English Language

caffeine_fubar

Dark Dementia is my name...
Registered Senior Member
Yet again i have another post...
How the heck did the English language evolve? What did it come from? Did it not come from latin and form into more complex words?
Thanks
 
English borrowed from other languages and evolved into what it is today.
 
What other languages? How did it happen? Im sure that chinese had nothing to do with the transition between whatever it was and english.
 
If you're really interested, I suggest studying Latin. I do and find it fascinating in terms of how language works and how Latin contributes to English. However, Latin isn't the sole contributor, as above, and I believe, not positive, but I think Latin borrows a bit from Ancient Greek.
 
You might be interested in looking up the terms 'old English' and 'middle english' as well.. as far as I remember, old English was closer to its germanic roots while middle english amalgamated both elements of old english and much borrowing from french (c. 11th century), which is itself a Romance language derived from Latin.
 
Old English (Beowolf is the best known writing in it) is probably descended from early Frisian, a German dialect. The decisive thing was the Norman conquest, which meant that the rulers of England were old french-speaking while the peasants spoke a kind of English. That's why the modern English terms for animals is usually of Anglo-saxon descent (cattle, swine, sheep), but the words for the flesh (beef, pork, mutton) come from French. The peasants herded them, the rulers ate them.The two languages merged: French words with an English construction. You can see the difference ( and some of the speed with which it happened) by looking at the Gawain-poet, Langland and Chaucer: these three writers were alive in the same century. The last two are the pinnacle of middle english, Chaucer is the beginning of modern English.
The other decisive factor was the direct introduction of latin words in the 16th and 17th century as the language of learning became English not latin.
 
Indeed, Thersites has it right. If you can find some 14th/ 15th century English verse, the construction and words are very similar to modern german, amazingly so in fact. And then English evolved away from it, and along the way dropped the fiendishly complex grammar. Lets not also forget all the other words that have been added to english over the past few centuries. Such As Pyjamas, which came from india. Or Quiz. English as a language has impressive flexibility and ability to absorbe new words. Instead of, like German, running descriptive words together, leaving you with a 26 letter behemoth, english just invents a new word. Or robs it from greek, eg television.
I'm sure there were other influences in the past 800 years, but cant remember them.
 
guthrie said:
english just invents a new word. Or robs it from greek, eg television.
Not just Greek: "Nothing good will come of it. The word is half Greek and half Latin."
 
Thersites said:
Old English (Beowolf is the best known writing in it) is probably descended from early Frisian, a German dialect.
The original Germanic (or Teutonic) tribes migrated up into Scandinavia from the Indo-European homeland somewhere around Georgia or eastern Anatolia, probably around 2000-1500 BC. The Celts were the first Indo-Europeans to colonize the mainland. The Greeks and Romans followed, and established civilizations while the Celts and Norsemen remained in the pre-civilized early Neolithic phase of their development. In the last few centuries BC, the Germanic people began migrating into the northern European mainland through the peninsula of Denmark. By the Imperial Roman Era, they had taken over all of the northern mainland, from what is now Holland and northern France over to somewhere around what is now Bohemia (or the Czech Republic as we all insist on calling it).

The Romans sent out legions of warriors to occupy every place they could. They never conquered the heartland of the Germanic tribes, but they got France, Iberia, the British Isles, not to mention Romania, Greece and... well you all know the extent of the Roman Empire at its peak.

Old English used to be called "Anglo-Saxon" because it was the language of the Angles and Saxons. When the Roman Empire started to break down, they abandoned some of their most distant colonies first. Britannia, which at the time was inhabited by the Britons, a Celtic people closely related to the Scots and Irish, was a prosperous, civilized place just aching to be overrun by barbarians when the Roman legions departed. The Germanic tribes of northeastern Europe were happy to oblige; the same peoples who eventually overran Rome itself. The Angles and the Saxons were the two Germanic tribes who sailed to Britannia. Unlike the Romans, they did not occupy it as rulers. They drove the Britons out of their own country and turned Britannia into "Angle Land." The original Celtic Britons survive only in Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany, a little colony they founded after sailing to what is now France.

The languages of the Germanic tribes are difficult to categorize. The usual criterion as to whether two tongues are languages or dialects is whether they are mutually comprehensible. Each Germanic tribe could understand the ones on its perimeter, but not the ones at the other end of the continent. It was more a continual spectrum of diverging dialects rather than pockets of distinct languages.

The Romans did not take an interest in studying the speech of their uncivilized neighbors (a more precise term than "barbarian," since "uncivilized" literally means "not yet having built cities," a truthful description of the various Germanic peoples at the time), so we have few records of the various German tongues. Etymologies in dictionaries refer to Anglo-Saxon simply as generic "Old High German."

So Old English is basically just a dialect of the same Old High German that the people were speaking in what is now Germany and Austria. It's easy to see the relationship. We have many of the same "strong" verbs: sing, sang, sung vs. German singen, sang, gesungen; the same umlauted plurals: mouse, mice vs. German maus, mäuse; even vestiges of the same way of counting: four-and-twenty (blackbirds) vs. German vier und zwanzig.

Modern Frisian is indeed generally cited as the language most closely related to English. But I have never seen it postulated that Old Frisian was the ancestor of English. Rather that the Frisians are descendants of people who were very closely related to the Angles and the Saxons. I.e., Old Frisian was a close relative of Old English, but it was not Old English.

It's difficult to chart the gradations of the Germanic tongues that would tell us the relationship between the Frisians (who inhabit a tiny area in the northern part of tiny Holland) and the Saxons (who presumably came from the German province of Saxony). The problem is that the Germanic tribes who lived between them were the Franks, who were conquered by the Romans. Unlike the Britons, the Romans did not leave them with their language, but ended up making Latin-speakers out of them. So we've lost the history of the German dialects of the Franks.

Yet modern French contains quite a few tantalizing remnants that leave no doubt about the Germanic origin of its speakers. It is the only Romance language that has the umlauted vowels common to most of the Teutonic languages: coeur, plume. It retains German's preference for the present perfect over the preterite: j'ai attende instead of j'attendais, German ich habe gewartet instead of ich wartete, whereas in English we are equally happy saying I waited instead of I have waited. And it has the guttural sounding glottal R of almost all Teutonic languages, instead of the trilled Latin R of all other Romance languages except (Brazilian) Portuguese. Interestingly, the people of south France, who are descended from the Gauls, a Celtic tribe, trill their R's like their Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, and Irish relatives.
The decisive thing was the Norman conquest, which meant that the rulers of England were Old French-speaking.
Indeed! Any relationship between English and the other Teutonic languages is difficult for a non-scholar to recognize because of the massive absorption of French vocabulary. Even everyday bread-and-butter words like "very" and "question" are French. An educated European who was not at all familiar with English (admittedly an unlikely straw man) would look at a page of written English and say it looks like a dialect of French.
The direct introduction of Latin words in the 16th and 17th century as the language of learning became English not Latin.
Yes, as if it were not already difficult to recognize English as a Teutonic language, we absorbed even more Latin words directly from Latin, bypassing the French middleman. It's interesting that even though there was an overlap of the Roman and Anglo-Saxon occupation of Britannia, virtually no Latin words were adopted into Old English. There were plenty adopted by the original Briton inhabitants, however. Modern Welsh, the descendant of the original Celtic "British" language, is full of Latin borrowings.
 
Cannot believe this thread has escaped me, how could you? I've been wronged.


Thereisties and Fraggle have pretty much said what I would have (but not as detailed, I lack patience) and considering my copy of Ivanhoe is still warm from reading I present:

"At court, and in the castles of the great nobles, where the pomp and state of a court was emulated, Norman-French was the only language employed; in courts of law, the pleadings and judgments were delivered in the same tongue. In short, French was the language of honour, of chivalry, and even of justice, while the far more manly and expressive Anglo-Saxon was abandoned to the use of rustics and hinds, who knew no other. Still, however, the necessary intercourse between the lords of the soil, and those oppressed inferior beings by whom that soil was cultivated, occasioned the gradual formation of a dialect, compounded betwixt the French and the Anglo-Saxon, in which they could render themselves mutually intelligible to each other; and from this necessity arose by degrees the structure of our present English language, in which the speech of the victors and the vanquished have been so happily blended together; and which has since been so richly improved by importations from the classical languages, and from those spoken by the southern nations of Europe."

- "Ivanhoe"

English, as all other languages is a mongrel tounge, but it is interesting to think its really a slave tounge no matter how proud the Saxon race presented itself. Almost like an ashy negro in his hut taking pride in his Creole, another slave tounge.
English then was a means for the lower caste- that of swinherds and jesters and kitchen help- to communicate with those looking down on them, the Normans.

Wamba the jester makes the distinction to Gurth between the 'finesse' of the Norman tounge and the rude Saxon one (they are both filthy Saxons):


" Nay , I can tell you more," said Wamba in the same tone: " there is old Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet while he is under the charge of serfs and bondsmen such as thou, but becomes Beef, a fiery French gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to consume him. Mynherr Calf, too, becomes Monsieur de Veau in the like manner: he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name when he becomes matter of enjoyment."

"Ox" is seen as rude to the Norman "beef"'s finesse.
"Calf" to the Norman "veau", likewise.
 
Hey, Gendanken, your just getting silly callin english a slave tongue. Most languages have been used by conquerors/ conquered. It makes no difference. dont forget the slave speaking english proceeded to conquer a third of the world.

Random fact for the day-Northumbrian (ie north east england) dialect is the closest survival to original anglo saxon. The way they pronounce words and the words they use are far older than modern english. Or so a bloke in the pub whose a historian and journalist and reenactor (that means he knows how to use a sword and stuff.) told me.

And fraggle rocker, I am amzed by the depth of knowledge you display. Do you have loads of free time, or have you written all these mini essays before?
 
gendanken said:
English, as all other languages is a mongrel tounge, but it is interesting to think its really a slave tounge no matter how proud the Saxon race presented itself. English then was a means for the lower caste- that of swinherds and jesters and kitchen help- to communicate with those looking down on them, the Normans.
Yes but...

Remember that the Norman occupation never ended. The Anglo-Saxon peasants never rose up and threw off the chains of their oppressors the way many New World nations did. And the Normans never had to go home and let their serfs go free due to domestic turmoil, the way the Romans did.

The Norman rulers assimilated! A couple of centuries after the Norman Conquest of 1066, the Normans in England began speaking Middle English -- the language that Old English had evolved into after borrowing thousands of Old French words and adapting to the overlay of many Norman institutions. They also eventually began to think of themselves as Englishmen rather than Normans. By Shakespeare's time, the Early Modern English in which he wrote was the universal language of England, nobles and vassals alike.

This is a rare phenomenon, for the conquerors to be absorbed by the conquered. Of course it has happened occasionally, most impressively in China, where it happened twice.

Genghis Khan's Mongol horde conquered China and he took over its throne -- I'm a little weak on my dates in that region but it was during the first half of the Second Millennium C.E. The Chinese never mounted a successful revolt, and the Mongols never had to flee back to Mongolia to prop up a failing regime at home. Yet two or three hundred years later, there was no sign of the Mongols ever ruling China -- except of course for the exhaustive records that the Chinese never stopped writing of their history and the occasional sign of Mongol blood in the Chinese gene pool. (Since the two peoples are so closely related that was probably as difficult to spot as signs of the Norman intermarriages with Anglo-Saxons. Recall that the Franks were a Germanic tribe closely related to the Anglo-Saxons, and that after the Romans abandoned Gaul/France, it was conquered by the Vikings, another Germanic people.)

Then around 250 years ago the Manchus conquered China. Went through the same process. No rebellion by the conquered, no retreat by the conquerors, yet the conquerors were simply swallowed up by the huge masses of the conquered. And they fared much worse than the Mongols. Mongolia still exists as a separate nation of Mongol people. The Manchu dynasty decided to annex their nation of Manchuria to China, so that when the Manchu people became part of the Chinese people, the nation of Manchuria became just so many more Chinese provinces. There is no Manchurian ethnic group or language any more!

Anyway, the English "slaves" have a lot to be proud of. They're a member of a very exclusive club: conquered people who absorbed their conquerors and were able to retain the identity of their nation.

btw, I think a lot of people would contest your use of the term "slave." From our lofty vantage point in a 20th Century color-blind democracy (is there a smiley face icon for sarcasm?) slavery and feudalism may look pretty similar, but there were important differences. I'll wager that the slaves in the Old South would have jumped at the chance to have the lives of serfs in medieval Europe. Actually, isn't that just about what they were forced to accept for several decades after the Civil War ended?
 
Fraggle:
btw, I think a lot of people would contest your use of the term "slave." From our lofty vantage point in a 20th Century color-blind democracy (is there a smiley face icon for sarcasm?) slavery and feudalism may look pretty similar, but there were important differences. I'll wager that the slaves in the Old South would have jumped at the chance to have the lives of serfs in medieval Europe. Actually, isn't that just about what they were forced to accept for several decades after the Civil War ended?
Meaning that Jim Crow was some mutant form of feudalism?

Anway, for those bleeding hearts that eyes bleed on seeing the word 'slave', try 'yeomen'

The Norman rulers assimilated! A couple of centuries after the Norman Conquest of 1066, the Normans in England began speaking Middle English -- the language that Old English had evolved into after borrowing thousands of Old French words and adapting to the overlay of many Norman institutions. They also eventually began to think of themselves as Englishmen rather than Normans. By Shakespeare's time, the Early Modern English in which he wrote was the universal language of England, nobles and vassals alike.
Like, thanks for the clear up but it was my understanding that the nobles- Prince John being one- held the language in contempt and only used it as a ....well, 'filthy' means to an end.

Have I heard wrong then?
 
Missed one-
Guth:
Hey, Gendanken, your just getting silly callin english a slave tongue.
Fine- a serf tounge.

Most languages have been used by conquerors/ conquered. It makes no difference. dont forget the slave speaking english proceeded to conquer a third of the world.
Yeah, in a group of idiots we only fear the one with a gun in its hand.

For example, must I tell you why America is a superpower?

And fraggle rocker, I am amzed by the depth of knowledge you display. Do you have loads of free time, or have you written all these mini essays before?

This is why I love when Fraggle replies, he is one of the first people I read when I signed up here a year ago. He knows his shit, as does the monkey despite the churlish games he uses in hiding it.

FEEDBACK!
 
Serf vs slave. There's actually quite a big difference. Serfs under the feudal system had legal rights- they may have had problems getting them sometimes, but they had them.
 
Thereistes:
Serf vs slave. There's actually quite a big difference. Serfs under the feudal system had legal rights- they may have had problems getting them sometimes, but they had them.
Fine and well, but do you a favor and get over the word 'slave'.

Akin to the hissy fit 98% of humanity has over the word 'racism'.

Anway, seems Fraggle has clocked out and I hate being left with dead variables so:

".... it was my understanding that the nobles- Prince John being one- held the language in contempt and only used it as a ....well, 'filthy' means to an end. Have I heard wrong then?"

Knights and Templars were far from literate but the few that were shunned the Germanic tounges, specifically English as most had no discipline or standing, and so learned the French or Latin ones.

From some Scottish history (Scott was an historian as well) I hear the blossoming English tounge was despised by the nobility- am I wrong? In much the way children of Zion were? No?
 
gendanken said:
Fine and well, but do you a favor and get over the word 'slave'.
Not a matter of "getting over": merely using the word accurately.

Akin to the hissy fit 98% of humanity has over the word 'racism'.

".... it was my understanding that the nobles- Prince John being one- held the language in contempt and only used it as a ....well, 'filthy' means to an end. Have I heard wrong then?"

Knights and Templars were far from literate but the few that were
shunned the Germanic tounges, specifically English as most had no discipline or standing, and so learned the French or Latin ones.
You've heard wrong. Filthy? No- rude and barbarous, yes. They used the native languages when they had to to speak to the natives. The Templars were both priests and knights and were obliged to be literate to hold the position. They would have used latin as a common language.

From some Scottish history (Scott was an historian as well) I hear the blossoming English tounge was despised by the nobility- am I wrong? In much the way children of Zion were? No?
What do racism and "children of Zion" [who they?} have to do with it?
 
Last edited:
guthrie said:
And Fraggle Rocker, I am amzed by the depth of knowledge you display. Do you have loads of free time, or have you written all these mini essays before?
A little of both, I guess. I'm sixty so I've had lots of time to learn and think. And I've done a lot of writing so by now it's impossible for anything I write to be totally original any more, I can't help but restate revelations I've had sometime during the preceding decades. But I never cut and paste. (Well I do that if I'm writing a computer training manual for money but even then I try to at least rewrite half of it to give it some freshness.) Check out some of my other postings and decide for yourself. I'm sure I've talked about the origins of English several times over the past two years.
Gendanken said:
Meaning that Jim Crow was some mutant form of feudalism?
Well I suppose it is. Or perhaps there's a spectrum with anarchy at one end and autocracy supported by slavery at the other, and Jim Crow is somewhere on that scale between feudalism and racist slavery. (The Greeks and Romans enslaved people more or less indiscriminately as the spoils of war.)
Like, thanks for the clear up but it was my understanding that the nobles- Prince John being one- held the language in contempt and only used it as a ....well, 'filthy' means to an end.
No you haven't heard wrong. The nobles did that for a number of years -- sorry I can't give you the exact number. But there's no dodging the fact that at some point before the 16th Century the nobles began speaking English and it happened without a turnover of power from the Norman to the English people. Perhaps someone else who is more a student of British history can explain how and why.
This is why I love when Fraggle replies, he is one of the first people I read when I signed up here a year ago. He knows his shit.
Well thanks, I appreciate the compliment. But I have committed some major blunders on SciForums. Don't take anything you read on a BBS too seriously until you're sure you've validated it. Cyberspace is a happy hunting ground for deceivers or even for people who just think they know more than they actually do. Which probably includes most of us at least some of the time.
 
Fraggle:
Check out some of my other postings and decide for yourself. I'm sure I've talked about the origins of English several times over the past two years.
Already decided- authentic. Which is why you are an asset to these forums so do you a favor and stop with the peekaboo of coming here for a while and then dropping off on some long hiatus.


(uhhmm....please?)

Well I suppose it is. Or perhaps there's a spectrum with anarchy at one end and autocracy supported by slavery at the other, and Jim Crow is somewhere on that scale between feudalism and racist slavery.
Ah- understood.

Not enforced enough to look slavish and not lax enough to grant freedom.


(The Greeks and Romans enslaved people more or less indiscriminately as the spoils of war.)
As did the Assyrians, one of the cruelest semitic people of the ancient world. Hitler would have loved what they did to the Hebrews.

No you haven't heard wrong. The nobles did that for a number of years -- sorry I can't give you the exact number. But there's no dodging the fact that at some point before the 16th Century the nobles began speaking English and it happened without a turnover of power from the Norman to the English people. Perhaps someone else who is more a student of British history can explain how and why.
I knew it. I just find it funny to find that almost half the globe treats this tounge now as if it were royalty (the way they do the dollar) and then find it was once a spurned tounge for the low caste.

Well thanks, I appreciate the compliment. But I have committed some major blunders on SciForums. Don't take anything you read on a BBS too seriously until you're sure you've validated it. Cyberspace is a happy hunting ground for deceivers or even for people who just think they know more than they actually do. Which probably includes most of us at least some of the time.
Considering how old you are here's hoping you did not take 'he knows his shit' as juvenile though it was.

All in all, you do know your shit and it is appreciated so..like, whatever.
 
Back
Top