| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is English a Romance language?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Is English a Romance language?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is English a Romance language?
    Posted: 28 Jul 2016 at 17:26
I am not sure if this is the right section, but here goes. 

Guten Tag everyone, 

I'm Gordon and I am new to the field of linguistics. I began only 5 months ago so forgive me for any ignorance I demonstrate. 

Is English a Romance Language? English has part Romance blood in it, if you will. Despite this, English is, not classified as a Romance language. English is partially Latin, one cannot deny, but is not recognized as Romance because of its partiality. Thus, linguists have set out the first precedent for themselves: partiality is measured as invalidity. But English is only partially Germanic. Why is that partiality ignored. The answer, because Germanic is the closest language family that English can fit into. As subjective as this sounds, I am not a linguist, and I cannot say what family has more dominance in English’s ancestry. Linguists have now set a second precedent for themselves: dominance is measured as validity. Spanish is Romance because Romance influence is dominant. English is Germanic because it is dominant. What makes a language belong to a language family? Dominant ancestry.

What is a language family? “A language family is a group of languages related through descent from a common ancestor, called the proto-language of that family.”[1] So, a language family is based on ancestry. Let’s take the Latin family. Is English Latin because of its Latin ancestry? It certainly seems like it should.

What is a Romance language? Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary AND Thesaurus 2014 defines Romance as “Of or relating to any of several languages developed from Latin” [cite]. So a Romance language is a language that is developed from Latin. Was English developed from Latin? Yes. Before the 11th century, it is assumed to be Germanic with little to no Latin influence. In the 11th century, many English words were born out of Latin. Yes, Latin partially developed the English language. English is partially a Romance language.

“The Romance languages are a language family in the Indo-European languages. They started from Vulgar Latin. The biggest Romance languages are Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian, and Catalan. They are called "romance languages" because they originate from a language spoken by Romans.”[2] Wikipedia is not a recognized source by scholars. Therefore, one cannot rest any reliance on it. According to the article, If English is to be Romance, it must start from Vulgar Latin. Now, English did not begin from Vulgar Latin. To be completely fair, Spanish did not directly begin from Vulgar Latin either. Spanish is a dialect of the Castilian languages, and it is a far descendant from Vulgar Latin. This goes for all of the Romance languages. Thus, right there, it appears that Wikipedia has contradicted itself. Wikipedia cannot be recognized.

“(initial capital letter). Also, Romanic. Also called Romance languages. the group of Italic Indo-European languages descended since a.d. 800 from Latin, as French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Provençal, Catalan, Rhaeto-Romanic, Sardinian, and Ladino. Abbreviation: Rom.”[3] Keyword here is descended. Yes, this works. French is a descendant of Latin as are all the rest listed in this definition. So is much of English descendant from Latin.

Take for instance, the word instance. “1300-50; Middle English < Latin instantia presence, urgency ( Medieval Latin: case, example). See instant, -ance”.[4] The word’s origin or ancestor is Latin, hence descendant. How about the word we just used, descendant? “1425-75; late Middle English descendaunt (adj.) < Old French descendant, present participle of descendre. See descend, -ant”[5]. Latin ancestry again.

“About 80 percent of the entries in any English dictionary are borrowed, mainly from Latin. Over 60 percent of all English words have Greek or Latin roots. In the vocabulary of the sciences and technology, the figure rises to over 90 percent. About 10 percent of the Latin vocabulary has found its way directly into English without an intermediary (usually French)”[6]. Thus a good portion of English is a descendent of Latin. Thus, by this definition, it appears that English is partially Romance.

The classification of languages into language families is not perfect. Linguists strive to classify a language into only one language family. As I have demonstrated, English has its primary ancestry through Germanic, and much vocabulary ancestry through Latin. My conclusion that English is a Romance language, at least in part, is met with only opposition so far. The reason they give is that many languages contain mixtures of family languages as if this is a direct rebuttal of my conclusion which it is not.

Why is English Germanic? “…the Romance languages are not as closely related to English as the Germanic languages are”[7]. Thus, the dominant trait is the deciding factor. Whichever family contributes more is the one that is the ancestor and language family – Germanic. Is this a fair way to classify a language? It sure is much less complicated and Black and White. But one cannot ignore the gray area. It just doesn’t go away.

“Wait a minute! There are plenty of English words that are almost exactly like their French or Italian equivalents. And doesn’t English borrow a lot of phrases from the Latin-based Romance languages? Yes, thousands of English words come directly from Latin. However, the incorporation of Latinate words into English is a rather recent development when compared to the entire history of its evolution. Rather than evolving solely from the Germanic root language, some words arrived through intermarriage.

Linguists use many factors, such as grammar, phonology, and vocabulary, to determine the historical ancestry of modern languages. The overall composition of English reveals strong Germanic roots. It’s official: English is a proud member of the West Germanic language family! Have you learned to speak other languages besides English? Or is a different language your native tongue? All languages have family lineages that are fascinating to trace. Why not do a little research? Getting to know the history of languages will strengthen your appreciation for the ones you speak”[8].

 

English has strong Germanic roots. Hence, it is Germanic. “Linguists use many factors, such as grammar, phonology, and vocabulary, to determine the historical ancestry of modern languages.” English has strong Latin roots. Hence, it is Latin. Just because it is not fully Latin, it is significantly Latin. But it is not Romance. Can you see the serious logic flaw here? It is a complete lack of Latin recognition, but a complete recognition of Germanic. To call English both Germanic and Latin is okay, one cannot deny the Latin roots. But to call English Germanic and Romance is a sin.

          In summary, the lack of Romance recognition is unsatisfactory. Linguists recognize the dominant language. Perhaps it is subjective to say Germanic is more influential than Latin. I do not know because I am not a linguist. But to sit back and let the linguists do all the work in classification and not let the students know even why, is not satisfactory for those wanting to know why English is classified as it is.

          Is English a creole? “The concept of "Proto-Human" presupposes monogenesis (evolution from a common ancestor) of all natural languages apart from pidgins, creoles, and sign languages”[9]. English obviously has two ancestors. “The Middle English creole hypothesis is the concept that the English language is a creole, i.e. a language that developed from a pidgin. The vast differences between Old and Middle English have led some historical linguists to claim that the language underwent creolisation at around the time of the Norman Conquest. The theory was first proposed in 1977 by C. Bailey and K. Maroldt and has since found both supporters and detractors in the academic world.[1]”[10]. Obviously, this hypothesis makes sense. Why do people say it is not? “However, many say that English is probably not a creole because it retains a high number (283) of irregular verbs.[3]”[11]. It is the grammar that makes the difference. Thus, again, a language family is based on grammar and not vocabulary. English has more than one ancestor. A family does not include vocabulary.

            “A language family is a grouping of linguistically linked languages, stemming from a common ancestral mother-language called Protolanguage”[12]. “A language family is a set of languages deriving from a common ancestor or "parent"”[13]. This does not include vocabulary. Mention that. You notice they don’t. A language family is categorized only by grammatical similarities. If two languages have similar vocabulary, they are not necessarily in the same family. This is not something linguists tell you. The rare times this is applicable and the only time I have found is when English is not a Romance language. Then linguists go into their whole, “grammar is the deciding factor thing.” But why vocabulary is discounted entirely is beyond me. Yes, I agree that grammar is more influential, but to ignore vocabulary, that is unfair. And the only response to this is, that’s that and there is no more discussion. A complete ignorance of the facts!

               The conclusion: Linguistics is arbitrary. It is really based on opinion. This opinion is rather narrow, but they try to classify family languages in ways that will give the student an idea of how family languages are classified, spoon fed. Do the classifications tell us everything about ancestry? Absolutely not. I am therefore not altogether interested in the study of classification. It tends to shortcut and take a simplistic approach even misleading. Research is very important. Don’t just look at what other people say. Find out the facts for yourself.

 

 




Any insight is appreciated. Thank you for listening to my rant. Smile

Edited by Gordon - 31 Jul 2016 at 17:09
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2016 at 23:30
Guten Abend Meinen Herren,
You might find John McWhorter's language class, "Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths of Language Usage" interesting, from the www.thegreatcourses.com.  They're not cheap, but stuff is always going on sale, so if you might find out when the prices are lower.  There is also a demo CD that has a sample course (from a different series by McWhorter), + an American history class.  You might ask them for that just to see what McWhorter is like.
Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths of Language Usage includes a sequence of 1/2 hour classes.
1 Alarm over the Decay of English
2 Surprises in the ancestry of Old English
3 Not Exactly Anglo-Saxon
4 Don't forget the Celtic Connection
5  From Insider Language to Lingua Franca
6 English as Easy German
7 The Viking Conquest of English
8 How the Words of Modern English Emerged.
9 Black English-the Streamlining continues.
10, 11, 12-24
That might answer some of your questions regarding English and its German classification.  Of course I am not saying you _have_ to accept what he says, but you might consider it food for thought (Mann ist was er isst).  The sample is about Polynesian languages and African click languages, but that in itself is interesting historically.  You also might check and see if he is on youtube.  I think one thing a linguist might point out is that the latin comes in late and indirectly through French and through the Church.  McWhorter says that Frisian is next closest language to English.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2016 at 02:28
The problem with the English Language is that it uses so many loan words that original English is now more difficult to determine.

If we took away all of the loan words, what would our vocabulary look like?
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 867
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2016 at 10:41
Gaelic.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2016 at 13:19
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Gaelic.

Would it though? There were people in Britain before the Gaels.(Celts)
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 00:40
I appreciate the suggestion, but I have done extensive research. This is my conclusion. If English was in only one language family, it would be Germanic. But it is not only Germanic.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 02:34
Originally posted by Gordon Gordon wrote:

I appreciate the suggestion, but I have done extensive research. This is my conclusion. If English was in only one language family, it would be Germanic. But it is not only Germanic.

Correct, so words from which family make up the most of what we know as modern day English?

Has English changed from being basically and Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) language to something else?
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2016 at 12:50
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Gordon Gordon wrote:

I appreciate the suggestion, but I have done extensive research. This is my conclusion. If English was in only one language family, it would be Germanic. But it is not only Germanic.

Correct, so words from which family make up the most of what we know as modern day English?

Germanic

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Has English changed from being basically and Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) language to something else?

Yes.


Edited by Gordon - 03 Aug 2016 at 13:11
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2016 at 02:37
The map is not the terrain, a map is a guide to a terrain, but it is not the terrain.

So don't get confused between a language tree and the language.  English may have gone through
a creole stage back in the dark ages (or maybe with Middle English), but still its background is German and IndoEuropean.
Again, I would recommend John McWhorter on this topic.

I think grammar is more important than vocabulary in determining family and subfamily.  If
English is something else, then the logical question is what is it?  Language trees are more important
in showing where a language comes from, than where a language is going.
But yes, there was a creole stage, which is why our verb declensions are so simple.
I have
you have
he/she/it has
they have
we have
you (all) have

Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2016 at 12:49
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The map is not the terrain, a map is a guide to a terrain, but it is not the terrain.

So don't get confused between a language tree and the language.  English may have gone through
a creole stage back in the dark ages (or maybe with Middle English), but still its background is German and IndoEuropean.

Do mean to say IndoEuropean? Germanic is IndoEuropean so it sounds redundant.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2016 at 15:09
Well well well, another language topic. Before starting this discussion I want to make clear that vocabulary is largely irrelevant when classifying a language. At least that is where my opinion rests. Grammarical similary is what determines relatedness between languages.

Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 04 Aug 2016 at 15:10
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2016 at 02:40
If English is a Romance language then it is not German(ic), but still is Indo-European.

All Germanic languages are Indo-European, but not all Indo-European languages are German.
By mentioning English as Germanic and Indo-European, all I am doing is mentioning the branch
from which German branches off, to show that I am not just talking about German(ic), but language
trees in general.

McWhorter says that the language that is closest to English is Frisian.  From what I understand, I agree that grammar is more important than vocabulary in figuring out language families, but I think that there is a certain amount of virtue, in trying to argue against the current, so to speak, even if one will probably not succeed.  Gordon is trying something different, in trying something different he will either clarify the topic for everybody, or at least clarify it for himself, hopefully.  If he clarifies it for everybody, then the guppy will swallow the whale, which could happen, although not very likely.
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2016 at 03:26
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The problem with the English Language is that it uses so many loan words that original English is now more difficult to determine.

If we took away all of the loan words, what would our vocabulary look like?

I think I already answered this question, but just to clarify, it would look like a Germanic language if we took all the loanwords away. This is is basically what I wrote in the original post. I went on to say that English is a Romance language because of the its loanwords from French. It sounds reasonable to me, but obviously there are many who disagree. So, in summary, do you agree with my position?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2016 at 08:02
Sorry, no.

Yes, English contains French loan words, German loan words, Italian loan words as well as a number of Asian loan words.

In fact, there are so many loan words, I don't think that modern English could be said to be a romance language-but I would agree with the the notion that it contains many Romance Language words.


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 16:26
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Gaelic.

If it is, English may have some Gaelic ancestry, but a small percentage. Much less than Germanic and Romance. Is Gaelic Celtic though?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 02:25
Originally posted by Gordon Gordon wrote:

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Gaelic.

If it is, English may have some Gaelic ancestry, but a small percentage. Much less than Germanic and Romance. Is Gaelic Celtic though?

AFAIK Celtic and Gaelic are interchangeable.

What I was suggesting is that if all "loan words", including gaelic were removed from the langauage, what we be left with. I don't think anyone really knows because, again, AFIK, those people had no written language.


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 02:48
You would have a hypothetical language which between what we have, and Indo-European (which is a hypothetical language, based on language evolution such as Grimm's Law, etc.)
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 03:07
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Gaelic.

Would it though? There were people in Britain before the Gaels.(Celts)

Who?
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2016 at 02:48
Originally posted by Gordon Gordon wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Gaelic.

Would it though? There were people in Britain before the Gaels.(Celts)

Who?

Who were the people in Britain before the Gaels?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2016 at 03:44
Quote Who were the people in Britain before the Gaels?

As I understand it, the Earliest identifiable inhabitants of Britain were the Britons. But about that time, there are references to various people by the name of a "culture" which has been ascribed to them such as "Bell Beaker" and so on. There were different tribes of Britons, but I don't think they had any form of writing, so we rely on archeology to describe them and their way of life.

Of course, if I'm wrong I'd be interested in reading some references to the earliest inhabitants.



God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2016 at 04:02
I found this on Wikipedia-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Britain

Quote By around 4000 BC, the island was populated by people with a Neolithic culture.[5] However, none of the pre-Romaninhabitants of Britain had any known, surviving, written language. Because no literature of pre-Roman Britain has survived, its history, culture and way of life are known mainly through archaeological finds. Though the main evidence for the period is archaeological, there is a growing amount of genetic evidence, which continues to change. There is also a small amount of linguistic evidence, from river and hill names, which is covered in the article about Pre-Celtic Britain and the Celtic invasion.

Accepting that this article is accurate, and admitting that there are experts who disagree, it seems that stone age man found his way to Britain via a connection of England to the European continent.
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2016 at 14:30
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The map is not the terrain, a map is a guide to a terrain, but it is not the terrain.

So don't get confused between a language tree and the language.  English may have gone through
a creole stage back in the dark ages (or maybe with Middle English), but still its background is German and IndoEuropean.
Again, I would recommend John McWhorter on this topic.

I think grammar is more important than vocabulary in determining family and subfamily.  If
English is something else, then the logical question is what is it?  Language trees are more important
in showing where a language comes from, than where a language is going.
But yes, there was a creole stage, which is why our verb declensions are so simple.
I have
you have
he/she/it has
they have
we have
you (all) have


Is English Germanic because of Germanic dominance?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2016 at 02:20
Originally posted by Gordon Gordon wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The map is not the terrain, a map is a guide to a terrain, but it is not the terrain.

So don't get confused between a language tree and the language.  English may have gone through
a creole stage back in the dark ages (or maybe with Middle English), but still its background is German and IndoEuropean.
Again, I would recommend John McWhorter on this topic.

I think grammar is more important than vocabulary in determining family and subfamily.  If
English is something else, then the logical question is what is it?  Language trees are more important
in showing where a language comes from, than where a language is going.
But yes, there was a creole stage, which is why our verb declensions are so simple.
I have
you have
he/she/it has
they have
we have
you (all) have


Is English Germanic because of Germanic dominance?

England has been invaded by the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes and in parts by the Vikings. The languages of all of those countries are germanic.

These all post date the Roman invasion and the Saxons remained in England the longest (I think) so the germanic words from those people were adopted, at least in part, by the English.
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2016 at 02:22
German dominance in what?  Heavy machinery? Beer?  What are you thinking about when you talk about German dominance?  I guess there are some significant German philologists and linguists.  Grimm's law and all that.  On the other hand, I am sure there are some anglophiles who would rather die than admit they owe something to "the huns".
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2016 at 12:28
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Well well well, another language topic. Before starting this discussion I want to make clear that vocabulary is largely irrelevant when classifying a language. At least that is where my opinion rests. Grammarical similary is what determines relatedness between languages.

adopting/borrowing words does not change the genetic classification even though the etymology of the words is non-native.

Why not?
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2016 at 16:16
"Why not the vocabulary?"

You: "Because vocabulary is not a good determination of language origin because it is too mobile and transient for classification."

I: "Well, what is a good determination of language origin?"

You: "Grammar."

I: "But you cannot ignore the minority which is the vocabulary."

You: "No one is ignoring the minority."

I: "You are by ignoring vocabulary."

You: "No! I am not ignoring vocabulary. I agree there are thousands of Romance loanwords."

I: "And you disagree that English is Romance?"

You: "Correct! It is Germanic."

I: "Then it is by Germanic dominance that English is Germanic."

You: "No! It is not by dominance. English is ultimately Germanic."

I: "What about Romance loanwords in vocabulary?"

You: "They are discounted in language classification."

I: "Why?"

You: "Because language classification is determined by the grammatical structure not the overall vocabulary."


I, in turn, will ask, "Why not the vocabulary?"

You: "Because vocabulary is not a good determination of language origin because it is too mobile and transient for classification."

I: "Well, what is a good determination of language origin?"

You: "Grammar."

I: "But you cannot ignore the minority which is the vocabulary."

You: "No one is ignoring the minority."

I: "You are by ignoring vocabulary."

You: "No! I am not ignoring vocabulary. I agree there are thousands of Romance loanwords."

I: "And you disagree that English is Romance?"

You: "Correct! It is Germanic."

I: "Then it is by Germanic dominance that English is Germanic."

You: "No! It is not by dominance. English is ultimately Germanic."

I: "What about Romance loanwords in vocabulary?"

You: "They are discounted in language classification."

I: "Why?"

You: "Because language classification is determined by the grammatical structure not the overall vocabulary."


I, in turn, will ask, "Why not the vocabulary?"
It seems like you cannot answer this question. Every time someone tries to answer the question it raises another question - which raises another and so on until we arrive back at the original question. And why did we arrive back at the original question? Because it was never truly answered.

So, again I will ask, "Why not vocabulary?"
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2016 at 17:29
Grouping languages into families is based on grammatical similarities. Why is vocabulary, word etymology, adstratum, etc. not included with language classification?
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 867
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2016 at 10:36
Quote Would it though? There were people in Britain before the Gaels.(Celts)

Who spoke Indo-European derived language, at least similar to gaelic if not precisely the same language.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2016 at 12:27
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Would it though? There were people in Britain before the Gaels.(Celts)

Who spoke Indo-European derived language, at least similar to gaelic if not precisely the same language.

I could aree with you about the IE Language group, but not Gaelic. In fact we can't be even sure of the IE spoken in Britain, as there was no written record.


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 00:09

This is a history/linguistics question. Many linguists have said that common descent is the factor to determining what language family English belongs to. Take into account the common Latin descent of vocabulary, not just grammar and pronunciation. Of course I know it's mostly Germanic, but why is English not Romance even just a little bit? Thanks.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.