Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation of the English Language
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 76 of 205 (434249)
11-15-2007 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by anglagard
11-15-2007 1:53 AM


Re: Actual History of England
quote:
You still seem to insist that the "French" ruled England prior to 1066. (Provided you insist on calling the originally Viking Normans the "French") Show me any evidence that "France" occupied England prior to 1066. No book I have ever read supports this claim, and I've read dozens on English history, including the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the original source of much of this history written by the people who were often there at the time.
I never said before 1066, only that during an early period, circa 800, [which includes 1066], the french ruled england, and made decrees to enforce the french language in briton; and that one of briton's kings was responsible for over-turning this goal, thereafter establishing english as a british language.
quote:
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
Norman Conquest
(1066) Military conquest of England by William, duke of Normandy (later William I), mainly through his victory over Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. Edward the Confessor had designated William as his successor in 1051. When Harold, duke of Wessex, was crowned king of England in 1066 instead, William assembled an invasion force of 5,000 knights. After defeating Harold's army near Hastings on October 14 and advancing to London, he was crowned king in Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day, 1066. Native revolts continued until 1071, notably in Northumbria. The Norman Conquest brought great social and political changes to England, linking the country more closely with western Europe and replacing the old English aristocracy with a Norman aristocracy. The English language was subjected to a long period of influence by Anglo-French, which remained in literary and courtly use until the reign of Edward III and in legal reporting until the 17th century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by anglagard, posted 11-15-2007 1:53 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 2:35 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 77 of 205 (434250)
11-15-2007 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 2:30 AM


Re: Actual History of England
The Norman Conquest brought great social and political changes to England, linking the country more closely with western Europe
Wait, haven't you been arguing the exact opposite?
Is this yet another case of "proof for is actually proof against"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 2:30 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 3:01 AM kuresu has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 78 of 205 (434251)
11-15-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by kuresu
11-15-2007 2:23 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
quote:
I am going to the store (English)
Jag gr till affren (Swedish)
Direct translation: I go to store-the.
What are you doing?
Vad gr du?
Direct translation: What do you?
Above examples are non-english grammar. It is not a mystery - one can instantly see it when a european speaks english, which becomes an easy exposure he is not a native english speaking person.
quote:
It is sunny.
Det r soligt.
Direct translation: It is sunny.
This is correct english grammar, but the example is not a conclusive one, being too short.
quote:
I garuantee there are more differences between the french and german languages than there are between spanish and french and italian.
Let me put it this way, it is easy to see that one english speaker is from europe [no matter which part of europe], and not from england - by his english rendition. Amazingly, Indians do not have the same problem, and seem to take on board the prefix factors very well, while much adjustments are required when the same thing is said by a european speaking english - be it a french, german, polish or russian.
quote:
US Constitution is based on the OT
This is getting ridiculously off topic, but how about starting a new one on whether the US constitution is based off of the old testament. I can categorically claim that it isn't. Funny thing though, you're right about it not being based off of the NT, but not for the reasons you probably think. I'm going to venture a guess and state that you're one of those people who think the US is a christian nation versus being a nation of christians.
I find it telling that you have to resort to arguments that rely on the US in order to explain that the UK is not part of Europe and that you have barely touched on my original points. The UK has long been a key player in European politics, and has been treated as if it is part of Europe. Naturally, that would be because it is part of Europe. Check the real history, not the made up one in your head. Check the real current situation, not the one made up in your head.
What are you hoping to show by proving that the UK is not a part of Europe?
I'm not trying to prove anything in particular, and now must recall how this topic came to this point. But yes, I do maintain UK as different in many intrinsic respects than Europe, and closer with US - despite the proximity factor. Also, that the US Constitution is based on the OT laws and advocations, which Europe unsuccessfully tried to negate and make obsolete. There is no question that liberty, democrasy and inalienable human rights, as well as the entire corpus of judiciary laws, family, workers and animal rights laws - are OT, not NT, premises.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 2:23 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 4:09 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 79 of 205 (434252)
11-15-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by kuresu
11-15-2007 2:35 AM


Re: Actual History of England
quote:
The Norman Conquest brought great social and political changes to England, linking the country more closely with western Europe
Wait, haven't you been arguing the exact opposite?
Is this yet another case of "proof for is actually proof against"?
The french, scandis, vikings, romans - all invaded England. The significant factor here is, Briton caused a new breakaway language, which is representative of a new mindset as well. So yes, in a sense, the break is confirmed and highlighted, that this was achieved while encompasing all the input of Europe into Briton's new invention: ENGLISH. This does represent a triumph of sorts, whereby the invading input became the booty of the new enterprize.
It was briton and the english language, which made french and other european words part of an international, universal lingo. Europe lost something here, which is represented by briton's triumph with english. It is understandable that briton declares as her greatest asset Shakespeare and other british writers: there is much truth in it.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 2:35 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 4:49 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 80 of 205 (434255)
11-15-2007 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by IamJoseph
11-13-2007 7:44 PM


Re: Languages w/in their Kind
IamNuts writes:
Yes, my understanding of it is there was no english before 800 CE. French is older than english, the latter being a microcosm of several other languages, and became formalised and incepted in England. France tried to impose its language on England, till an english king challenged this by translating all official documents into english, even formulating new english words of the french, such as pattisirie, cafe, and 1000s of other words taken from the french, and from the irish and german.
So let me get this straight: an unnamed English king around 800 decided to translate the then current language of England, which was, surpisingly, French, into a non-existing language. This brilliant move was of course greeted with great approval by his French-speaking subjects, if only because in the initial stages of the project people must have had belly-aching fits of laughter when they heard their king trying out the new language. (Ever seen "Allo, allo"?)
And they must also have revered their king's great foresight in inventing a word like 'cafe', the use of which had to wait another eight hundred and fifty years or so, after which coffee, from which the word derives, was actually introduced into polite society in England and France.
Joseph, what planet are you from?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by IamJoseph, posted 11-13-2007 7:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 5:56 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 81 of 205 (434257)
11-15-2007 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 2:52 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
Above examples are non-english grammar
Did you not read the "Direct Translation" bit? I wasn't translating the swedish statements into english as we would say it. The point was to show that the grammar is like enough as to be understandable.
Do you really want to see a whole article in swedish directly translated into english? That is, not put into vernacular english.
My swedish relatives (for the most part) know english better than most native speakers.
Let me put it this way, it is easy to see that one english speaker is from europe
Only because you grew up with the language. Similarily, any Swede would be able to tell that I am not a native speaker, though I do have a Stockholm accent.
What you seem to be missing is education. Anyone properly educated about another language will have no problem speaking, writing, or reading it. Thus it would seem that your "Indians are better than Europeans at English, hence English is not European" is dead.
Start a topic on the US constitution. You will be thrashed (though you will probably ignore it and shout with your fingers in your ears about how wrong we are), so you've been given fair warning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 2:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 4:50 AM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 82 of 205 (434259)
11-15-2007 4:44 AM


Is English really all that different?
Since IMJ didn't seem to like my swedish-english translations (nor did he seem to understand what type of translation I was making), I am translating, to the best of my abilities, a swedish article, both into the vernacular and direct (by which I mean as close to word for word substitutions, but some swedish words can only translate into an english phrase).
This is the link to the article:
http://www.svd.se/...gsidan/sexrelationer/artikel_596075.svd
I will only be translating the first two paragraphs that are not in bold.
quote:
Anna blev som 20-ring tillsammans med Gran. Han hade just skilt sig efter ett tiorigt ktenskap och hade tre barn. Efter ngra r ville Anna ppna relationen fr andra.
-”Jag knde mig fr ung fr att lsas in i ett frhllande, ven om krleken till Gran var stark.
Anna och Gran turas om att bertta om hur de har levt det senaste decenniet. nnu i livets mitt, hon r 40 och han 53, lever de i en fri relation. Men i brjan var Gran skeptisk. Han orkade inte med ngra pfrestningar efter skilsmssan med sin frra fru.
direct translation writes:
Anna became as 20-year old together with Gran. He had just separate himself from a ten year marriage and had three children. After few years wanted Anna open relations with others.
--I felt myself too young to be locked in a relationship, even if love for Gran was strong.
Anna and Gran take turns to tell about how they have lived the latest decade. Still in life's middle, she is 40 and he is 53, live they in a free relationship. But in beginning was Gran skeptical. He had energy not with some temptations after divorce with his previous wife.
vernacular writes:
When she was a twenty year old Anna got together with Gran. He had just divorced his wife of ten years and had three kids. Within a few years, Anna wanted to have an open relationship.
"I was too young to be stuck in a relationship, even though I loved Gran dearly."
Anna and Gran take turns in describing their lives in the past decade. Even now, in the middle of their lives, they has an open relationship. However, Gran was skeptical to begin with due to his recent divorce.
On of the few things you can't translate directly are prepositional words. P is used in multiple ways, as is om, till, av, fr, and they do not always line up with the english use of prepositional phrases.
At any rate, for being so different, English doesn't seem to be so different from Swedish. If it wasn, the direct (as direct as possible, at any rate) translation would be largely unintelligable.
If the difference is enough to exclude English from being european, then every state could not be european, for all the languages differ from a much less degree (I can, with little difficulty, understand Danish and Norwegian without actually knowing the languages) to a much greater degree, such as Russian versus Italian. So much for the true scotsman.

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 5:39 AM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 83 of 205 (434261)
11-15-2007 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 3:01 AM


Re: Actual History of England
this is all, unfortunately, gobbledook.
new mindsets create new languages?
Then why isn't there a language based off of Freud or Nietzche? Or Darwin? How about a new language for the Rationalist (Descarte) or the Empiricist (Locke)?
Or do new languages create new mindsets?
If so, why do people speaking the same language (Nietzche and Kant) create new mindsets?
Or do you think english was destined to become the international language? What will you say when Chinese becomes the new international language?
Do you even know what the hell you're arguing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 3:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 84 of 205 (434262)
11-15-2007 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by kuresu
11-15-2007 4:09 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
quote:
The point was to show that the grammar is like enough as to be understandable.
This is not the point, and there is no dispute of similarities or being understood; my point is there is a narrow but critical difference, which renders english different from all the commonalities it contains with all european languages. This difference is not seen between english of americans and some asian countries, who don't seem to have a problem with the critical grammartical inflections. This subtle variation is seen in your examples also. It is possible, this reflects a variation in mindset, or at least it would stand for something, language being a mysterious phenomenon in itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 4:09 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 4:59 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 85 of 205 (434264)
11-15-2007 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 4:50 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
what is this "narrow but critical" difference you speak of?
A narrow difference would hardly be enough to justify english as being vastly different (your basic claim) from europe.
So you need a critical difference, but I don't see any in the translations I have provided.
Speaking of grammar problems:
critical grammartical inflections
You seem to have one here. "Grammar" is a noun. You're trying to use it as an adjective (near as I can tell), and -tical is not one of our adjective declinations. In fact, english doesn't have adjective declensions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 4:50 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 5:47 AM kuresu has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 86 of 205 (434266)
11-15-2007 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by kuresu
11-15-2007 4:44 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
quote:
At any rate, for being so different, English doesn't seem to be so different from Swedish. If it wasn, the direct (as direct as possible, at any rate) translation would be largely unintelligable.
If the difference is enough to exclude English from being european, then every state could not be european, for all the languages differ from a much less degree
I agree that with translations of languages, adjustments have to be made. Yet, a sweed speaking english is different, both in the pronouncement of certain alphabetical phonations, and a loss of prefix, which is not seen when some asians [eg. Indians], who speak english as a second language, but do not have the same affectation as do Europeans. I'm not sure why this is so.
Also, I have a problem when you say all european languages are different from one another, equally as english is different from any european language: the difference of english strikes all european languages, but the same factor does not exist inter-european languages.
I do not think this is attributed to phonation only, e.g., that certain alphabets were not contained in the latin, such as the 'V' [thus we have Abraham, instead of the original AVraham with a V]. There are other such variations of alphabets between the Hebrew and Indian, and all european and Russian languages; however, this does not seem to have impacted english, which had no problem here. The different grammatical construction impacts more than the phonation: a different grammar means one percieves things differently, in a different order, placing an emphasis differently.
It could mean, that the source points of european and hebrew are not the same, and evolved via different paths, or are among the different kinds of 70 primal languages which later became widespread. I suspect that grammar came to Europe via the Hebrew [which introduced this faculty in the OT], via greece [which first translated the hebrew in 300 BCE], and which impacted strongly on philosophy, Europe, the Latin, and even on christianity itself.
To take this thought further, languages have the single most powerful impact on all aspects of humanity, and it cannot be under-estimated. After all, if one does not know a word and its meaning, one cannot think in terms of that word; this impacts one's thinking. Equally, there is nothing which mankind has done, which was outside of a language utility, which includes the wheel, cars, planes and PCs.
All of humanity's output is from language, which is represented by a word. To take this to a furtherest level, one can say that man creates everything via a word, and thus the universe itself could have emerged from a word, which represents a thought/will/action process. From such a vista, it is feasable, or even w/o alternatives, that Genesis deems the universe came about by a word: consider that there were no tools or forces, and that all products are post-universe, including matter, space, energy and time [the universe is finite].
So what's left? The same which occured for mankind, all came from the word, and this makes the verse, 'AND THE LORD *SAID* LET THERE BY LIGHT - AND THERE WAS LIGHT'. Here, the word 'said' refers to language, thought/will/action - with the caveat there were no tools, obviously so in a 'FINITE' universe: if the universe is finite - all its components are finite - meaning at one time they never existed, yet the universe emerged. I understand that evolutionists would not take such thinking as imperical, but equally, they have not a clue how the universe came about, and appear in a path which will not yield any answers. It is thus a question of perspectives, whether language is a force of its own, same as light, heat, energy, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 4:44 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 12:28 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 96 by Jon, posted 11-15-2007 1:22 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 87 of 205 (434267)
11-15-2007 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by kuresu
11-15-2007 4:59 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
quote:
what is this "narrow but critical" difference you speak of?
narrow, meaning the A's and THE's appear minor, but make a big difference. Why do most Europeans say, 'THE' God, instead of just God, as in the english - it is a dead give-away?
quote:
Speaking of grammar problems:
critical grammartical inflections
You seem to have one here. "Grammar" is a noun. You're trying to use it as an adjective (near as I can tell), and -tical is not one of our adjective declinations. In fact, english doesn't have adjective declensions.
This shows english as a very pliable and adaptive language, and one of the reasons it became a global-speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 4:59 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 10:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 88 of 205 (434268)
11-15-2007 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Parasomnium
11-15-2007 4:02 AM


Re: Languages w/in their Kind
quote:
So let me get this straight: an unnamed English king around 800 decided to translate the then current language of England, which was, surpisingly, French, into a non-existing language.
No. I'm not certain of the date [circa]; english was already spoken in some form, while the french saught to establish french as the operative language for briton: this failed, by the actions of a british king.
quote:
This brilliant move was of course greeted with great approval by his French-speaking subjects, if only because in the initial stages of the project people must have had belly-aching fits of laughter when they heard their king trying out the new language. (Ever seen "Allo, allo"?)
And they must also have revered their king's great foresight in inventing a word like 'cafe', the use of which had to wait another eight hundred and fifty years or so, after which coffee, from which the word derives, was actually introduced into polite society in England and France.
There were no belly laffs, the people supported the king against the french goal; the term cafe and many other french words were incorporated into the english.
quote:
Joseph, what planet are you from?
You must look in the mirror if I'm right. Yes/no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Parasomnium, posted 11-15-2007 4:02 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Parasomnium, posted 11-15-2007 7:11 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 90 by akhenaten, posted 11-15-2007 9:26 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 89 of 205 (434276)
11-15-2007 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 5:56 AM


Re: Languages w/in their Kind
Joseph, you should get your story straight. First you say "there was no english before 800 CE" and then you say "english was already spoken in some form". So which is it?
There were no belly laffs, the people supported the king against the french goal; the term cafe and many other french words were incorporated into the english.
"Laffs"? This from someone who criticizes non-native speakers of English in Europe? Anyway, when was the word "cafe" incorporated in the English language, according to you? Did your English king know this word?
You must look in the mirror if I'm right.
Well, you're not right. So I guess that means I don't have to bother looking in the mirror. But just out of curiosity, why do you say this?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 5:56 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
akhenaten
Junior Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 11-06-2007


Message 90 of 205 (434286)
11-15-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 5:56 AM


Re: Languages w/in their Kind
Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, *sigh*. I had to pick myself off of the floor when you said that 1066 is "circa 800CE".
Let's take this from the top. I apologize to the linguists for my errors, but feel free to correct me.
First of all, everytime you use the word "microcosm", God kills a llama.
Your claims contradict everything about standard English history. I wanted to debate creationists, but no creationist would want to be associated with your ideas.
English, like any other language emerged mostly through slow, gradual changes, sometime made more rapid by cultural events (none of which you have correctly identified). Old English can be said to have emerged when the Anglo-Saxons came to England around 450CE (you're right that there were already ancient Britons, also called Brythons living in England at that time. Their language had very little influence on English so they are not germane to this discussion). That's the fifth century, and it's not circa 800! And there are NO FRENCH YET! It's Anglo-Saxons!
Their language, Anglo-Frisian slowly became what we call Old English. Got that? Old English. In the years 500-800! BEFORE THE FRENCH!
IAJ writes:
there is no written proof of english before this date
Have you ever heard of Beowulf? That's right, it's a new CGI movie with Angelina Jolie. Well, it turns out that it's based on an Old English epic composed somewhere in 700-750CE! Other examples of Old English text include Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica (731) and the aforementioned Cædmon's Hymn of about the same time.
The vikings start coming in around 800-1000 (this is still BEFORE 1066 and there are NO FRENCH YET). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles are composed late 9th century and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FRENCH!
1066: cue the French (Normans). The Norman conquerors bring in French and the common people mostly continue to speak Old English. The intersection of cultures will slowly and gradually transform Old English into Middle English.
In 1086, The English king, William I -- who happens to be French (Norman), remember -- orders the great survey that came to be known as the Domesday Book. It's written in ...(drumroll)... LATIN!
This French/Norman line of kings gradually over decades and centuries thinks of themselves as English. There is no act of rebellion against the French/Norman language which was the language of the English royalty for a few centuries. Instead the borrowing of words and other slow, gradual changes results in the emergence of Middle English. By the 1400s English has slowly become the language of the king and the Establishment. After the 1500s we have Early Modern English (again through slow changes). In the 1600s the word coffee/cafe is first used and it originally came from ... TURKISH! (kahveh) Coffee - Wikipedia. Incidentally the 1600s are NOT circa 800.
To sum up from 500-1000 in England Old English was developing from its Anglo-Frisian roots BEFORE THE FRENCH came in 1066. There was NO Rebellious document to overturn the French language. The borrowing of French words played an important role in the gradual emergence of Middle English. Coffee came later still.
And everytime you use the word "microcosm", God kills a llama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 5:56 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 9:54 AM akhenaten has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024