| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » English compared to other European languages |
|
Page 1 of 20 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Richard Fangnail |
 Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I've noticed that Italian and German have a lot of conjugations to
memorize, and a lot of masc/fem/neuter endings. Maybe I'm biased
because I'm an English speaker. Why does there seem to be more
grammatical suffixes in those languages than in English?
I wonder why only German has the capitalized nouns. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Fangnail wrote:
[quote:f404867d85]
I've noticed that Italian and German have a lot of conjugations to
memorize, and a lot of masc/fem/neuter endings. Maybe I'm biased
because I'm an English speaker. Why does there seem to be more
grammatical suffixes in those languages than in English?
[/quote:f404867d85]
Because there _is_ more.
[quote:f404867d85]I wonder why only German has the capitalized nouns.
[/quote:f404867d85]
Because English stopped doing them about 200 years ago.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Prai Jei |
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Fangnail (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<1114278537.588825.266730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
[quote:dcc85f68cd]I've noticed that Italian and German have a lot of conjugations to
memorize, and a lot of masc/fem/neuter endings. Maybe I'm biased
because I'm an English speaker. Why does there seem to be more
grammatical suffixes in those languages than in English?
I wonder why only German has the capitalized nouns.
[/quote:dcc85f68cd]
Pre-Conquest English was a recognisably Germanic language and was as
complicated then as German was then. Grammar and vocabulary in perfect
harmony.
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely new
Latinate vocabulary. These new words did not blend with English grammar at
the time and the only way out was to simplify the mass of conjugations,
declensions and whatnot. Rather than adopt a hybrid of German-ish and
French-ish endings, English compromised by chucking nearly all the
declensions and conjugations out and using "little words" instead.
Case-endings became prepositions, verb-endings became personal pronouns for
the subject and auxiliary verbs for the tense.
Relics of the old endings give English all the quaint irregular plurals we
know and love today. We have oxen, but what ever happened to eyen or shoon?
Does "child" take -er or -en? Can't remember, let's tack both on, we're
*bound* to be right.
Plural by vowel-change was once far more widespread in the language, as it
still is in German, but how many French words form their plurals thus? Only
a few instances remain in English, in very old Germanic words (man/men,
woman/women, mouse/mice, foot/feet).
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Padraic Brown |
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:20:51 +0100, Prai Jei
<pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[quote:cb9be89a1f]Richard Fangnail (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
1114278537.588825.266730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
I've noticed that Italian and German have a lot of conjugations to
memorize, and a lot of masc/fem/neuter endings. Maybe I'm biased
because I'm an English speaker. Why does there seem to be more
grammatical suffixes in those languages than in English?
I wonder why only German has the capitalized nouns.
Pre-Conquest English was a recognisably Germanic language and was as
complicated then as German was then. Grammar and vocabulary in perfect
harmony.
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely new
Latinate vocabulary. These new words did not blend with English grammar at
the time and the only way out was to simplify the mass of conjugations,
declensions and whatnot. Rather than adopt a hybrid of German-ish and
French-ish endings, English compromised by chucking nearly all the
declensions and conjugations out and using "little words" instead.
Case-endings became prepositions, verb-endings became personal pronouns for
the subject and auxiliary verbs for the tense.
[/quote:cb9be89a1f]
I had thought the grammar was already on its way towards flexional
simplification. I don't think the influx of French vocabulary was
particularly responsible. In any event, the French at the time was the
domain of the conquerers, not the common folk. How much of an effect
would the French speaking conquerers really have had?
[quote:cb9be89a1f]Relics of the old endings give English all the quaint irregular plurals we
know and love today. We have oxen, but what ever happened to eyen or shoon?
[/quote:cb9be89a1f]
They're still around in some of the odd corners of the language.
[quote:cb9be89a1f]Does "child" take -er or -en? Can't remember, let's tack both on, we're
*bound* to be right.
Plural by vowel-change was once far more widespread in the language, as it
still is in German, but how many French words form their plurals thus? Only
a few instances remain in English, in very old Germanic words (man/men,
woman/women, mouse/mice, foot/feet).
[/quote:cb9be89a1f]
Padraic.
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Prai Jei wrote:
[quote:1258b7dc39]Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely new
Latinate vocabulary.
[/quote:1258b7dc39]
Oh, that's rich! Pull the other one!
Did whoever conquered Wales "force" Welsh to accept an entirely new
Anglic vocabulary?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Iain |
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Padraic Brown wrote:
[quote:2c142fa1c9]On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:20:51 +0100, Prai Jei
pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Richard Fangnail (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in
message
1114278537.588825.266730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
I've noticed that Italian and German have a lot of conjugations to
memorize, and a lot of masc/fem/neuter endings. Maybe I'm biased
because I'm an English speaker. Why does there seem to be more
grammatical suffixes in those languages than in English?
I wonder why only German has the capitalized nouns.
Pre-Conquest English was a recognisably Germanic language and was as
complicated then as German was then. Grammar and vocabulary in
perfect
harmony.
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely
new
Latinate vocabulary. These new words did not blend with English
grammar at
the time and the only way out was to simplify the mass of
conjugations,
declensions and whatnot. Rather than adopt a hybrid of German-ish
and
French-ish endings, English compromised by chucking nearly all the
declensions and conjugations out and using "little words" instead.
Case-endings became prepositions, verb-endings became personal
pronouns for
the subject and auxiliary verbs for the tense.
I had thought the grammar was already on its way towards flexional
simplification. I don't think the influx of French vocabulary was
particularly responsible. In any event, the French at the time was
the
domain of the conquerers, not the common folk. How much of an effect
would the French speaking conquerers really have had?
[/quote:2c142fa1c9]
Words used by both Norman authorities and English speakers within
earshot of one another would have been the first merges -- hence
"prison" being amongst the earlier Norman words of English.
In short, *jargon* was the first part of English to be Normanised,
which seems the most natural way, if you consider how inclined
languages are to leave prepositions as the last area to be infiltrated.
~Iain |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| benlizross |
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Prai Jei wrote:
[quote:79114d3235]
Richard Fangnail (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
1114278537.588825.266730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
I've noticed that Italian and German have a lot of conjugations to
memorize, and a lot of masc/fem/neuter endings. Maybe I'm biased
because I'm an English speaker. Why does there seem to be more
grammatical suffixes in those languages than in English?
I wonder why only German has the capitalized nouns.
Pre-Conquest English was a recognisably Germanic language and was as
complicated then as German was then. Grammar and vocabulary in perfect
harmony.
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely new
Latinate vocabulary.
[/quote:79114d3235]
Actually William did not force the language to do anything. English
already had a considerable number of Latin words ("cook", "wine",
"cheese"). Some words arrived associated with the regime change
("castle", "prison", "duke", legal terminology), but the largest influx
of French words came a couple of centuries later, when even the
aristocracy no longer spoke French.
These new words did not blend with English grammar at
[quote:79114d3235]the time and the only way out was to simplify the mass of conjugations,
declensions and whatnot. Rather than adopt a hybrid of German-ish and
French-ish endings, English compromised by chucking nearly all the
declensions and conjugations out and using "little words" instead.
Case-endings became prepositions, verb-endings became personal pronouns for
the subject and auxiliary verbs for the tense.
[/quote:79114d3235]
There is no evidence at all for this explanation of the simplification
of English inflections. The chronology does not fit, and the proposed
explanatory mechanism is quite imaginary. Languages can absorb a great
deal of foreign lexical matter without any necessary effect on their
inflectional systems. Japanese, for example, still has its own quite
complex verb inflections despite borrowing thousands of words from
Chinese.
Ross Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Prai Jei |
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<426ACFDF.48FE@worldnet.att.net>:
[quote:5d8b9a85e4]Prai Jei wrote:
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely new
Latinate vocabulary.
Oh, that's rich! Pull the other one!
Did whoever conquered Wales "force" Welsh to accept an entirely new
Anglic vocabulary?
[/quote:5d8b9a85e4]
Yes they did, witness the "Welsh Not" scandal. Ach-y-fi 
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen |
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:20:51 +0100: Prai Jei
<pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk>: in sci.lang:
[quote:d725851bef]Pre-Conquest English was a recognisably Germanic language and was as
complicated then as German was then. Grammar and vocabulary in perfect
harmony.
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely new
Latinate vocabulary. These new words did not blend with English grammar at
the time and the only way out was to simplify the mass of conjugations,
declensions and whatnot.
[/quote:d725851bef]
So how do you explain that Dutch has almost as many simplifications as
English, and Afrikaans as many or more? Neither had such a "William
the Conqeurer" episode.
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Artem Baguinski |
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"...Questions were raised in Westminster as to why the Welsh people
were prone to lawlessness. According to some, one possible reason was
the continued existence of the Welsh language. After a speech in 1846
by William Williams, a Welsh MP representing Coventry, a Parliamentary
report was commissioned on the role of Welsh in education..."
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/storyofwelsh/content/thelanguageineducation.shtml)
so... William again! and not just any William, but Williams! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Torsten Poulin |
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
[quote:8fc1110533]Prai Jei wrote:
Pre-Conquest English was a recognisably Germanic language and was as
complicated then as German was then. Grammar and vocabulary in perfect
harmony.
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely new
Latinate vocabulary. These new words did not blend with English grammar at
the time and the only way out was to simplify the mass of conjugations,
declensions and whatnot.
So how do you explain that Dutch has almost as many simplifications as
English, and Afrikaans as many or more? Neither had such a "William
the Conqeurer" episode.
[/quote:8fc1110533]
You could also add Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish to the list. English then
begins to look more and more mainstream for a Germanic language.
--
Torsten |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson |
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"benlizross" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote...
[quote:7889997983]Prai Jei wrote:
Richard Fangnail (or somebody else of the same name) wrote:
I've noticed that Italian and German have a lot of conjugations to
memorize, and a lot of masc/fem/neuter endings. Maybe I'm biased
because I'm an English speaker. Why does there seem to be more
grammatical suffixes in those languages than in English?
Pre-Conquest English was a recognisably Germanic language and was as
complicated then as German was then. Grammar and vocabulary in
perfect
harmony.
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an entirely
new
Latinate vocabulary.
Actually William did not force the language to do anything. English
already had a considerable number of Latin words ("cook", "wine",
"cheese"). Some words arrived associated with the regime change
("castle", "prison", "duke", legal terminology), but the largest
influx
of French words came a couple of centuries later, when even the
aristocracy no longer spoke French.
These new words did not blend with English grammar at
the time and the only way out was to simplify the mass of
conjugations,
declensions and whatnot. Rather than adopt a hybrid of German-ish
and
French-ish endings, English compromised by chucking nearly all the
declensions and conjugations out and using "little words" instead.
Case-endings became prepositions, verb-endings became personal
pronouns for
the subject
[/quote:7889997983]
Not true. In OE (as in modern German), personal pronoun subjects were
almost always included (despite the apparent redundancy this entailed).
[quote:7889997983]and auxiliary verbs for the tense.
There is no evidence at all for this explanation of the simplification
of English inflections. The chronology does not fit, and the proposed
explanatory mechanism is quite imaginary. Languages can absorb a great
deal of foreign lexical matter without any necessary effect on their
inflectional systems. Japanese, for example, still has its own quite
complex verb inflections despite borrowing thousands of words from
Chinese.
[/quote:7889997983]
Then there's Welsh, which, just like English, has undergone both drastic
restructuring of its inflectional system, associated with loss of final
syllables, and also a massive influx of foreign words. But the
restructuring of Welsh seems to have occured in the sixth century. And
while there was some borrowing in the Old English period, it wasn't
important till Anglo-Norman times, when it increased rapidly and has
been accelerating ever since.
As you say, "the chronology does not fit" in the case of English. But
due to the shortage of English texts in the century or so following the
Conquest (and the conservatism of the West Saxon literary language just
before it), it's difficult to prove this to everyone's satisfaction. In
the case of Welsh, there's the same sort of chronological misfit, but
it's a matter of five or six centuries instead of one or two.
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Torsten Poulin wrote:
[quote:f796f2ef95]Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Prai Jei wrote:
Pre-Conquest English was a recognisably Germanic language and was
as
complicated then as German was then. Grammar and vocabulary in
perfect
harmony.
Then William came over and forced the language to accept an
entirely new
Latinate vocabulary. These new words did not blend with English
grammar at
the time and the only way out was to simplify the mass of
conjugations,
declensions and whatnot.
So how do you explain that Dutch has almost as many simplifications
as
English, and Afrikaans as many or more? Neither had such a "William
the Conqeurer" episode.
You could also add Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish to the list.
English then
begins to look more and more mainstream for a Germanic language.
--
Torsten
[/quote:f796f2ef95]
If my poor knowledge of Danish is correct, it has simplified the verbs
slightly more and has dropped the third person singular inflection that
English retains.
But Danish has not completely dropped grammatical gender which is a
major simplification of English.
English is slightly ahead in number simplification but Swedish matches
us. I find the Swedish numbers easier than the Danish ones.
Nonetheless, I would agree that English does not seem to be way ahead
in this trend and hence the Norman influence may not have affected
grammar as much as it affected vocabulary. English may have made many
of these simplifications anyway.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Fangnail wrote:
[quote:4a177f5250]I've noticed that Italian and German have a lot of conjugations to
memorize, and a lot of masc/fem/neuter endings. Maybe I'm biased
because I'm an English speaker. Why does there seem to be more
grammatical suffixes in those languages than in English?
[/quote:4a177f5250]
But other languages, such as many from the Far East, have even fewer
grammatical suffixes right down to none at all such as no inflectional
plural. If you view enough languages, English no longer seems the
simple one.
[quote:4a177f5250]I wonder why only German has the capitalized nouns.
[/quote:4a177f5250]
You may want to ask this question first: Why does either language
bother with the upper / lower case distinction at all?. Many scripts
do not bother with case and do not seem to suffer as a result. Case is
not quite useless, marking names has some value, but case seems
excessively complicated for this purpose. For example, we could have
one extra symbol which means: the next word is a name. Instead we 26
extra symbols.
Tagalog (major language of the Philippines) marks names in speech with
an article. I have not seen this elsewhere.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott |
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 25 Apr 2005 03:32:04 -0700, Seán O'Leathlóbhair
<jwlawler@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:1114425124.346292.201800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
[quote:ac9e31e66b]Nonetheless, I would agree that English does not seem to
be way ahead in this trend and hence the Norman influence
may not have affected grammar as much as it affected
vocabulary.
[/quote:ac9e31e66b]
And it didn't affect the vocabulary so much as many seem to
think: the great influx of French words came a good two
centuries later.
[quote:ac9e31e66b]English may have made many of these simplifications
anyway.
[/quote:ac9e31e66b]
You mean, I suspect, that
it might have done so (even without the Conquest),
not that
it may have done so (perhaps before the Conquest)
but you're not sure.
In fact many of the changes *can* be seen before the
Conquest, especially in the North. And it was the South,
where French influence was strongest, that in general kept
the old inflections longest.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:09 pm
|
|