germanic is now extinct, consisting of dead languages such as Gothic, Vandal and Burgundian. West Germanic splits into Anglo-Frisian (English and Frisian) and Netherlandic-German (Dutch, German, Yiddish). Finally, North Germanic branches into the Scandinavian languages (Danish, Faeroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish).

[An accent is merely the difference in pronouncing vowel sounds.]

The Germanic subfamily of Indo-European made a significant change at some point wherein vocal stress shifted from any given syllable of a word to the first syllable. Consider the two English words below.

Photograph
Photography

The syllable stress in each word shifts. In the first word the stress is in the first syllable; in the second word stress is in the second syllable. If any variations of these words derived from Germanic words the stress would be uniform and come at the first syllable. One easy way (though not scientific) to get determine whether or not an English word derives from a Germanic language is to say it aloud. All Germanic words stress the first syllable.

In Indo-European and many subdivisions of the language family the syllable stress can easily exist on any syllable. Germanic languages specifically focus on the first syllable of a word.

The Germanic languages are especially unique among the Indo-European languages because a strange shift was made. At first we see a consonant shift, and this occurred several times over centuries to create modern Germanic languages. Grimm's Law can be abstractly produced below.

bʰ → b → p → f
dʰ → d → t → θ
gʰ → g → k → x
gʷʰ → gʷ → kʷ → xʷ

This indicates a change in consonant sounds and not spellings. A simpler construction can be made by making a comparison of Indo-European and Germanic words.

IE = pisk
Latin = piscis
Germanic = Fish

IE = treyes
Latin = trēs
Germanic = three

IE = kerd
Latin = cord
Germanic = heart

Grimm's Law is particularly interesting seeing that peoples west of German-populated regions developed languages more similar to their Indo-European roots. It is believed the people that eventually became the Germanic speakers came into contact with a group of people who did not speak Indo-European, and the change occurred due to the result of assimilation.

The Germanic subfamily split into a number of subdivisions or groups, which was mentioned above. The word "English" is rooted in the name of one of the original speaking groups, the Angles. Around A.D. 449 the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians began to occupy the British Isles, probably pushing out the dominating Celtic-speaking peoples. By maintaining control of the island group, the language shifted over time away from the continental Germanic. Isolation is always a strong factor in the evolution of language. After A.D. 449 Old English became significant to the British Isles, the dominant language of speakers and writers for a millennium, though most writers preferred Latin.

Old English was strictly Germanic with very few loan words. Anyone today looking at Old English may at best pick out one or two words only because there are obvious similarities. However, it takes special training to learn Old English so that scholars can read old texts. The language appears [to me] like a cross between Old Norse and German, with little if any modern English representatives. After A.D. 1066, when the Normans took control of England, the language soon shifted drastically to include French loan words. It's rare we see transitional language, but Middle English is a perfect example of the transition from Old English, French and into modern English.

English history after the Middle Ages speaks for itself in how its language changed. An expanding empire always includes the use of loan words. A modern example today is the southern United States bordering Mexico. Instead of creating entirely new English words for food items, Americans adopted Spanish terms such as "taco," "burrito," etc. Anyone who has had a taco can describe one, but no English speaker can provide an English word for it. The term "taco" was adopted, just as English began adopting French, Latin, Greek, Arabic....and more and more.

I suppose this is the best I can do in a single thread. There is so much more to the evolution of the English language. I may have even gone too far by adding Grimm's Law and discussing sound shift. I'll leave the thread open for comments or questions.

I hope you learned something.

[Assassin X]

Now make a "Evolution of LOLCats (language)" topic! :)

[Beatnik Bob]

English formed from the influence of French Norman and a merging of the various languages on the British Isle.
Nearly all our words with a latin root are from French, specifically the influence of Normans.
When the vikings settled Normandy France (where the area gets its name) they adopted much of the local French. And passed it on to residents of Britannia from interaction (either aggressive or otherwise).


People in Londinium originally spoke a form of latin (in order to communicate and conduct business with soldiers. Spoken in addition to a native language), until the place was sacked and the roman culture essentially eradicated. So none of today's latin derived words come from the Roman occupation of Britannia.


EDIT:

The word "English" is rooted in the name of one of the original speaking groups, the Angles. Around A.D. 449 the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians began to occupy the British Isles, probably pushing out the dominating Celtic-speaking peoples.

The problem with the British Isle was that it was not remotely unified. For the Romans, it was like what we are experiencing in Afghanistan.
Romans were used to conquering territories by taking the capitals and heavily fortified areas and thus gain political control of the region. In the case of Britain, tribes rarely shared a language (or anything of strategic value), other than speaking a brythonic dialect.
Britain was a mess of different languages. Welsh and Celtic were probably more common than others, but for the most part they were splintered completely. Come to think of it, I do not believe Gaelic was spoken by even 5%. Another Celtic language, Cornish, was probably more popular (and is still spoken today), but it only further illustrates how splintered even the Celtic demographic was.

The syllable stress in each word shifts. In the first word the stress is in the first syllable; in the second word stress is in the second syllable. If any variations of these words derived from Germanic words the stress would be uniform and come at the first syllable. One easy way (though not scientific) to get determine whether or not an English word derives from a Germanic language is to say it aloud. All Germanic words stress the first syllable.

"Photograph/photography" was probably an extremely bad example to give.

Because the word "photograph" did not even exist until 1839.

The only thing that specific stresses on "photograph/photography" prove is that the way we talk is germanic (possibly "celtic"), not necessarily the words. Thus, a word created less than 200 years ago can have specific syllable stress without having ever come from anything remotely germanic.

It's guilt by associating. Not that it derives from anything germanic..

This language family extends from the Middle East to the west coast of North Africa. It includes Hamitic, Semitic and Ethiopic, but it once included languages such as Akkadian, Aramaic and Phoenician. Hamitic and Semitic (Arabic and Hebrew) are not only from the same language family, the languages originally were very very similar. Arabic spread across North Africa as the Muslims moved west over the continent spreading their early Islamic empire. Egyptians originally spoke Coptic but more recently in history changed to Arabic.

Because Hebrew comes from Phoenician. The Phoenicians (in addition to Arabian dialects of course) also played part in the development of Arabic.



The only thing this map doesn't mention is that Rome was actually a phoenician settlement, originally. Obviously latin had plenty of etruscan influence to make it split from pheonician.

[Cyranothe2nd]

Interesting. I'm only just becoming interesting in linguistics and am taking a phonology class this semester. It's difficult but really fascinating. Next semester we're doing a history of the English language...

[lazserus]

English formed from the influence of French Norman and a merging of the various languages on the British Isle.

French played a significant role in the evolution of the English language, but not until after the Norman conquest. Early English was purely Germanic. When the Angles, Jutes and Saxons invaded England in the 5th century they pushed out many of the Celtic-speaking groups. A study of Celtic languages shows there was very little influence on the development of English. Celtic languages maintained the Indo-European convention that remains apparent in today's versions.

Nearly all our words with a latin root are from French, specifically the influence of Normans.

Modern English with Latin roots is from Latin, and borrowed French words are from the Normans. Borrowed words from both Latin and French came later. Grimm's Law and Verner's Exception both aid in determining when a word was borrowed.

"Photograph/photography" was probably an extremely bad example to give.

Because the word "photograph" did not even exist until 1839.

The example is fine because it illustrates the variant vowel stress patterns in Indo-European. Although the word is new, it still provides a relevant example. Using a modern English word is much easier because I doubt there are a large number of readers here with knowledge of Indo-European words.

The only thing that specific stresses on "photograph/photography" prove is that the way we talk is germanic (possibly "celtic"), not necessarily the words.

Germanic and Celtic are two separate subdivisions of the Indo-European language family and should never be interchangeable. The two language groups developed independently.

[TC]

My first understanding of its origins was that a West Germanic language that came from Anglo-Frisian dialects crossed over to the British Isles from areas that are now northwest Germany and the Northern Netherlands as a trade language. But further study shows a different picture, it was the invasions ( two ) that had a pronounced language impact on the earlier populations of the Isles. And this came from speakers of the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic language family, they conquered parts of northern Britain in the 8th and 9th centuries. The second was the Normans in the 11th century, who spoke Old Norman and ultimately developed an English variety of this called Anglo-Norman.

One of the oldest known written version is "Beowulf" written between the 8th and 11th centuries, so it was probably used prior to this, somewhere in the late 600 or early 700s. Some accounts place its first rudimentary form as early as 400 with the invasion by Saxons and Jutes. ( the Jutes being the Danish) a piece written in Latin ( Historia Britonum) quoted several passages in this "first form English" dealing with the invasion.

There are two distinct footprints that finally created old English, both the Northern Germanic/Scandinavian and the southern Norman influence.

Laz and I spent a lot of hours running down the reasons for its use, I had originally thought that trade was the prime mover for its creation, but it looks as though the invasions played the larger role.

[Beatnik Bob]

French played a significant role in the evolution of the English language, but not until after the Norman conquest.

You indicated you were referring to (modern) English. Not old english.

Obviously, old english was germanic. Down to the "ich" for I.

Modern English with Latin roots is from Latin,

Well obviously. What else would latin be... but latin.

But the point I was making is that nearly all english words with latin roots came from interaction with french (normans), not romans.

The romans did not contribute any latin to english.

The example is fine because it illustrates the variant vowel stress patterns in Indo-European. Although the word is new, it still provides a relevant example. Using a modern English word is much easier because I doubt there are a large number of readers here with knowledge of Indo-European words.

But what would be the point in using an indo-eurpean word in an example to show stresses on vowels are germanic?

Such a word is obviously germanic, regardless of vowel stresses.

That isn't the point you should be proving. It is common sense that germanic or indo-european words would be germanic or indo-european.

Germanic and Celtic are two separate subdivisions of the Indo-European language family and should never be interchangeable. The two language groups developed independently.

It has never been suggested in this thread that they are interchangeable.

[TC]

If you consider that every language is a constant evolving process, maybe the term "old or New" is incorrect seeing as they change with each different ethnic influence, much like the creation of English.

An interesting site is Pegwell bay that has a Viking boat symbolically marking a disembarkation point where the speech habits were destined to turn into English and became separated from those that turned into modern Dutch and German.

The names Hengist and Horsa are both Germanic words for horse, something of a totemic animal for the Saxon tribe, the badge of the County of Kent even today is a horse. Hengist and Horsa, landed in Kent in 449.

This date is significant, as some academics see this as the start of the root English, and break from Brythonic ( early Celtic, ancestor of modern Welsh) and the Roman Latin. Further in this line of usage is Essex the land of the East Saxons, the tribal name Saxon meant men of the seax, or sword, and eventually axe.

The Angles on the other hand settled much further north, beyond the Scottish border, and this is predominantly Scandinavian in settlements and speech. And to this day some Scottish words are the same as Swedish and Norse.

These two groups, the main immigrating tribes that became the English usage of Anglo-Saxon, (sometimes mistaken as a single group) became the predominate influence that ebbed away at the now isolated Latin, and small tribal early Celtic. The northern regions ( The Scots) evolved into Gaelic, and the midland / southern regions evolved from the Anglo/ Saxon and French/ Norman invasions. The early Celtic/ Welsh remained the west regional dialect. From these three influences came the birth of the English language.

Strangely enough Francis Bacon considered English a trade language, calling it " worthless for conversational use" and added some 1000 words to improve its diversity.

[Mezurashi]

First - the presence of Latin in modern languages stems more from The Catholic Church than the Romans or French - from the end of the Dark Ages well into the 1900's Latin was considered The Educated Language or the Language Of Scholars and this was perpetuated throughout the centuries by Trade instead of Religious Dogma.

Back in the day when many European countries were vying for control of trade routes around the world there was a lot of 'cross pollination' of cultures - which held a huge potential for misunderstanding.

So - Henry The Navigator of Portugal decreed that all Captains and Pilot's (or Navigators) be versed in Latin as well as as many 'trade languages' they could fit under their belt. Weird to consider that at one time Portugal was the World Empire but there you are.

Thus Latin spread amongst the Maritime Nations as a 'common tongue' at the same time that it was considered 'educated language' for the isolation of the peasants.

Influences from Latin into all 'modern' European languages, including English, stems from that aspect ... but consider ...

Modern English has only existed as we know it for less than 100 years - read the journals from even 100 years ago and you will find wildly varying rules of grammar and spelling.

Modern English has words in it whose entymology traces back beyond Norman French and Germanic - the Indo-European source notwithstanding.

And has anyone considered that Russian (the Cyrillic Alphabet) and Greek are still very closely related to their origin Phoenician source?

Just some dross to toss in ... I had this discussion with a Hindi friend of mine just last week, lol.

[TC]

Well as far as the British Isles is concerned it was when the Romans arrived in Britain in 55 BC. This was the prime use of a language ( Latin) outside of the early Celtic, and continued until the first arrival of Saxon influence in 400AD.

The Roman Army had been fighting in Gaul (France) and the Britons had been helping the Gauls in an effort to defeat the Romans. Caesar invaded Briton as an act to stop the support of the Gauls. This presided the establishment of what we call the Catholic church in the second and third centuries.

It wasn't until Constantine made a state religion in the third century that a foothold began in England, and up to that time Britan was dominated by Celtic polytheists and old Roman gods.

[Beatnik Bob]

First - the presence of Latin in modern languages stems more from The Catholic Church than the Romans or French

There were latin derived words in English (from French) prior to the late medieval period. Latin, as a trade language, played an extremely minor role. Nearly inconsequential.

The same for Church latin, since it was spoken, but not understood by anyone except the priest and a few other religious officials.
The vulgar tongue (english) was still used, and the english language wasn't even mildly influenced by service.


Old English was Germanic, in every way. However, in 1050 or so, William the Conqueror invaded and took over England. Under his "administration" French was the language of the court, trade, intellectualism, and culture.
It is this event that transformed Old English into Middle English. Neither church or Portuguese decree (which came after the fact, anyway) made Old English change.

So the minor correction is this:

from the end of the Dark Ages well into the 1900's Latin was considered The Educated Language or the Language Of Scholars and this was perpetuated throughout the centuries by Trade instead of Religious Dogma.

Latin was mainly dead outside of the church, as far as non-intellectuals were concerned--which was about everyone.

French was actually the language of intellectuals and scholars in England for a few hundred years. Not latin. (If you spoke latin you were probably a monk or a cleric). This is because French was the official language of "English" government starting in about 1070.
So the result was, French and English existed side-by-side. One for commoners, the other for anyone who was somebody. And eventually they started to merge, and English gained some latin words.
Nearly all of today's English words that are derived from latin come from French, not latin.

So - Henry The Navigator of Portugal decreed that all Captains and Pilot's (or Navigators) be versed in Latin as well as as many 'trade languages' they could fit under their belt. Weird to consider that at one time Portugal was the World Empire but there you are.

Portugal was never a world power. They were just more powerful at one time. However, in trade, they lagged behind Venice (though small, they were very rich).
And English had already become Middle English before Henry was even born. Henry didn't exist until the 1300s.

Thus Latin spread amongst the Maritime Nations as a 'common tongue' at the same time that it was considered 'educated language' for the isolation of the peasants.

Again, that's about 400 years late. English has already adopted latin via french by that time.

Influences from Latin into all 'modern' European languages, including English, stems from that aspect ... but consider ...

Not really.

And has anyone considered that Russian (the Cyrillic Alphabet) and Greek are still very closely related to their origin Phoenician source?

Written Russian actually doesn't come from any original source. It is a patchwork quilt of Greek, even Hebrew. (They adopt the letter "shin" and have it make the "sh-ch" sound).

Well as far as the British Isles is concerned it was when the Romans arrived in Britain in 55 BC. This was the prime use of a language ( Latin) outside of the early Celtic, and continued until the first arrival of Saxon influence in 400AD.

Latin was never fully adopted by the britons, and it was only spoken by roman soldiers garrisoned there, or by roman citizens, or by the non-latin traders who wanted to trade with them.
Londinium was established by the Romans as the main town, and after it was completely sacked, and the romans expelled, latin was completely extinguished from the culture of Britannia.

So you are right in your dates, but none of the latin from that time period survived into old english. (Mainly because no variation of English was spoken when the romans took control, and when "english" was finally introduced by the Anglo-Saxons, it took the place of latin completely. There was no sharing).

[lazserus]

I'm glad I fired up some neurons with this thread. It pleases me that people are interested in this sort of stuff, and even when there are some misconceptions, a lot of true history study rears its bearded head. I would like to respond and clarify here.

My first understanding of its origins was that a West Germanic language that came from Anglo-Frisian dialects crossed over to the British Isles from areas that are now northwest Germany and the Northern Netherlands as a trade language.

English is West Germanic and its closest relative is Frisian. Some linguists classify English as Anglo-Frisian.

The thing here is it wasn't simply a movement of dialects. For the non-linguists dialect and accent can sometimes be interchangeable. Below is the linguistic definition of dialect.

a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.

Although there were Frisians that came to Britain in the 5th century, they certainly were not the dominant speakers. Dialect would transfer only temporarily, but within a few generations the dialect would shift significantly.

There is no debate that English is a member of the West Germanic subdivision of the Germanic subfamily of Indo-European. The Germanic language changed so much in a short period that it is now divided into West, East and North Germanic.

East Germanic no longer exists in any form, and the only remnants we have of it come from early Gothic texts. The original Goths, those from Gotland, are the source of East Germanic. This tells us any group branching from the Goths would have spoken the same form of Germanic. Those groups include the Burgundians, the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Ostragoths, etc. Any reference to goths in the late Roman period leads us to East Germanic-speaking people.

The North Germanic-speaking peoples developed today's Scandinavian languages. They occupied the Scandinavian peninsula and many island groups from there to Greenland. Modern Icelandic is the only remnant we have of Old Norse, and it's amazing that after more than a millennium little has changed. Studying modern Icelandic gives Norse historians and linguists a peak into the antique language of the Vikings.

But further study shows a different picture, it was the invasions ( two ) that had a pronounced language impact on the earlier populations of the Isles.

It's important to understand that language is a dynamic form of communication, just as is writing in any language. However, spoken language is much more flexible and open to change than the written word. Invasions are a good way to start, but the reality is much more complicated. In the midst of the 9th century the Danes invaded England, some 400 years after the Germanic-speaking peoples settled and setup shop, establishing a new society and culture. When the Anglo-Saxon and Irish monks refer to Danes they are not talking about Viking raiders from Denmark, they are referring to all Northmen. In any case, the Danes (all Scandinavians) invaded and stuck around, hence the appearance of the Danelaw, a group of laws governing British society instilled by the invading Danes. At the time of this invasion the languages of the Angles and Saxons was scarcely different from the North Germanic tongues. Not only were the two groups able to live along side one another, they were more or less able to speak to one another. This is when we see the first influence of Norse words on the English language, because the Danes (Norse) occupied most of the island. The second invasion was made by Knut the Great's father and Knut took over, establishing on of the largest Norse empires of the time.

One of the oldest known written version is "Beowulf" written between the 8th and 11th centuries, so it was probably used prior to this, somewhere in the late 600 or early 700s. Some accounts place its first rudimentary form as early as 400 with the invasion by Saxons and Jutes. ( the Jutes being the Danish) a piece written in Latin ( Historia Britonum) quoted several passages in this "first form English" dealing with the invasion.

I'm humbled to correct you here just for the sake of clarity, and because Beowulf is significant to the study of English linguistic history. Beowulf is obviously a tale of Scandinavian behavior and exploits, and the word dane is mentioned regularly in various forms. The epic poem is believed to have been recorded roughly around A.D. 1000 by an Anglo-Saxon monk from Britain, but the oral tail perhaps dates back to the 7th century. It's impossible to date oral tales, yet certain words, ideas, etc., can be dated by appearance in corroborating historical texts. Historians can only say Beowulf was not spoken orally in its current form before the 600s, and no artifacts before the 11th century exist showing it was written down before A.D. 1000. Beowulf's written form conveys some dating information, but the epic poem itself cannot be dated any more than Homer's epics.

You indicated you were referring to (modern) English. Not old english.

Obviously, old english was germanic. Down to the "ich" for I.[/quote]
The title of my thread is Evolution of English, and thus does not define specifically Old, Middle or Modern English. However, if I was misleading in the particular reference I apologize.

[QUOTE=Beatnik Bob;383051But the point I was making is that nearly all english words with latin roots came from interaction with french (normans), not romans.[/quote]
I must have misunderstood your point. I certainly agree with your point that Latin loan words did not come from the Romans. However, Latin loan words did not necessarily come from the Normans. French loan words came then, and many Latin loan words were adopted over centuries through the Catholic Church, and then later in the 19th century when science boomed and both Latin and Greek words were used to describe phenomena. Furthermore, in the 19th century there were a handful of scholars that attempted to rewrite English by studying Latin. In so doing more Latin was introduced and prescriptive grammatical rules were set into place, such as the absurd rule stating no sentence should end in a preposition. These grammatical scholars found purity in a revised form of Latin and considered it the purest of languages. Therefore, they introduced a number of new Latin words and grammatical rules to govern written English, rules that are in fact complete bullshit and are still practiced by college professors today.

[QUOTE=Beatnik Bob;383051But what would be the point in using an indo-eurpean word in an example to show stresses on vowels are germanic?[/quote]
Indo-European articulation is important when making linguistic comparisons. Germanic languages (including MODERN English) still utilize this first-syllabic vowel stress, which changes how many of genetic words are not pronounced in English. The actual process isn't as important as understanding a unique change was made. The word I chose illustrated the vowel stress shift merely by example. It was meant to be a pragmatic exercise, not an actual practice between true historic words. I still stand by my usage, mainly because the word is used by modern linguists to stress the same vowel shift. The word's etymology has absolutely no baring, it's variations and the stress-shifts that occur make the point. It's a perfect example as long as you don't dissect the word itself.

[QUOTE=Beatnik Bob;383051That isn't the point you should be proving. It is common sense that germanic or indo-european words would be germanic or indo-european.[/quote]
Perhaps you missed the point of the exercise. The point wasn't to show that the word itself was this or that, it was to illustrate a vowel shift. You're being too analytical and overlooking the exercise and what it represents.


[QUOTE=Beatnik Bob;383051It has never been suggested in this thread that they are interchangeable.[/QUOTE]
I quoted you when I made my statement, and you put Celtic in parenthesis after Germanic, indicating to me you believe there's some intimate relationship. Let's show it again:

prove is that the way we talk is germanic (possibly "celtic")

Germanic is not spoken as Celtic is, thus the two should not be confused. You placing Celtic in parenthesis to me signals you believe there's a relationship closer than Indo-European. Otherwise, you could have easily said "Germanic (possibly "Albanian"). Did you pick a random language group to associate with Germanic? I'm not giving you a hard time, I'm just showing you what I saw, and how I interpret it.

If you consider that every language is a constant evolving process, maybe the term "old or New" is incorrect seeing as they change with each different ethnic influence, much like the creation of English.

Language constantly shifts and changes. Generations show that in the U.S. alone. There are words that were once used in common speech that are no longer used. One example is the English word swain. A swain is a peasant, servant, or some type of underling. Two generations ago it was used but today no one in the U.S. could tell you what the word means.

For speakers of any language there is never a concept of old or new. Language is in constant flux. We can never look at historical languages as something current speakers are aware of. Sure, today's English speakers know there was a form of their own language called "Old English," yet fewer would be aware of Middle English, which was a shift after the Norman invasion. One thing to be sure of is the Norman invasion did not rewrite the language, it merely changed the way it was spoken. Modern English is still mostly Germanic, and most grammatical rules are Germanic. Now we just have more loan words.

The names Hengist and Horsa are both Germanic words for horse, something of a totemic animal for the Saxon tribe, the badge of the County of Kent even today is a horse. Hengist and Horsa, landed in Kent in 449.

I find it fascinating that North Germanic socio-religious practice and naming has a heart in Central Asia with horse references. There is an ancient North Germanic saga called Saga of Hrafenkell which describes this asserted chieftain named Hrafenkell, whom owns a horse partly dedicated to the god Freyr. This horse is a living icon, a holy relic in flesh and blood. When Hrafenkell is too hard on the men he leads, they slaughter this horse. The way it's described, at least in the form I have, indicates a collision between Christianity and Norse paganism, but it's all embodied in the existence of this horse. In later sagas you read nothing about horses, but the earlier ones there is this special bond with the animal, godly even. This, I believe, is a remnant of Central Asian horsemanship. Perhaps around the steppes of what is now Kazakhstan, which is believed now to be the place where humans domesticated the horse. A little nerd fit, and I found it interesting.

This date is significant, as some academics see this as the start of the root English, and break from Brythonic ( early Celtic, ancestor of modern Welsh) and the Roman Latin. Further in this line of usage is Essex the land of the East Saxons, the tribal name Saxon meant men of the seax, or sword, and eventually axe.

You have to be very careful with these links as we know that English, especially in its origins, was strictly Germanic. Celtic loan words? It's certainly possible considering how the Germans got to Britain. Linguistically we see very few connections linking English to various forms of Celtic. You would think there was an exchange of language considering the two groups lived amongst one another, but we see little of that in language. It's more likely the Germans came in and subjugated the Celts and pushed out those that were uncooperative, hence a heavy influence to the west in Ireland.

The Angles on the other hand settled much further north, beyond the Scottish border, and this is predominantly Scandinavian in settlements and speech. And to this day some Scottish words are the same as Swedish and Norse.

This story is a little entertaining to me. When Rome abandoned Britannia the Celts were no longer protected. After Rome left the Picts from the north (today's Scotland) invaded regularly. The Celts were incapable of defending against the Picts because they were reliant on Roman military. The Celts appeased to the Germans on the continent, asking for military aid from the Picts. Boatloads of Germans (Jutes, Saxons and Angles) arrived along British shores and did what they did best: spanked opponents. The Germans pushed the Picts back north, perhaps even contributing to an ethnic cleansing. The Germans found Britain fertile and a land of plenty, thus decided not to leave. Instead they called on their friends and family to move to England. The Celts of Britain were then subjugated and/or run out by the very peoples they hired to defend them against the Picts!

Around A.D. 450 the Scots resided on what is now Ireland. Scotland was named later once the Picts were gone and the Celtic Scots moved to northern Britain.

Celtic is not a language in itself, it is a language group. There are number of Celtic languages, some of which still exist today in small pockets. Gaelic is a Celtic language spoken both by the Scots and the Irish, hence Scots-Gaelic and Irish-Gaelic and Manx.

The Celtic language, even today, carries more ties to its original family of Indo-European as opposed to Germanic. It's strange considering these two groups lived as neighbors for centuries and never fully mixed languages. Celtic languages today are more closely related to Italic languages than Germanic, and strangely enough the Romans have no tie in this. The Celts of Britannia never assimilated into Roman culture. They maintained their own language whilst living under Roman authority.

Strangely enough Francis Bacon considered English a trade language, calling it " worthless for conversational use" and added some 1000 words to improve its diversity.

I'm not sure how much of that is true, but Bacon was definitely an interesting character. He died from pneumonia mere days after running an experiment to prove freezing meat extends its edibility. From what I've read he was a real dick, but brilliant nonetheless.

First - the presence of Latin in modern languages stems more from The Catholic Church than the Romans or French

Boom! I said it in a response and here you agree. Cheers!

Thus Latin spread amongst the Maritime Nations as a 'common tongue' at the same time that it was considered 'educated language' for the isolation of the peasants.

It should be noted that this was not exclusive to coastal towns or those polities with maritime trade. Any "country" with ties to the [Catholic] Church was exposed to Latin. Latin was considered the language of the educated. If you couldn't read or write in Latin during the Middle Ages you weren't "educated."

Modern English has only existed as we know it for less than 100 years - read the journals from even 100 years ago and you will find wildly varying rules of grammar and spelling.

I think I see where you are going with this but the way you imply it here is simply not true. Modernity is a historical concept that describes nearly everything after A.D. 1450, and English linguistics is no exception. Modern English probably began in the 16th century in various forms of literature, but you're definitely correct to mention the 19th century. It was not until then that the English language became standardized. In the early-to-mid 19th century a number of philologists attempted to pull the language into a single standardization, leading to today's modern English (on paper). For example, Jakob Grimm, one of the famous Grimm Brothers, created a linguistic law which is now called Grimm's Law, and that law is still used in modern linguistic studies. Grimm's Law simply shows the consonant shift from Indo-European to Germanic. Anything after the period of the shift can be calculated by Verner's Law, by the Danish Karl Verner. (Verner's Law is also called Verner's Exception.)

Modern English has words in it whose entymology traces back beyond Norman French and Germanic - the Indo-European source notwithstanding.

Using Oxford's English Dictionary you can determine the etymology of nearly any English word. A surprising number of common words are either Indo-European or Germanic. Personal pronouns used in English are mostly Scandinavian (North Germanic). Any language that has regular contact with other languages will eventually develop loan words. Changing grammar is different and requires a more prolonged interaction, and typically comes with dominating cultures. Today's Hindi is almost entirely based on an Indo-Iranian language (Aryan), yet there are still words that are Dravidian, the language likely spoken in India at the time of the Aryan invasion roughly around 1750 B.C.

And has anyone considered that Russian (the Cyrillic Alphabet) and Greek are still very closely related to their origin Phoenician source?

This is completely irrelevant. Written language is a completely different discipline and has no direct association with spoken language. The earliest written form (cuneiform) was adapted as a means to record inventory. Alphabets and ideograms have no direct relationship with linguistics until more recently.

But, for a piece of mind, it is believed the Greek alphabet was developed after the Phoenician, and we know for a fact the Cyrillic was modeled after the Greek much later.

[TC]

I'm glad I fired up some neurons with this thread. It pleases me that people are interested in this sort of stuff, and even when there are some misconceptions, a lot of true history study rears its bearded head. I would like to respond and clarify here.


English is West Germanic and its closest relative is Frisian. Some linguists classify English as Anglo-Frisian.

The thing here is it wasn't simply a movement of dialects. For the non-linguists dialect and accent can sometimes be interchangeable. Below is the linguistic definition of dialect.


Although there were Frisians that came to Britain in the 5th century, they certainly were not the dominant speakers. Dialect would transfer only temporarily, but within a few generations the dialect would shift significantly.

There is no debate that English is a member of the West Germanic subdivision of the Germanic subfamily of Indo-European. The Germanic language changed so much in a short period that it is now divided into West, East and North Germanic.






You have to be very careful with these links as we know that English, especially in its origins, was strictly Germanic. Celtic loan words? It's certainly possible considering how the Germans got to Britain. Linguistically we see very few connections linking English to various forms of Celtic. You would think there was an exchange of language considering the two groups lived amongst one another, but we see little of that in language. It's more likely the Germans came in and subjugated the Celts and pushed out those that were uncooperative, hence a heavy influence to the west in Ireland.

When I mentioned the Roman Latin in England, I was refering to its use at the time. ( outside of the local Celtic) I also doubt any loan words were used. We see swedish evolving along the same lines as English from the northern German language, and almost during the same time period. ( at that time it was a common nordic, similar to icelandic.

Thanks for this thread BTW ... I forgot just how interesting this is.

[Beatnik Bob]

prove is that the way we talk is germanic (possibly "celtic")

Germanic is not spoken as Celtic is, thus the two should not be confused. You placing Celtic in parenthesis to me signals you believe there's a relationship closer than Indo-European. Otherwise, you could have easily said "Germanic (possibly "Albanian"). Did you pick a random language group to associate with Germanic? I'm not giving you a hard time, I'm just showing you what I saw, and how I interpret it.

Sorry. I was saying that it proves the way we talk is Germanic, possibly "Celtic."

I did not mean to suggest "the way we talk is Germanic/celtic." But rather, we have celtic elements as well as germanic ones. The "possibly celtic" side-note was intended to include the possible celtic aspects of our lingual style.

[Mezurashi]

Bob - look into your history a bit more carefully (try a European source instead of a purely UK one) and you will discover that Portugal was indeed a world power - until they got supplanted by the Spanish. In fact, Portuguese was, and might still be, the 'second language' of Macau.

This is not in terms of overall Port Trade (like Venice) but Naval and Social Influence. The Jesuits who spread the Word so far and wide were, in fact, Portuguese and they considered the Spanish Monks a branch of heresy at times.

Then Spain's influenced waxed while Portugal waned ...

However, if you are basing your historical references on British History Books ... remember that Britain also once had a world empire - and adjusted the Official Histories accordingly ...

Just some thoughts ...

[Beatnik Bob]

French loan words came then, and many Latin loan words were adopted over centuries through the Catholic Church, and then later in the 19th century when science boomed and both Latin and Greek words were used to describe phenomena.

Yes, but I am going to have to assert that English has not been significantly affected by the Catholic Church.
To suggest that, would be extremely incorrect. You are right that not all latin-derived words come from French, but they most certainly do not come from the Church.

Old English had no influence of latin (via the Church). Latin was, indeed, spoken in mass (when the church came to Britannia of course), but it was not even understood, let alone spoken in public. The only people who spoke or understood latin were monks, priests, and various clergy. However, that was too small of a portion of English society to make any effect on the English language. There was literally no cross-pollination from the church.

And the church most certainly was not a factor in the evolution of English. English's transition into Middle English only occurred after William the Conqueror took over and made French the official language of government and culture.

Latin words were later added to English from Scientific fields. But those additions were from science. Not religion.

Other than that, you are correct.

Bob - look into your history a bit more carefully (try a European source instead of a purely UK one)

Not only have I not been using history from a UK perspective, but I've not even used the European perspective.
You see, I had assumed you meant "world power" when you said as much. Portugal was at no time in history a world power. They were, however, a major European power.

and you will discover that Portugal was indeed a world power - until they got supplanted by the Spanish. In fact, Portuguese was, and might still be, the 'second language' of Macau.

If it was, it most certainly isn't anymore.

This is not in terms of overall Port Trade (like Venice) but Naval and Social Influence.

Ok, that does narrow it down a bit. In those terms, I agree, Portugal was much much more powerful than Venice.
But they still weren't a naval world power. At the time of Henry the Navigator, China was in fact a naval superpower. Specifically under the leadership of Zheng He.
They had already reached America hundreds of years before, and they had over 30 countries that paid them tribute, as well as many other countries who recognized them as a superior power.

However, some people wonder why such a powerful empire never came to Europe to subjugate them. The answer, put in good wording from this cite, is that Europe had nothing of value.

Why was Ming China, the largest, richest, most powerful nation on earth, discovered by tiny Portugal not the other way around? Why did the Chinese not round the Cape of Good Hope and venture to Europe, when they easily could have?

Many scholars argue that the Chinese had no desire to explore or expand trade, and the West possessed nothing that the Chinese wanted. Plus Westerners were regarded as barbarians. When the Portuguese arrived on the southeast coast of China in 1513, a Hong Kong scholar told National Geographic, they were viewed as "just another bunch of piratesópeople with beards, large eyes, long noses. No real threat."

A 17th century Chinese treatise on navigation proclaimed: "Coming into contact with barbarian peoples you have nothing more to fear than touching the left horn of a snail. The only things one should really be anxious about are the means of mastery of the waves of the seaóand, worst of all dangers, the minds of those avid for profit and greedy for gain." [Source: "The Discoverers" by Daniel Boorstin]

Unlike the Portuguese and Spanish monarchs, who launched their voyages of discovery in hopes of converting heathens to Christianity, the Chinese had no ambition to convert the outside world to their religious beliefs. An illustration of their religious tolerance is an upright stone left in the town of Galle, Sri Lanka during the 1405 Zheng He expedition. It has inscriptions in three languagesóChinese, Tamil and Persianóthat pays tribute to Lord Buddha, an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu and Allah and several Muslim saints. [Source: "The Discoverers" by Daniel Boorstin]

http://factsanddetails.com/china.php...=2&subcatid=90

To Chinese people, all Europeans were just (I quote) "long-nosed barbarians."

However, the article is only slightly mistaken. Chinese admirals did, in fact, sail to Europe, but they most certainly didn't round the Cape of Good Hope to get there.
It has been discovered that the Chinese actually cut a canal through the sinai or through to the nile. I can't remember which exactly, but it is known they did construct a canal and came into contact with Venice and other Europeans. They knew of Portugal, and if I remember correctly, Portugal actually gave the Chinese admirals some gifts. Portugal's naval fleet wasn't half the size of China though. Neither were their navigators as skilled.

Portugal did benefit from the Chinese coming into contact with Venice though. China had (incomplete, but decent) maps of the Americas at the time. These maps stayed in Europe until Columbus set sail. (Columbus reported in his diary to have used these maps, as did Magellan. Also, Columbus asked to be named viceroy of the Americas before his departure to "discover" them).

Then Spain's influenced waxed while Portugal waned ...

No doubt, Portugal was the most powerful by European standards.

However, if you are basing your historical references on British History Books ... remember that Britain also once had a world empire - and adjusted the Official Histories accordingly ...

Just some thoughts ...

Booo!
Britain..

[lazserus]

When I mentioned the Roman Latin in England, I was refering to its use at the time. ( outside of the local Celtic) I also doubt any loan words were used. We see swedish evolving along the same lines as English from the northern German language, and almost during the same time period. ( at that time it was a common nordic, similar to icelandic.

Old Norse, sometimes referred to as Old Icelandic, was the language chosen by Icelandic scholars in the 13th century when publishing literature. The North Germanic languages split at some point in history, though the language itself was mostly intact with a variation in dialects. We can see dialectal differences in rune inscriptions and sometimes in the sagas, though the sagas tend to maintain linguistic purity. The Scandinavian languages today (Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian) are much more diverse than they used to be, with modern Icelandic closer to Old Norse than the others. Old Norse has changed very little in its evolution to modern Icelandic.

The key differences today between the modern Scandinavian languages are in pronunciation, spelling, and minor variations in vocabulary.

Yes, but I am going to have to assert that English has not been significantly affected by the Catholic Church.
To suggest that, would be extremely incorrect. You are right that not all latin-derived words come from French, but they most certainly do not come from the Church.

Old English had no influence of latin (via the Church). Latin was, indeed, spoken in mass (when the church came to Britannia of course), but it was not even understood, let alone spoken in public. The only people who spoke or understood latin were monks, priests, and various clergy. However, that was too small of a portion of English society to make any effect on the English language. There was literally no cross-pollination from the church.

And the church most certainly was not a factor in the evolution of English. English's transition into Middle English only occurred after William the Conqueror took over and made French the official language of government and culture.

Latin words were later added to English from Scientific fields. But those additions were from science. Not religion.

Other than that, you are correct

We are on the same page. The influence of Latin on the English language was minor until the Modern Era when, as you state, Greek and Latin words were adopted for scientific naming conventions.

It's actually fascinating to understand English's transition into Middle English. After the Norman conquest the new authorities wanted to convert everything to French. This obviously didn't happen, though French was spoken in the Court and even in Mass. Catholic Mass was conducted in Old English prior to A.D. 1066 and in French after. When looking at the differences between Old and Middle English, one can see how much of the Germanic core remained intact. We shouldn't neglect the French contribution to the language, because more than 1700 words were added to the English vocabulary after the Normans took over Britain.

Despite the French taking control of Britain after A.D. 1066, the English language remained intact. Chaucer, for example, was among the first to publish literature in Middle English instead of French or Latin.