| Author |
Message |
verzoegerung
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:09 pm
Post subject: Evolution of English |
|
|
Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language evolved to what
it has became today. My mother tongue is German, and when I compare Old
English to German, I see many similarities. For example, thou hast / du
hast -or- thou willst and du wirst. Old English also have many inflections
and uses a case system Nominative, Accusative, Datative, Genenitive, in
addition to the infinitive word endings. The word ending, cases, declension,
as I think, are like wonderful pieces of art. Even most of the verb
conjugations are removed. To this date most verbs are weak verbs like and
not much conjugation is required: I walk, you walk, he walk<S>; compared to
something like "ich laufe, Sie laufen, er läuft". The most complex verb
thats at the top of my head is "to be" e.g. I am, you are, he is etc.
-Why did English loose most of the inflections, verb ending, and strong
verbs? One of my guess is that this complex grammatical system was too
difficult to be learnt?
I remembered studying Shakespear and in his times they used to have the
cases. The thing that popped out to me was the "thou/thee/thee/thy" cases. I
asked my classmates about the differences and they can't even tell the
difference between the usages of "thou" and "thee", since today its all
"you, you, and you" even for the plural form of "you". The second thing that
I noticed was the use of the phrase "I know not." which is still used in
German today as "Ich weiß nicht." Much of the syntaxes of Shakespearean
English is also like German, such as verb is the second element, and the
infinitive goes at the end. Since I speak German, I had a slight advantage
while studying Shakespear.
- Do you believe that it is important to learn the basic grammar of Old
English before attempting to study it?
- Will going through the case system help one's ability to learn English?
- With the case systems in place in Old English, did genders for nouns
exist?
- Were the definite and indefinate articles inflected upon the genders of
the noun and the case that they are in? E.g. der/den/dem/des (the/the/the/of
the) and ein einen einem eines (a(n)/a(n)/a(n)/of a(n))
Something else that catched my attention was the perfect tense of Old
English like "I have eaten." would be something like "I have geeaten." It
takes a "ge-" prefix, which is "Ich habe gegessen." in German. Essen =
infinitive form "to eat"
- Since English is a West-Germanic language, did German come before English,
and did Old English evolve from German?
- Did people used to say "I have went." or "I am went."?
Any help with answering these questions that I have would be greately
appreciated.
Thank You!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
verzoegerung wrote:
| Quote: | Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language evolved to what
|
That's "English language."
| Quote: | it has became today. My mother tongue is German, and when I compare Old
English to German, I see many similarities. For example, thou hast / du
hast -or- thou willst and du wirst. Old English also have many inflections
and uses a case system Nominative, Accusative, Datative, Genenitive, in
addition to the infinitive word endings. The word ending, cases, declension,
as I think, are like wonderful pieces of art. Even most of the verb
conjugations are removed. To this date most verbs are weak verbs like and
not much conjugation is required: I walk, you walk, he walk<S>; compared to
something like "ich laufe, Sie laufen, er läuft". The most complex verb
thats at the top of my head is "to be" e.g. I am, you are, he is etc.
-Why did English loose most of the inflections, verb ending, and strong
verbs? One of my guess is that this complex grammatical system was too
difficult to be learnt?
|
It would not have been too difficult to learn by children, who have no
problem whatsoever in learning the grammar of their native language,
whether it depends upon complicated inflections, numerous genders (noun
classes), subtle differences in word order or whatever. See the book
*The Power of Babel* by John McWhorter, which deals with how language
changes, and complications which exist in natural languages.
It may be that English lost its inflections because of a mingling of
various peoples whose grammar was different. It has even been argued
that English is a creole language as a result of such mingling and
grammatical simplification, but linguists don't seem to be very
supportive of that interpretation.
| Quote: |
I remembered studying Shakespear and in his times they used to have the
cases. The thing that popped out to me was the "thou/thee/thee/thy" cases.. I
asked my classmates about the differences and they can't even tell the
difference between the usages of "thou" and "thee", since today its all
|
By Shakespeare's time, in any case, the uses of "thou" and "thee" had
begun to be confused. The King James (or "Authorized") Version of the
Bible used these terms consistently in the way they had been used in
previous centuries, but this was a deliberate decision of the
translators who had chosen to go with a deliberately archaic style. In
later years, the Quakers in the US took to using "thee" where both
"thou" and "thee" were used before, and instead of the second person
singular for the verb they used the third person singular with "thee":
"Thou art" thus became "thee is" and "thou hath" became "thee has."
Some dialects in the UK still use some form of the second person
singular, but you'd have to ask members from there for more details
about that.
| Quote: | "you, you, and you" even for the plural form of "you". The second thing that
I noticed was the use of the phrase "I know not." which is still used in
German today as "Ich weiß nicht." Much of the syntaxes of Shakespearean
English is also like German, such as verb is the second element, and the
infinitive goes at the end. Since I speak German, I had a slight advantage
while studying Shakespear.
- Do you believe that it is important to learn the basic grammar of Old
English before attempting to study it?
|
Let's be clear what you mean by "Old English." To me, "Old English" is
Anglo-Saxon, a language very different from both Shakespeare's English
and today's English. If that's what you have in mind, then yes,
learning the basic grammar is essential if you wish to study it.
| Quote: | - Will going through the case system help one's ability to learn English?
|
There are mixed opinions about this. For my part, I'd say no, it is
pointless to learn the case system of Anglo-Saxon if your purpose is to
learn modern English.
| Quote: | - With the case systems in place in Old English, did genders for nouns
exist?
- Were the definite and indefinate articles inflected upon the genders of
the noun and the case that they are in? E.g. der/den/dem/des (the/the/the/of
the) and ein einen einem eines (a(n)/a(n)/a(n)/of a(n))
Something else that catched my attention was the perfect tense of Old
English like "I have eaten." would be something like "I have geeaten." It
takes a "ge-" prefix, which is "Ich habe gegessen." in German. Essen > infinitive form "to eat"
- Since English is a West-Germanic language, did German come before English,
and did Old English evolve from German?
- Did people used to say "I have went." or "I am went."?
|
English speakers did indeed use "be" as an auxiliary verb at one time,
so that they said things such as "I am become...." In the King James
version of the Bible, for example, you find:
Job 30:19 He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust
and
ashes.
Psalms 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien
unto my
mother's children.
In a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Charles McPherson on February 25,
1773, which can be seen at
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_Charles_McPherson_-_February_25%2C_1773
or
http://tinyurl.com/8zlob
he wrote:
Merely for the pleasure of reading his works, I am become desirous
of
learning the language in which he sung, and of possessing his songs in
their
original form.
| Quote: |
Any help with answering these questions that I have would be greately
appreciated.
Thank You!
|
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | verzoegerung wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language evolved
to what
That's "English language."
|
In the trade we call this L1 interference. I was talking to a group of
Austrian students last week about how in German *all* nouns are
capitalised. Makes life confusing for German speakers to know which
ones are and which aren't in English.
| Quote: |
it has became today. My mother tongue is German, and when I compare
Old English to German, I see many similarities. For example, thou
hast / du hast -or- thou willst and du wirst. Old English also have
many inflections and uses a case system Nominative, Accusative,
Datative, Genenitive, in addition to the infinitive word endings.
The word ending, cases, declension, as I think, are like wonderful
pieces of art. Even most of the verb conjugations are removed. To
this date most verbs are weak verbs like and not much conjugation
is required: I walk, you walk, he walk<S>; compared to something
like "ich laufe, Sie laufen, er läuft". The most complex verb thats
at the top of my head is "to be" e.g. I am, you are, he is etc.
-Why did English loose most of the inflections, verb ending, and
strong verbs? One of my guess is that this complex grammatical
system was too difficult to be learnt?
It would not have been too difficult to learn by children, who have no
problem whatsoever in learning the grammar of their native language,
whether it depends upon complicated inflections, numerous genders
(noun classes), subtle differences in word order or whatever. See the
book *The Power of Babel* by John McWhorter, which deals with how
language changes, and complications which exist in natural languages.
|
Quite. People don't get taught their first language at school, they
acquire it as part of the maturation process. And language
'difficulty' is relative; learning English is a piece of piss for Dutch
speakers, slightly harder for German speakers and a nightmare for
Chinese speakers. I'd hazard a guess that Chinese speakers would find
learning Japanese or Thai easier than English, but it's not just about
geography.
| Quote: |
It may be that English lost its inflections because of a mingling of
various peoples whose grammar was different. It has even been argued
that English is a creole language as a result of such mingling and
grammatical simplification, but linguists don't seem to be very
supportive of that interpretation.
|
I think I've read it was about choosing the easiest of a set of
alternatives and following the line of least variation in features such
as declension. Going back to verzoegerung's query, don't forget that
German remains for historical reasons a hugely dialect-based language
where a Hamburger speaking their native dialect won't be understood by
someone from Vienna. That was the situation in England around the time
Modern English emerged, which was also about the time Shakespeare was
writing; Bill the Shake's was one of many available dialects. It's
mainly the London of his audience but with a lot of Midlands stuff in
there as well. Language consolidation often goes with nation-building;
and much of what's now Germany consisted of independent states up until
Bismarck.
There's a story about Caxton, the 13th century printer, taking a boat
down the Thames. They stop off a few miles into Kent to buy eggs and
the lady who's selling them can't understand them because the word for
eggs has changed - now it's 'eyen'. Mutual intelligibility between
English speakers is a pretty rare thing now, though I've had my moments
in Newcastle and Glasgow.
| Quote: |
I remembered studying Shakespear and in his times they used to have
the cases. The thing that popped out to me was the
"thou/thee/thee/thy" cases. I asked my classmates about the
differences and they can't even tell the difference between the
usages of "thou" and "thee", since today its all
By Shakespeare's time, in any case, the uses of "thou" and "thee" had
begun to be confused. The King James (or "Authorized") Version of the
Bible used these terms consistently in the way they had been used in
previous centuries, but this was a deliberate decision of the
translators who had chosen to go with a deliberately archaic style. In
later years, the Quakers in the US took to using "thee" where both
"thou" and "thee" were used before, and instead of the second person
singular for the verb they used the third person singular with "thee":
"Thou art" thus became "thee is" and "thou hath" became "thee has."
Some dialects in the UK still use some form of the second person
singular, but you'd have to ask members from there for more details
about that.
|
Tha's reet there Ray. And as I've wrote before, in many parts round
here folk'll have nowt to do wit' nancy southern past participles.
Somebody actually called me 'Master' the other day, saying to her
little boy something like "say 'thank you' to that master", and no it
wasn't anything to do with me being a teacher, more like 'the
gentleman'. I thought we were in a Mrs Gaskell novel...
| Quote: |
"you, you, and you" even for the plural form of "you". The second
thing that I noticed was the use of the phrase "I know not." which
is still used in German today as "Ich weiß nicht." Much of the
syntaxes of Shakespearean English is also like German, such as verb
is the second element, and the infinitive goes at the end. Since I
speak German, I had a slight advantage while studying Shakespear.
- Do you believe that it is important to learn the basic grammar of
Old English before attempting to study it?
Let's be clear what you mean by "Old English." To me, "Old English" is
Anglo-Saxon, a language very different from both Shakespeare's English
and today's English. If that's what you have in mind, then yes,
learning the basic grammar is essential if you wish to study it.
|
Absolutely. But if verzoegerung is talking about enjoying Shakespeare,
then no, you don't need to make a special study of the grammar and as
you've noticed your knowledge of German will give you an advantage. I
did three years German at school (it's my weakest language now, but I
still understand a reasonable amount of what I hear) and it definitely
helped with understanding some of the stuff in Middle and Early Modern
English that's since dropped off the back of the wagon. Do be aware of
those 'false friend' pitfalls for German speakers though - 'when' vs.
'if' is a common one.
| Quote: |
- Will going through the case system help one's ability to learn
English?
There are mixed opinions about this. For my part, I'd say no, it is
pointless to learn the case system of Anglo-Saxon if your purpose is
to learn modern English.
- With the case systems in place in Old English, did genders for
nouns exist?
- Were the definite and indefinate articles inflected upon the
genders of the noun and the case that they are in? E.g.
der/den/dem/des (the/the/the/of the) and ein einen einem eines
(a(n)/a(n)/a(n)/of a(n))
Something else that catched
|
oops!
| Quote: | my attention was the perfect tense of
Old English like "I have eaten." would be something like "I have
geeaten." It takes a "ge-" prefix, which is "Ich habe gegessen." in
German. Essen = infinitive form "to eat"
|
As Ray says don't get 'Old English', a language that's as close to
Modern German as it is to Modern English, mixed up with Middle English,
which is the language of Chaucer, hard going for a modern reader, but
recognisably English. That's also a perfect example of what I was
saying above about German being helpful for a Middle English reader.
By the time I came to read Chaucer for 'A' level (about age 17) I'd
done my three years German and would have thought 'oh, right, past
participles with ge-. Seen that before'.
| Quote: |
- Since English is a West-Germanic language, did German come before
English, and did Old English evolve from German?
- Did people used to say "I have went." or "I am went."?
English speakers did indeed use "be" as an auxiliary verb at one time,
|
Still do in parts of the West Country and South:-
"Be I 'Ampshire? Be I buggery, I comes up from Wareham.
All the girls wear calico knickers, and I knows how to tear 'em."
What I don't know is if the fixed distinction between 'to be' verbs and
'to have' verbs that exists in French and, I think, German, where many
'to be' verbs are involved with concepts of motion, has ever existed in
English. It's easy to think of an example like 'He is gone', but
that's just really a passive, like 'he is covered in Nutella'.
DC. Apologies for reply drift.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
"verzoegerung" <kein@keinespam.de> wrote in message
news:XKhKe.170397$%K2.2062@pd7tw1no...
[...]
| Quote: | - Since English is a West-Germanic language, did German come before
English, and did Old English evolve from German?
[...] |
Briefly, "No" to both questions.
Old English (which means Anglo-Saxon before it absorbed Norman French
elements and became Middle English) and German were separate developments
within the West Germanic group. German belongs to the High German group, of
which it seems that Luxemburgish is the only other living representative.
Old English belongs to the Low German group, and its nearest modern relative
is Frisian. I believe that there are Old English texts earlier than any
German texts.
You probably know already that Old English absorbed Scandinavian material
from the Danish invasions and settlement in the 10th century, including even
such basic words as "sister" (though "brother" is Anglo-Saxon). Much later,
during the Renaissance and onwards to the present day, came the major part
of our vocabulary derived from Latin and Greek. The grammatical features you
mention were already becoming less significant by about 1200, with (as Ray
has told you) "thou" and "thee" not always correctly used even in
Shakespeare's time and disappearing by, say, 1650, except from local
dialects and in deliberately archaic uses.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
verzoegerung wrote:
| Quote: |
My mother tongue is German, and when I compare Old
English to German, I see many similarities.
|
You should compare old English with old German. Compare
the German of Luther with old English. German has
evolved just as much as English.
Yes, English is a Germanic language. English even has
two subjunctive forms, as does German. And English speakers
use daily use both forms, though most do not recognize them
as subjunctive.
GFH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lanarcam
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
Django Cat wrote:
| Quote: | Raymond S. Wise wrote:
verzoegerung wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language evolved
to what
It may be that English lost its inflections because of a mingling of
various peoples whose grammar was different. It has even been argued
that English is a creole language as a result of such mingling and
grammatical simplification, but linguists don't seem to be very
supportive of that interpretation.
I think I've read it was about choosing the easiest of a set of
alternatives and following the line of least variation in features such
as declension. Going back to verzoegerung's query, don't forget that
German remains for historical reasons a hugely dialect-based language
where a Hamburger speaking their native dialect won't be understood by
someone from Vienna. That was the situation in England around the time
Modern English emerged, which was also about the time Shakespeare was
writing; Bill the Shake's was one of many available dialects. It's
mainly the London of his audience but with a lot of Midlands stuff in
there as well. Language consolidation often goes with nation-building;
and much of what's now Germany consisted of independent states up until
Bismarck.
There's a story about Caxton, the 13th century printer, taking a boat
down the Thames. They stop off a few miles into Kent to buy eggs and
the lady who's selling them can't understand them because the word for
eggs has changed - now it's 'eyen'. Mutual intelligibility between
English speakers is a pretty rare thing now, though I've had my moments
in Newcastle and Glasgow.
|
Well, If you say so ... ;)
What would be the reaction if it was said that English is
in fact German with a French varnish?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
verzoegerung wrote:
| Quote: | Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language evolved
to what it has became today.
|
Not something that can be dealt with by short posts. People here will
recommend books that deal with the subject and you will find others in
the aue FAQ. Personally, I think David Crystal's "Stories of English" is
an interesting starting point. I find the style of the book somewhat
irritating but he knows his subject. And it's particularly important to
point out he calls it "Stories" not "Story". That's because he doesn't
see one simple chronological line of development but rather various
strands that have come together to make English what it became.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrea Schwanbeck
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:16 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
| Quote: | - Do you believe that it is important to learn the basic grammar of Old
English before attempting to study it?
- Will going through the case system help one's ability to learn English?
|
Hast du sie noch alle? :D
It would only help if you learned Old High German as well, and after
this year with the only Middle High German "Poor Henry", I can only
wish you luck with that.
And Anglo-Saxon is not easy either, I can tell you, although I can
heartily recommend it - it was great fun learning it.
You seem to think of Early New English, since that was what dearest
Shakespeare wrote in as people have already said.
As for the case system - nope. Only if you attempt to learn Middle
English or Old English, but not with Early New English. What for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
Lanarcam wrote:
| Quote: |
Django Cat wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
verzoegerung wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language
evolved to what
It may be that English lost its inflections because of a mingling
of various peoples whose grammar was different. It has even been
argued that English is a creole language as a result of such
mingling and grammatical simplification, but linguists don't seem
to be very supportive of that interpretation.
I think I've read it was about choosing the easiest of a set of
alternatives and following the line of least variation in features
such as declension. Going back to verzoegerung's query, don't
forget that German remains for historical reasons a hugely
dialect-based language where a Hamburger speaking their native
dialect won't be understood by someone from Vienna. That was the
situation in England around the time Modern English emerged, which
was also about the time Shakespeare was writing; Bill the Shake's
was one of many available dialects. It's mainly the London of his
audience but with a lot of Midlands stuff in there as well.
Language consolidation often goes with nation-building; and much of
what's now Germany consisted of independent states up until
Bismarck.
There's a story about Caxton, the 13th century printer, taking a
boat down the Thames. They stop off a few miles into Kent to buy
eggs and the lady who's selling them can't understand them because
the word for eggs has changed - now it's 'eyen'. Mutual
intelligibility between English speakers is a pretty rare thing
now, though I've had my moments in Newcastle and Glasgow.
Well, If you say so ... ;)
What would be the reaction if it was said that English is
in fact German with a French varnish?
|
Dunno. Sounds fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:57 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
Lanarcam wrote:
| Quote: |
Django Cat wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
verzoegerung wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language
evolved to what
It may be that English lost its inflections because of a mingling
of various peoples whose grammar was different. It has even been
argued that English is a creole language as a result of such
mingling and grammatical simplification, but linguists don't seem
to be very supportive of that interpretation.
I think I've read it was about choosing the easiest of a set of
alternatives and following the line of least variation in features
such as declension. Going back to verzoegerung's query, don't
forget that German remains for historical reasons a hugely
dialect-based language where a Hamburger speaking their native
dialect won't be understood by someone from Vienna. That was the
situation in England around the time Modern English emerged, which
was also about the time Shakespeare was writing; Bill the Shake's
was one of many available dialects. It's mainly the London of his
audience but with a lot of Midlands stuff in there as well.
Language consolidation often goes with nation-building; and much of
what's now Germany consisted of independent states up until
Bismarck.
There's a story about Caxton, the 13th century printer, taking a
boat down the Thames. They stop off a few miles into Kent to buy
eggs and the lady who's selling them can't understand them because
the word for eggs has changed - now it's 'eyen'. Mutual
intelligibility between English speakers is a pretty rare thing
now, though I've had my moments in Newcastle and Glasgow.
Well, If you say so ... ;)
What would be the reaction if it was said that English is
in fact German with a French varnish?
|
I'd say I've spent the entire day varnishing bloody IKEA flatpack
shelves (true) and that's quite enough varnish for one day thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mervyn Doobov
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
"verzoegerung" <kein@keinespam.de> wrote in
news:XKhKe.170397$%K2.2062@pd7tw1no:
| Quote: | Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language
evolved to what it has became today. My mother tongue is German,
and when I compare Old English to German, I see many similarities.
|
You might find it of interest to read Lancelot Hogben's "The Mother
Tongue". It is many years since I read it (probably about 30) and I
don't know if it is still available. It is about the relationships
between a number of European languages, including English and German.
Mervyn Doobov |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:16 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
| Quote: | "verzoegerung" <kein@keinespam.de> wrote in
news:XKhKe.170397$%K2.2062@pd7tw1no:
Hi everyone,
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language
evolved to what it has became today. My mother tongue is German,
and when I compare Old English to German, I see many similarities.
|
_The Treasure of Our Tongue_, by Lincoln Barnett, is "The story of
English from its obscure beginnings to its present eminence as the most
widely spoken language." Published in 1964.
Caxton, the first printer in England, was working with Middle English,
just before it became Modern English. In 1490, he said:
"And certaynly our langage now used varyeth ferre from that whiche was
used and spoken when I was borne. . . . And that comyn englysshe that
is spoken in one shyre varyeth from a nother. In so moche that in my
dayes happened that certayn marchauntes were in a shippe in tamyse, for
to have sayled over the sea into zelande, and for lack of wynde, thei
taryed atte forlond, and wente to lande fro to refreshe them. And one
of theym named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in-to an hows and axed for
meteñ and specyally he axed after eggys. And the goode wyf answerde,
that she coude speke no frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry, for he
also coude speke no frenshe, but wolde have hadde egges, and she
understode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde
have eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she understod him wel. Loo,
shwat sholde a man in thyse days now wryte, egges or eyren. Certaynly
it is harde to playse every man by cause of dyversite & chaunge of
langage."
A hundred years before, a common spelling was "eyroun." Most people
spelled phonetically, according to their own accents. So, within an
area that had one vocabulary, the words could be spelled any number of
ways. And Caxton wanted to sell nationwide! He had to decide which
vocabulary set to use, and then decide which spellings to use.
Old English is another name for Anglo-Saxon. Nouns have more cases
than in modern German or Latin! Beowulf is written in Old English.
Middle English is first attested (by writings) a hundred or so years
after William the Conqueror. Lots of the nit-picky grammatical forms
of words have been simplified tremendously. Nouns have singular and
plural and very little case -- ordinary and possessive (maybe dative
too). Chaucer used Middle English.
Modern English arrived about 1500 or so. Shakespeare used Modern
English -- and it's changed some since then. For instance, present
progressive tense is recent.
Cece |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of English |
|
|
| Quote: | "verzoegerung" <kein@keinespam.de> wrote in
news:XKhKe.170397$%K2.2062@pd7tw1no:
I am doing a bit of research about how the english language
evolved to what it has became today. My mother tongue is German,
and when I compare Old English to German, I see many similarities.
You might find it of interest to read Lancelot Hogben's "The Mother
Tongue". It is many years since I read it (probably about 30) and I
|
Hogben's book, Willem van Loon's (The Loom of Language)
and the like represent the "old school" of linguistics. The
modern school is attractively summarized in David Crystal's
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2nd edn.
1999). Another approach is that of Anthony Burgess in
A Mouthful of Air (1992) which starts with phonetics viz.
how the sounds of language are formed.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in