One thousand years of story in 10 minutes! Grammar Spice tells we about a 3 stages of a English Language
December 3, 2008
THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
23 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
One thousand years of story in 10 minutes! Grammar Spice tells we about a 3 stages of a English Language
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Powered by WordPress
The Normans weren’t French. They were a mashup of Franks and Danes, mostly.
The Normans spoke a kind of langue d’oil, but not French.
The French variant of the langue d’oil did not emerge dominant until the late 1200s.
By then the Normans had been out of power in England for 100 years.
The Normans did not speak French when they ruled England.
Btw, King Guillaume “Le Conquerant” de Normandie is my 27 x great-grandfather.
Comment by TruthAxe — December 7, 2008 @ 12:19 am
English spelling is quite consistent if you know the patterns.
Google «Linda Schrock Taylor» Google «Romalda spelling».
Problems arise because of Latinate words and other loan words.
Comment by TruthAxe — December 7, 2008 @ 2:51 am
hey people, what could be the possible reason why people on mountains does not have the same language as the people on land in a country? please give me websites that can feed up my queries regarding to this.. thx a lot,.
Comment by gibsonslasher22 — December 9, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Those were hard times. If we were alive then, we’d probably be dead! Any little infection could wipe a person or a town out. But on the other hand there were no dictiioinaries, hence, no spelling tests!
Thanks for your interest. GS
Comment by fkrinsky — December 10, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
can you imagine being alive in these old times?. nobody could read or write stuff, and every neighborhood probably had their own dialect. that must’ve really been something.
Comment by creamyfilling102 — December 12, 2008 @ 5:00 am
I believe the 2 alternative method has served english fairly well. By choosing a more flexible word & abandoning the lessor used alternative, usage has changed & improved, (evolved). We need to hold onto the value of alternatives & not just for words. If we had alternatives for spelling, ‘enough’ could also be ‘enuf’. We could eliminate all verb conjugations, since the subject is nearly always present. English has made many formalities extinct but has grown in diversity. Thy video is Great!
Comment by CHAS1422 — December 15, 2008 @ 4:42 am
Good point..though we must note that in Shakespeare’s time most people couldn’t read at all! Thanks for your interest. GS
Comment by fkrinsky — December 15, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Media has certainly slowed the evolution of languages. There are many additions, but I have little problem reading a text from the 1700’s, while somebody from Shakespear’s time would struggle with the canteberry tales.
Comment by CHAS1422 — December 18, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
It´s bullshit what you are writing here.
Every language has influences from another language, also German.
But it is purer regarding the germanic history if we compare English and German. English had been influenced over centuries by Norman French, whereas German did not receive outer influences except for a few latin and other foreign words.
But you cannot say that German is a hybrid language unlike English.
Comment by cantabri99 — December 21, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
English is a west Germanic language.
Comment by mastercheff1216 — December 23, 2008 @ 3:41 am
Well, well, well… Let me tell you my friends that this was some serious good shizzle. BTW Marie White could have done better.
Comment by chadyocool — December 24, 2008 @ 1:16 am
English spelling is inconsistent because the printing press was invented before the language finished blending. After Caxton introduced the printing press in 1485 during the era of the Great Vowel Shift, printers set down the words as they heard them, phonetically, and many odd variations were disseminated before consistent forms evolved….much faster than if they were laboriously copied by hand by scribes over centuries.I think that If we simplied the spellings we’d lose some history. GS
Comment by fkrinsky — December 27, 2008 @ 1:43 am
Why aren’t these idiotic University Professors getting together to make a change in the spelling of words in the English language? The spelling is such a shame. BTW, German is a hybrid language.
Comment by sneighwena — December 28, 2008 @ 2:44 am
Nice! It’s good that you shed light on the actual Norman history. The Normans after King Rollo even kept on expanding their fiefdom within France, they didn’t really care for the French vassalage they were in.
According to the Historia Norwegiæ(12th c.) Rollo or Rolf was born in Norway, as the son of Røgnvald, Earl of Møre. He was one of the many who fell foul of King Harald Fairhair.
Historians agree that a certain conclusion on whether he was from Norway or Denmark can never be reached.
Comment by Serethen — December 31, 2008 @ 9:05 am
“(though neither country existed yet in the way we know it).”
Both Norway and Denmark was united during the Viking Age.
King Harald fairhair united Norway in the 9th century, at the dawn of the viking age.
Denmark also existed, United by King Harald Bluetooth in the 10th century
All Germanic languages have their origin from Scandinavia(Proto Germanic), even Anglo-Saxon.
This language family influenced Europe in three waves. The most extensive one after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Comment by Serethen — January 3, 2009 @ 1:03 am
You are correct. Shakespeare’s verse form was mainly iambic pentameter, which many people find difficult to understand, even when it appears in poems written today…especially if they are not accustomed to reading formal poetry. Middle English and Modern English are technical terms. Shakespeare wrote Elizabethan/Modern English. Middle English was 100 years and before and defined by a different pronunciation of vowel sounds. Thanks for your interest. GS
Comment by fkrinsky — January 4, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Shakespeare is written in Middle/Modern English. It makes no sense to people now because it’s written in iambic pentameter
Comment by jswindle2 — January 7, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Thanks for all your information, and as you see, the messages are in the correct order for easy reading. GS
Comment by fkrinsky — January 11, 2009 @ 6:50 am
Hm!
And since i am a complete computer idiot you have to read what ive written from the bottom up (or not at all)
Comment by carinha40 — January 12, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
modern Swedish.
Marcel.
Carinhas brother.
Comment by carinha40 — January 16, 2009 @ 11:01 am
And dont forget a third Germanic group with a linguistic influence on Britain, speaking a language not to far from Old English/Anglo-Saxon, the Norse (Vikings).
Danish in England and Norwegian in Scotland and Ireland (though neither country existed yet in the way we know it).
The Vikings did not just pop in to borrow the toilet, they stayed around, founded cities and so on.
Btw many Swedes think that a text from the 1600s is old Swedish too. Actual Old Swedish is closer to Norse than to
Comment by carinha40 — January 18, 2009 @ 3:45 am
Brythonic:
Cumbric (extinct but was spoken around the Scottish/English border).
Cymric (Welsh)
(And most likely Pictish in Scotland).
Cornish (Cornwall)
Bretton (Bretagne)
All the Brythonic ones might have been one language with dialects at the start (Brythonic/Brittish).
The Gaelic ones came from Ireland as the Gaels (called “Scoti” by the Romans) got to what is now Scotland.
Comment by carinha40 — January 19, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
First i want to agree with “Saxonsoldiers” on the facts.
I also want to add that there was a language in what is now Brtitain called Brythonic or Brittish before the Anglo-Saxons.
So to say that Gaelic and Welsh where spoken is (in a sence) incorrect.
The Celtic languages of Britain and Bretagne (in todays France) are divided into two major groups:
Gaelic:
Gaelic (Irish)
Gaelic (Scots)
Manx (on Isle of man).
Comment by carinha40 — January 22, 2009 @ 7:45 am