Creation of the English Language

quote:

---

Are you talking about the Norman Conquest of 1066, and the Domesday Book? Because prior to this the English did not speak French. In fact the common people never spoke French.

---

I think so - it must have been the Normon C. The french agenda was to make its language the english lingus, but this failed.

quote:

---

So, former English colonies speak English better than the English speak English?

---

They speak better than the rest of europe, is what I said, not better than the english. Till today, many sectors of Europe have a lesser command of english than many british colonies. We this even in Europe's Political figures, who speak a dismal quality of english.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

You are wrong. I showed you exactly how you are wrong in Message 42.If you want to argue you are right, give a citation to any book, article, or website that supports this false claim that the population of England spoke French prior to 800. For bonus points, feel free to provide the name of the 'King of England' that supposedly made English the official language in 800 AD. ABE - Nevermind...see you have retracted.Edited by anglagard, : Posted at same time as previous message.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

England is only recently seen as part of the EU. But it is in many ways a cast-off separate island mass, and a different entity from Europe, in mindset and language. England is intrinsically different from all of europe and russia, and varied from the analogy of Japan and Asia. In the same way, modern America has intrinsic differences from the rest of the world: a chinese, italian, black or jewish American has become different from his past kin; this phenomenon exists, whereby a nation becomes a new treshold from the rest in some manner, similar to a new mindset and even a new accent.

quote:

---

English is an Anglo-Frisian language. Germanic-speaking peoples from northwest Germany (Saxons and Angles) and Jutland (Jutes) invaded what is now known as Eastern England around the fifth century AD. It is a matter of debate whether the Old English language spread by displacement of the original population, or the native Celts gradually adopted the language and culture of a new ruling class, or a combination of both of these processes (see Sub-Roman Britain).

---

Where is the contradiction? I said, circa 800 CE, and that english was a microcosm of several languages: which does not mean it is not a new language. Presently, the name of the english king escapes me, and I will try to retrieve it.

quote:

---

English language | Origin, History, Development, Characteristics, & Facts | Britannica

​

West Germanic language of the Indo-European language family that is closely related to Frisian, German, and Netherlandic languages. English originated in England and is now widely spoken on six continents.

---

While old english began in England as a formal language, as a political means to defy the french, the components it took from Europe were not a formal language. English, and its different grammar from Europe, was also systemised in england. Europe begat language and writings relatively late, compared to the M/E and Asia. The greeks got their alphabetical writings when they were the first to translate the OT in 300 BCE.

Oh man, I wasn't kidding when I said this wasn't done.Look, IAJ, Let's assume that this is what you believe about the Creation of Man.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

---

That's pretty straighforward. There's nothing in there about systemizing, initializing, formalising, incorporating, or any other abstract nonsense. God did it, snap, it's done.So could you please explain in a similarly straighforward way the Creation of the English Language. Which king was it that decided in 800CE, "Hmmm, this French is crimping my style. You servants there, I want you to formulate Old English now. Make it a 'microcosm' You have until sundown."
"Er, doesn't "microcosm" mean a world in miniature?"
"Off with his head!" *LOP*
"Er, isn't it a French word?"
"Off with his head, too!" *LOP*

quote:

---

Look, IAJ, Let's assume that this is what you believe about the Creation of Man.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

That's pretty straighforward. There's nothing in there about systemizing, initializing, formalising, incorporating, or any other abstract nonsense. God did it, snap, it's done.

---

Its got nothing to do with 'belief', only logic. Since I agree with creationism, and the creation of the universe which is 'finite' and thus had to be performed without any tools or materials [there were'nt any pre-universe!]- it has no alternative than a 'SNAP OF THE FINGER', so to speak, but which is better expressed by creation from nothing, by a word. I note that you never gave an alternative view how this could occur with a finite uni, in the absence of anything such as heat, energy, matter, space, etc, etc. I would appreciate you enlightening me of any alternative premise - I will gladly change my mind!

quote:

---

So could you please explain in a similarly straighforward way the Creation of the English Language. Which king was it that decided in 800CE, "Hmmm, this French is crimping my style. You servants there, I want you to formulate Old English now. Make it a 'microcosm' You have until sundown."
"Er, doesn't "microcosm" mean a world in miniature?"
"Off with his head!" *LOP*
"Er, isn't it a French word?"
"Off with his head, too!" *LOP*

---

If you deliberate it, you should know what I am referring to, else your knowledge of it is deficient: my answer was and is correct, save only for a memory recall of the relevent name. This king [?/not sure!] defied the french which then ruled england; at this time there was a loose primitive communication system, which was the protoypte of old english, mainly derived from the viking invasions - from which most old english words come from; an important document [?] was decreed by the french to be released in the french language; the english king himself studied and formed that document in old english, defying the french; thereafter, the people continued to use and form what became old english.

In my first post, I said that I'm pretending that I also agree with creationism. I only meant to compare the creation of man story to the creation of English story. Let's leave that debate about man's origins for other forums, since I don't want this discussion to get too unwieldy. Wow, thanks for that. We definitely need some language experts to discuss this, but in the meantime I have some more questions if that's all right:I'm confused. What were the people speaking before Old English? Was it French or viking?You said there was a "primitive communication system", a "prototype of Old English." Who created this prototype? When? How? Did they just take the viking (I assume you mean Norse) language and only add words or were there any changes to other aspects of the language? What did the Anglo-Saxons do with their language while they were waiting around for this "viking prototype of Old English"?Are you familiar with Cædmon's Hymn? It's an Old English poem written to praise God that was composed in the seventh century? How did the poet do that if Old English wasn't invented until 800?When did the French come to England? The only thing I can think of is the Norman Conquest of 1066. Isn't that quite a late date for the creation of Old English?What did the king do to change from the prototype to Old English? Did he only add words? Any changes to syntax?And finally, can you explain who created Middle English? and when?

From "De Genese ad litteram", Saint Augustine, fourth century:

quote:

---

It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

​

...

​

For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books?

---

My more complete reposting of the quote is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#AUGUSTINE.

Logic is only as good as the premises it uses. Since your premises are garbage, no amount of logic will derive non-garbage conclusions from them.Before you try to understand the origins of the English language, you should at least have a hint of a clue about English history - which you don't. 1066 and All That might be a place to start.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Wennie, weedy, weaky.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe the whole problem with the EvC debate is that people see the creationists as wrong but wromantic.TTFN,WK

Where is your information about English coming from. You keep saying you don't remember some details, and that's fine, but where did you learn this. Have you got a book title or URL we can cross-reference?I don't know if you realize that your claims about English history are quite bizarre. Not even Ken Ham or Stephen Meyer would agree with what you say (they've got enough crap to shovel). That's why I'm wondering what your source is.

Politically, Culturally, and Geographically the UK is part of Europe.Geographically there can be no argument. The two are on the same tectonic plate. Separated by no more than 20ish miles at the closest.Politically, there can be no argument. Not only is the UK part of the EU, it has played an important role in European politics since at least the Napoleanic wars. You know, as a Great Power.Culturally, there can be no argument. The French conquered the English and thanks to that we have what is called English (language) today.Is sweden part of Europe? After all, its further away from western europe than the UK is.

quote:

---

Before you try to understand the origins of the English language, you should at least have a hint of a clue about English history - which you don't. 1066 and All That might be a place to start.

---

Use you own link to see all I said was correct, despite it focuses more on military than the impacts on the english language:

quote:

---

The conquest changed the English language and culture, and set the stage for a rivalry with France that would continue intermittently until the 20th century. It has an iconic role in English national identity as the last successful foreign conquest of England

---

Underlieing the above quote, but not elaborated there, is that the english language became the weapon of victory over the french rule, but this is not discussed. Namely, the britons refused to follow the french decree that all official archives be in french; it is only the name of thie british king which escapes me, who challenged the french and used olde english instead - even forming an official group of scholars and clergy who would translate all archives, including the bible, in english. Here, english grammar was born [the reversal of the subject-verb-object], and 1000s of words which were not contained in english were successfully adapted into english.

quote:

---

Language
Significance
The changes that took place because of the Norman Conquest were significant for both English and European development.

---

It is apparent, aside from gooogling links, there is not yet any indication here the historical significance of what made english the world language is correctly known by the posters. It will be found that the use of words such as gibberish and babble are misplaced here, and not applicable to anything I've stated.