Remove this Banner Ad

Education & Reference How was the English language invented?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

mrgrammy said:
lets answer you in a quickie. There were a number of tribes prevalent in England. One of the tribes had Ingles as their language. There were constant fights between each tribe. When the Ingles won then naturally their language Inglish which later spelled English became the official language of the country. Throughout several centuries this language suffered many changes. Now also it is ever evolving and becoming a completely new language than what it was previously.
Click to expand...

Well put, to add to that it was 'chopped and changed' by latin and other Nordic languages, now the definition is complete.
 
For anyone interesting in Olde English

Here are the numbers 1-12

one.........an
two.........twa
three.......prie
four........feower
five.........fif
six...........siex
seven......seofon
eight.......eahta
nine........nigon
ten.........tien
eleven.....endleofan
twelve.....twelf

Days of the week
sunday......... sunnandaeg
monday........ monandaeg
tuesday........ tiwesdaeg
wednesday.... wodnesdaeg
thursday....... thursdaeg
friday ............frigedaeg
saturday ........saeternedaeg

Months
january........... formamonath
febuary........... solmonath
march............. hrethmonath
april............... eastermonath
may............... thrimilce
june............... seremonath
july................ maedmonath
august........... weodmonath
september....... haerfestmonath
october........... winmonath
november......... blotmonath
december......... aerra geloa
 
BomberGal said:
BTW, look at some German or Dutch some time and note all the similar roots (and also, only about two words in that sentence actually have a Latin root - 'note' and 'similar'. And two in this one!). And their concepts are far more mutually understandable, than a Germanic and Latin language. Germanic sentence structure is far more easily translated into English than a Latin language. In fact syntax is almost identical with some of the Scandinavian languages - just substitute new words! You can't say this for a Latin language.
.
Click to expand...

To illustrate the above


Here is my family.
Hier ist meine Familie.


Here is my father and mother and that girl (maiden) is my sister.
Hier ist mein Vater und Mutter, und das Mädchen ist meine Schwester.


My father is earnest (serious) and drinks beer.
Mein Vater ist ernst und trinkt Bier.


My mother is not so serious. She drinks Wine.
Meine Mutter is nicht so ernst. Sie trinkt Wein.


My sister is sporty. She drinks milk and water.
Meine Schwester is sportlich. Sie trinkt Melk und Wasser.


I have five fingers, two arms and one nose.
Ich habe f*nf Finger, zwei Arme, und ein Nase.


Wir haben ein gross, blau Haus und ein braun Hund.
We have a big, blue House and a brown Hound (dog).


In summer, I swim on mondays and hike (wander) on Fridays.
In Sommer, schwimme Ich Montags und wandre ich Freitags.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

BomberGal said:
Meh. I've studied a Latin language, I'm aware of the similarities. It also means I'm aware of the huge differences in sentence structure. The way a language is constructed is what gives it its identity, not its vocabulary. Vocabulary doesn't make it closer to Latin at all. No language expert would ever argue that English was closer to a Latin language. Borrowed words at best replaced existing Germanic ones (and in many cases there is still a Germanic option - holiday vs vacation, for example) - it didn't change the way the language was spoken. English and Latin languages pronounce many letters differently, and letters combine to form different sounds. It's far easier to fake a good German accent than an Italian one (let alone French).

BTW, look at some German or Dutch some time and note all the similar roots (and also, only about two words in that sentence actually have a Latin root - 'note' and 'similar'. And two in this one!). And their concepts are far more mutually understandable, than a Germanic and Latin language. Germanic sentence structure is far more easily translated into English than a Latin language. In fact syntax is almost identical with some of the Scandinavian languages - just substitute new words! You can't say this for a Latin language.

The historic facts are in the link I provided, if you bothered to click it. I'm hardly just making it up that English is a Germanic language. That's what it's classified as. Textbook. Don't be deceived by superficial differences - here, have a fun toy to play with. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php

Anyway, you destroyed your credibility or demonstrated your complete ignorance when you said "Polish". Polish isn't a Germanic language (and yet I found it just as easy to 'guess' what was written on many signs in Poland as I did in France - why does this similarity not also deceive you?).

Or maybe you all destroy your credibility when you misunderstand the meaning of the word 'related'. I have more similar hair colour to my best friend than my brother, so does that mean I'm more closely related to her?

Go read a book or two on the subject, please. Or at least read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#Classification_and_related_languages

Note the section on the closest relatives of English (Scots and Frisian) and the discussion on the borrowing of French words which have acquired English pronunciation and stress.

(Some) words are borrowed. The language is not.
Click to expand...



Good post although the english language was mixed with latin all through history. During the times of the Romans, latin was forced upon the Old English people. As the Latin language spread and was used throughout the empire. Even those people who refused to speak the language learnt it so they could trade with foreign towns who did not speak their native tongue. This was what forced a lot of Languages to follow a latin base language and latin was, over time, mixed into many traditional Languages. The further north in Europe you go, the less Latin sounding the Languages become.

If we really want to go back to our human roots, we could say that as evolution and migration occurred, different people created different ways of communicating with each other. I believe no language has a specific root, but originate from a spark in evolution which just made it easier for people to simply talk! Over time Languages are affected by other languages and are adapted by the linguistics of a people. For example we could say: Why does asian writing look so different to western writing etc.... It boils down simply to the people who liked what it looked and sounded like and would be the most easily understood by the most people. Hopefully that makes some sort of sense.
 
BomberGal said:
Meh. I've studied a Latin language, I'm aware of the similarities. It also means I'm aware of the huge differences in sentence structure. The way a language is constructed is what gives it its identity, not its vocabulary. Vocabulary doesn't make it closer to Latin at all. No language expert would ever argue that English was closer to a Latin language. Borrowed words at best replaced existing Germanic ones (and in many cases there is still a Germanic option - holiday vs vacation, for example) - it didn't change the way the language was spoken. English and Latin languages pronounce many letters differently, and letters combine to form different sounds. It's far easier to fake a good German accent than an Italian one (let alone French).

BTW, look at some German or Dutch some time and note all the similar roots (and also, only about two words in that sentence actually have a Latin root - 'note' and 'similar'. And two in this one!). And their concepts are far more mutually understandable, than a Germanic and Latin language. Germanic sentence structure is far more easily translated into English than a Latin language. In fact syntax is almost identical with some of the Scandinavian languages - just substitute new words! You can't say this for a Latin language.

The historic facts are in the link I provided, if you bothered to click it. I'm hardly just making it up that English is a Germanic language. That's what it's classified as. Textbook. Don't be deceived by superficial differences - here, have a fun toy to play with. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php

Anyway, you destroyed your credibility or demonstrated your complete ignorance when you said "Polish". Polish isn't a Germanic language (and yet I found it just as easy to 'guess' what was written on many signs in Poland as I did in France - why does this similarity not also deceive you?).

Or maybe you all destroy your credibility when you misunderstand the meaning of the word 'related'. I have more similar hair colour to my best friend than my brother, so does that mean I'm more closely related to her?

Go read a book or two on the subject, please. Or at least read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#Classification_and_related_languages

Note the section on the closest relatives of English (Scots and Frisian) and the discussion on the borrowing of French words which have acquired English pronunciation and stress.

(Some) words are borrowed. The language is not.
Click to expand...


Wikipedia is not a very reliable source but if you also look up Latin influence on English there quite alot. The link is not working unfortunately sorry.
 
il commencer avec allegmange


und dahn...

Gloating-the-office-7727118-492-380.jpg


schmutzigen Sex schmerzenden
 
if anyone watched the movie a serious man? the beginning of that movie has a prologue scene where the characters are all speaking yiddish

and yiddish is a west germanic language... it sounds an awful lot like english!

the line was "Traitle Groskevor ist toit!" - which translates to "traitle groskevor is dead!'


pompous stuck up pommies will say no language sounds as immaculate as theirs or that English is the Universal language... yet i was listening to the german coach joachim loew being interviewed about their world cup opponents Australia: and his opinion on Australia was: 'das australier sie guter Forme!'

you dont even need subtitles to know that he said: 'the australians are in good form!'

French is actually an easy to learn with an english foundation if you can break down what youre talking about! however for the italians, spanish, portuguese they find french quite difficult (or the most difficult) because French shares a lot of words with English (same grammar and language structure to spanish/ italian though)

The thing that frustrates people trying to learn french is how particular it is. Which demands a big vocabulary: English you can use the same words for different situations, whereas French you need a different word. Eg "Too much", vs "I am coming too" or the word "else" or "as"

etc
 
XFactor1979 said:
The thing that frustrates people trying to learn french is how particular it is. Which demands a big vocabulary: English you can use the same words for different situations, whereas French you need a different word. Eg "Too much", vs "I am coming too" or the word "else" or "as"

etc
Click to expand...

Actually, English notoriously has just about the largest vocabulary of all languages, owing to its many influences over time. There are something like four or five times as many words in an English dictionary as there are in a French one. Think about your one example, "I am coming too" - I am coming also, I am coming as well. Do a quick google search on the numbers - English tends to pull numbers anywhere between 150,000 and a million. French is typically 35,000 to 100,000. A lot of English words are redundant of course, given we often have a Germanic or Latin option for many words, and people often complain many nuances are missing in English. But still English is generally regarded as having the most words.

WorldGame94 said:
Wikipedia is not a very reliable source but if you also look up Latin influence on English there quite alot. The link is not working unfortunately sorry.
Click to expand...

If you had read the thread you would have seen a) I have already discussed Latin influence on the English language and b) that I have corrected the link. Wikipedia might not be entirely accurate if you're writing an original research paper, but it serves the purpose for most of us for most of the time. Something like the statement "English is a Germanic language" would be a pretty monumental ****-up if it were wrong. Anyway, you don't have to believe Wikipedia. Pick up any textbook on the English language. Each and every one of them will tell you that English is a Germanic language.

As for your statement, "I believe no language has a specific root, but originate from a spark in evolution which just made it easier for people to simply talk!", everything has to have a specific root - the same language can't have popped up multiple times in different places. Language differences have nothing to do with human evolution, but migration.

You direct us look up the Latin influence in English on Wikipedia, which oddly enough you just said is 'not very reliable'. Anyway, omit pointed out the first sentence in that article - that English is a Germanic language. Then read in the third sentence about native English words: "the actual percentage of native words used in normal English ranges from 70%–85%". So functionally, English is 70-85% old English words, and retaining almost entirely old English structure.

Please stop arguing ridiculous things that no expert (or almost any normal person) would ever, ever agree with.
 
omit said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_influence_in_English

I like the first sentence
Click to expand...

What is your point? I did not deny that English was related to Germanic languages. All i am saying is that latin is a part of it. The page later reads that latin does contribute to the english language quite allot. Which one contributes more is very open to interpretation. If all you wish to base your posts on is wikipedia pages you need to do more research and gain information from other outlets. If you didn't realise wiki pages are made by people like you and me. Not a board of qualified historians. :rolleyes:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

BomberGal said:
Actually, English notoriously has just about the largest vocabulary of all languages, owing to its many influences over time. There are something like four or five times as many words in an English dictionary as there are in a French one. Think about your one example, "I am coming too" - I am coming also, I am coming as well. Do a quick google search on the numbers - English tends to pull numbers anywhere between 150,000 and a million. French is typically 35,000 to 100,000. A lot of English words are redundant of course, given we often have a Germanic or Latin option for many words, and people often complain many nuances are missing in English. But still English is generally regarded as having the most words.



If you had read the thread you would have seen a) I have already discussed Latin influence on the English language and b) that I have corrected the link. Wikipedia might not be entirely accurate if you're writing an original research paper, but it serves the purpose for most of us for most of the time. Something like the statement "English is a Germanic language" would be a pretty monumental ****-up if it were wrong. Anyway, you don't have to believe Wikipedia. Pick up any textbook on the English language. Each and every one of them will tell you that English is a Germanic language.

As for your statement, "I believe no language has a specific root, but originate from a spark in evolution which just made it easier for people to simply talk!", everything has to have a specific root - the same language can't have popped up multiple times in different places. Language differences have nothing to do with human evolution, but migration.

You direct us look up the Latin influence in English on Wikipedia, which oddly enough you just said is 'not very reliable'. Anyway, omit pointed out the first sentence in that article - that English is a Germanic language. Then read in the third sentence about native English words: "the actual percentage of native words used in normal English ranges from 70%–85%". So functionally, English is 70-85% old English words, and retaining almost entirely old English structure.

Please stop arguing ridiculous things that no expert (or almost any normal person) would ever, ever agree with.
Click to expand...


Your first paragraph is pretty much pointless dribble and please stop referring to things you think up on the spot. I would love to see your 'English Language text books' very much.

I never said that a language can pop up in various places more than once at all. I also did say that migration has an effect on the evolution of a language. Migration is a contributing factor to the evolution of a language. They are not two different things.

I think you have been reading something else or you have changed what i have written in your own head. You are also making up arguments that i never said. I never said that Latin had a larger contribution than Germanic languages i just stated that it plays a large part.

English is not a germanic Language it is the English language! I think if you read those english text books of yours they will say that Germanic languages are different to the english language. They may be similar but they are not the twins you make them out to be.

I would also like to know: Are you a historian of some sort because if not, referring me back to your own posts for enlightenment is not convincing me at all. Find somebody else's balls to break. Seriously, play nice and don't put people down in your posts.
 
WorldGame94 said:
Your first paragraph is pretty much pointless dribble and please stop referring to things you think up on the spot. I would love to see your 'English Language text books' very much.
Click to expand...

Go to a library. I've browsed some of them. Some are available online (http://www.google.com/search?q=english+language&btnG=Search+Books&tbs=bks:1&tbo=1 ). Seriously, they're not a magical resource you can't access. And speak to people who have actually studied the history of the English language.

I never said that a language can pop up in various places more than once at all. I also did say that migration has an effect on the evolution of a language. Migration is a contributing factor to the evolution of a language. They are not two different things.
Click to expand...

No, you just said that a) evolution of humans has an effect (it doesn't, because humans evolved earlier than language developed), and b) a language can't have a specific starting point. It does have to.

I think you have been reading something else or you have changed what i have written in your own head. You are also making up arguments that i never said. I never said that Latin had a larger contribution than Germanic languages i just stated that it plays a large part.
Click to expand...

Um, if you think English is a Latin language because of all the similarities, then you must think Latin has a larger influence than the Germanic languages - because otherwise you'd call it a Germanic language!

You made the following statements:

"Based on Latin like most European Languages i think. Then mixed with the anglo/Northern languages"

"English is actually closer to Latin languages like italian, french etc"

The first is false because English started out as a Germanic language and then absorbed some vocabulary from Latin languages.

The second is false because most functional vocabulary, as I showed before, is of Germanic origin.

Of course it has some Latin influence - but only for a small amount of vocabulary. Not structure or function.

English is not a germanic Language it is the English language! I think if you read those english text books of yours they will say that Germanic languages are different to the english language. They may be similar but they are not the twins you make them out to be.
Click to expand...

Germanic does not mean German. Germanic refers to a family of languages, which includes German, amongst others. English is one of these Germanic languages, because they all share a common root. It's really not a difficult concept.

I would also like to know: Are you a historian of some sort because if not, referring me back to your own posts for enlightenment is not convincing me at all. Find somebody else's balls to break. Seriously, play nice and don't put people down in your posts.
Click to expand...

The last couple of pages have been about how wrong you are. Don't cry because you've been proven wrong.
 
WorldGame94 said:
If you didn't realise wiki pages are made by people like you and me. Not a board of qualified historians. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually, I edit pages in fields I am qualified in, and generally errors in all fields are corrected by qualified people. And very quickly at that.

I assure you, the English page is not suddenly going to change to say that English is a Latin language. It's just a fact.
 
Unsinn!

the english language is a west germanic language

and the word stress is the same as german except English people dont want to side with ze evil germans on anything:

it was because William the conqueror (a frenchy from Normandy) invaded england in the 11th century that we are speaking the universal (according to Hollywood) language!

The latin words we speak that the frenchys gave us:
for example = par exemple
envelope = enveloppe
situation = situation
condition = condition
however the frenchy's pronounce everything differently - just to shit you! :p

german:
blitzkrieg = blitzkrieg
my name is slim shady= mein name ist slim shady(yes, you can say that too!)

words that sound very similar:

the australians are in good form = der australier sind in guter Forme
this is the weather in europe = dies ist das Wetter in Europa
for what = fur was?
what is this = was ist das?
excuse me - entschuldigen sie (pronounced e-sch-se-di-gen sie)
learn = lernen
for me = fur mich!
oh my god = o mein gott!

anyway once you go to oktoberfest you learn that german is a really cool language to speak in when youre drunk, or swear in! :)

this is a clip of the simpsons in German: the words are actually quite close to the animation of the lips talking!!

[youtube]y61g7MIm534[/youtube]
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

BomberGal said:
Go to a library. I've browsed some of them. Some are available online (http://www.google.com/search?q=english+language&btnG=Search+Books&tbs=bks:1&tbo=1 ). Seriously, they're not a magical resource you can't access. And speak to people who have actually studied the history of the English language.



No, you just said that a) evolution of humans has an effect (it doesn't, because humans evolved earlier than language developed), and b) a language can't have a specific starting point. It does have to.



Um, if you think English is a Latin language because of all the similarities, then you must think Latin has a larger influence than the Germanic languages - because otherwise you'd call it a Germanic language!

You made the following statements:

"Based on Latin like most European Languages i think. Then mixed with the anglo/Northern languages"

"English is actually closer to Latin languages like italian, french etc"

The first is false because English started out as a Germanic language and then absorbed some vocabulary from Latin languages.

The second is false because most functional vocabulary, as I showed before, is of Germanic origin.

Of course it has some Latin influence - but only for a small amount of vocabulary. Not structure or function.



Germanic does not mean German. Germanic refers to a family of languages, which includes German, amongst others. English is one of these Germanic languages, because they all share a common root. It's really not a difficult concept.



The last couple of pages have been about how wrong you are. Don't cry because you've been proven wrong.
Click to expand...







You are incredible! All that to pretty much cut me down. I still do strongly believe that latin has had a larger affect on the english language than just vocab. Latin has affected structure and many other aspects. Maybe not as much as other's but it still has. The Roman's had a large affect on the languages of the old english. If you also look at european languages they are more similar to each other than say asian languages. So differences are small when compared to languages like Chinese and arabic.
Ok i didn't realise that the germanic language group was a family of languages. I thought it only refereed to a group of languages which have been moulded into today's modern german and other northeastern languages. That is fair enough.
My final point is that a language does evolve. Migration is a contributing factor to this evolution. Other factors are specific to a group of people and are there are many. The ability to communicate via sounds in present in monkeys. They help read emotion. We in or human evolution, grew upon these primitive beginnings. With the help of migration and other social factors languages started to be formed.
You really need to get a life. You can approach somebody with reason. I can't believe you would go so far out of your way to do all this over such a debatable issue.
 
WorldGame94 said:
You are incredible! All that to pretty much cut me down. I still do strongly believe that latin has had a larger affect on the english language than just vocab. Latin has affected structure and many other aspects. Maybe not as much as other's but it still has. The Roman's had a large affect on the languages of the old english. If you also look at european languages they are more similar to each other than say asian languages. So differences are small when compared to languages like Chinese and arabic.
Ok i didn't realise that the germanic language group was a family of languages. I thought it only refereed to a group of languages which have been moulded into today's modern german and other northeastern languages. That is fair enough.
My final point is that a language does evolve. Migration is a contributing factor to this evolution. Other factors are specific to a group of people and are there are many. The ability to communicate via sounds in present in monkeys. They help read emotion. We in or human evolution, grew upon these primitive beginnings. With the help of migration and other social factors languages started to be formed.
You really need to get a life. You can approach somebody with reason. I can't believe you would go so far out of your way to do all this over such a debatable issue.
Click to expand...

Language of course evolves. I meant different language groups have nothing to do with the evolution of humans.

See, you didn't realise Germanic was a family of languages, and yet you were adamant English wasn't as closely related. If you don't know the basic facts, please stop arguing, or at least choose to learn something. Don't you see why people get frustrated when you argue when you're ignorant of something like that?

BTW - Latin structure is completely different from English. As are the Romance languages. I studied Italian, and amongst the immediate things that can differ are the order in which you place verb/subject/object, the position of adjectives and adverbs, the position of prepositions, verb conjugation* (including how many different moods and tenses there are in other languages!), the position of pronouns, which article is used if at all, where modifiers go, the way modal and auxiliary verbs work...and this is only me studying another language at a basic level, let alone what someone could tell you who had studied it in much more depth. Read DidakDelight's post a few up, with the examples of English and German sentences - English has generally retained this Germanic origin. I recommend you read the highly informative third post of this thread too. :)

*Romance languages are what is known as inflected, or at least are highly so. Germanic languages are generally not so much, including English. Check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflected#Inflection_in_various_languages . As an example, take the verb 'to go' - it has a few inflections. Go, goes, going, gone. Count the inflections for the verb 'to go' in Italian, "andare", and you get 46 inflections.
 
BomberGal said:
BTW - Latin structure is completely different from English. As are the Romance languages. I studied Italian, and amongst the immediate things that can differ are the order in which you place verb/subject/object,
Click to expand...

Completely different? Big statement and one which I disagree with.

Lets start with a bit of history
Between the 4th and 11th centuries the period between The Anglo Saxon migration and the norman invasion the English language was shaped to literacy by men (usually relegious) who wrote and spoke latin. They also believed that latin was a perfect language; and a large part of the literature was translated or imitated from latin authors.
Remember this was a time of great illiteracy, only men educated in Latin knew how to read and write.

We all know what it is like translating a text literally to another language, the structure can come out completely different and grammatically wrong. (just use an online translator for evidence of this).

These early translations may indeed have appeared structurally wrong but these releigious men believed latin to be an ideal language and therefore believed that this should be the way written english is structured.
It shouldnt be doubted therefore that Latin exercised a great influence on the Anglo Saxon. If it didnt lead to introduction of wholly new forms, either of etymlogy or syntax then it led to extended and uniform use of forms which are like Latin.

One of the more striking similarities is that periphrastic verb constructions in English and latin languages (in both active and passive voices) are identical.

Latin languages start to become completely different to english when you throw in the way they use prepositions, definite articles on nouns that in english we never would & separate gender for nouns etc..

Saying that the structure of a latin language is completely different to english is very naive.

BomberGal said:
.. the way modal and auxiliary verbs work...and this is only me studying another language at a basic level,
Click to expand...

The auxiliary verb 'have' translates the same and works exactly the same in English and Latin languages.
I dont know if german has the same auxiliary verb or not, perhaps someone can confirm?
Is this a syntactical or structural similarity to latin or has there been some sort of germanic influence on latin languages to create this?
Seems latin to me.

BomberGal said:
let alone what someone could tell you who had studied it in much more depth. Read DidakDelight's post a few up, with the examples of English and German sentences - English has generally retained this Germanic origin. I recommend you read the highly informative third post of this thread too. :)
Click to expand...

Let us add in a latin language and see how the syntax compares, I shall use spanish. I'll also highlight in red where the structure differs to that of english and german.

Here is my family.
Hier ist meine Familie.
Aqui esta mi famila

Here is my father and mother and that girl (maiden) is my sister.
Hier ist mein Vater und Mutter, und das Mädchen ist meine Schwester.
Aqui esta mi padre y madre, y esta chica es m hermana

My father is earnest (serious) and drinks beer.
Mein Vater ist ernst und trinkt Bier.
Mi padre es serio y toma cerveza

My mother is not so serious. She drinks Wine.
Meine Mutter is nicht so ernst. Sie trinkt Wein.
Mi madre no es seria. Ella bebe vino

My sister is sporty. She drinks milk and water.
Meine Schwester is sportlich. Sie trinkt Melk und Wasser.
Mi hermana es deportiva. Ella bebe leche y aqua

I have five fingers, two arms and one nose.
Ich habe funf Finger, zwei Arme, und ein Nase.
Yo tengo cinco dedos, dos brazos y una nariz

Conclusion - sentence structure is the same, only applying a negative caused a change in structure.

....i'll add more later..
 
DidakDelight said:
Completely different? Big statement and one which I disagree with.

Lets start with a bit of history
Between the 4th and 11th centuries the period between The Anglo Saxon migration and the norman invasion the English language was shaped to literacy by men (usually relegious) who wrote and spoke latin. They also believed that latin was a perfect language; and a large part of the literature was translated or imitated from latin authors.
Remember this was a time of great illiteracy, only men educated in Latin knew how to read and write.

We all know what it is like translating a text literally to another language, the structure can come out completely different and grammatically wrong. (just use an online translator for evidence of this).

These early translations may indeed have appeared structurally wrong but these releigious men believed latin to be an ideal language and therefore believed that this should be the way written english is structured.
It shouldnt be doubted therefore that Latin exercised a great influence on the Anglo Saxon. If it didnt lead to introduction of wholly new forms, either of etymlogy or syntax then it led to extended and uniform use of forms which are like Latin.

One of the more striking similarities is that periphrastic verb constructions in English and latin languages (in both active and passive voices) are identical.

Latin languages start to become completely different to english when you throw in the way they use prepositions, definite articles on nouns that in english we never would & separate gender for nouns etc..

Saying that the structure of a latin language is completely different to english is very naive.

The auxiliary verb 'have' translates the same and works exactly the same in English and Latin languages.
I dont know if german has the same auxiliary verb or not, perhaps someone can confirm?

Is this a syntactical or structural similarity to latin or has there been some sort of germanic influence on latin languages to create this?
Seems latin to me.


Let us add in a latin language and see how the syntax compares, I shall use spanish. I'll also highlight in red where the structure differs to that of english and german.
Click to expand...

Whilst that is true, the sentences you've used - as you mentioned - are very basic ones. If you wanted to say anything slightly more complex, you wouldn't say it in the same order. Most of the sentences you used utilise none or few of the things I mentioned in my post that appear in different orders - adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, or auxiliary verbs, for a start, and therefore it is very naive for you in turn - and deceptive - to state word order is similar based on sentences that are not descriptive of how the language generally works, surely. Latin languages have been simplified over time to become this way; English has retained the Germanic origin.

Latin, for example, was infamous in that word order mattered very little - as long as you had the right inflection. English word order has most definitely not come from this Latinate origin, but reflects the Germanic one; the inflected Romance languages functionally do reflect a different order.

I like blue cars. Do you see the car over there? I would like to drive it. Do you think we could buy it?
Mi piacciono le auto blu. Lì vedi le auto? Lo vorrei guidare (alternatively, vorrei guardarlo). Pensi che lo potremmo comprare (alternatively, potremmo comparlo)?

(There are alternative, equally correct word orders, I am using the one that highlights differences - many of which are being picked up in Italian now to reflect English word orders!)

The literal translation is, "To me are pleasing the (the is plural) blue car. There you see the car? It I would like to drive. You think that it we could buy?"

Who is the letter for?
Per chi è la lettera? (For who is the letter?)

Whose is the book?
Di chi è il libro? (Of who is the book?)

It's John's.
È di John. (It is of John.)

The book is mine.
Il libro è il mio. (The book is the my.)

My sister has arrived.
È arrivata (la) mia sorella. (Is arrived (the) my sister.)

Ecco due dollari. Non lì vedo, dove lì hai messo? Qui!
Here is two dollars. I can't see the money, where have you put it? Here!
"Here two dollars. Don't them I see, where them you have put?"

And I would argue that the auxiliary verb "have" does not always translate the same into Italian. In English, you always use the verb have. I have eaten, I have slept, I have been. In Italian (other Romance languages too?), the auxiliary verb may be 'have' or 'be', depending on whether the verb is transitive (have) or intransitive (be).

I have eaten: (Io) ho mangiato.
I have slept: (Io) sono dormita. (Note the ending of the word changes to reflect gender.)
I have been: Sono stata.

Ho means "I have". Sono means "I am", not "I have" (and therefore, confusingly, you would be saying "I am slept" and "I am being" - the last implies something quite different if you don't get it right!). Furthermore, if you want to make any of these questions: "have you eaten?", you must change word order. In Italian, order remains the same: Hai mangiato?

They may not be as dramatically different as other languages you could choose, but for all intents and purposes, you are not going to be structuring your sentences the same.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Education & Reference How was the English language invented?

Similar threads

DickieKnee
How do we get fertizer from manure?
Replies
1
Views
789
MP_
MP_
C
Environment Water Wastage
Replies
1
Views
777
kickazz
kickazz
Mr_Bojangles
Sports So who do YOU think won the big grand final on the Telstra/AFL 'This is Footy Country' Ad?
Replies
1
Views
557
Mofra
Mofra
MrsBlueSky
Arts & Humanities The Jon Lewis sacking from 6PR
Replies
1
Views
775
Billy ray
Billy ray

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top