Creation of the English Language

Just a note of clarification. I've found that a lot of people think that Shakespeare writes in old english. You know, like "the olde tyme" signs you see.Old English refers to the period of english language history that looks like this:
Hwæt! w Gr-Dena in ger-dagum
eod-cyninga, rym gefrunon,
hu a æelingas ellen fremedon
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum
monegum mægum, meodosetla ofteah
egsode eorl. Syan ærest wear
feasceaft funden, he æs frofre gebad
weox under wolcnum, weormyndum ah
oæt him æghwylc ara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde
gomban gyldan. æt wæs god cyning!A further question--why the change from runic characters to latin characters?
Old English - Wikipedia

Well, I've never seen english and spanish hump.There really is no (a)sexual reproduction in languages that I'm aware. I know there are cases where languages somewhat combined--such as Norman French + Old English = Middle English, but I'm not sure if these would count.Also, is there a selection field with which to remove unsuccseful words? What makes a word succesful--the number of people who use it? Are adverse words actively removed?Long live the cyning!
Long live the king!

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.

Umm, okay. English being a germanic language helps disprove that the UK is european? This is more nonsensical that some things I've seen you right. Reminds me of Randman arguing that prove for evolution is actually prove against evolution. You must have an olympic caliber mental gymnastics team inside you to pull this off.I find it rich that you think the europeans are taking lessons from us on freedoms and liberties. Though that could explain Putin. If you look through history, you'll see that our declaration of independence was based on the second treatise of government by John Locke--a brit. You'll also notice that the constitution is based largely on enlightenment ideas--a movement that was created in Europe and also led to the French Revolution.By the way, I dare you to tell a Pole he is more similar to the French that the British, or to tell a Frenchman he has more in common with Poles than with Brits. Ask a Brit who he has more in common with, a pole or a frenchman. I garuantee he'll say the frenchman, and the frenchman would say the same of him. A pole, given a third choice, would probably say he has more in common with russians than with the french or british.If Europe is so much closer to Russia than Britian, why does Russia have a significant anti West, anti Europe movement?My point still stands--politically, culturally, and geographically the UK is a part of Europe. Your refusal to believe this doesn't make it false, and that's all you have. A refusal to accept this fact.

A point about grammar.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?It is sunny.
Det r soligt.
Direct translation: It is sunny.I can go on and on about how similar Swedish, a germanic language, and English, another germanic language are in terms of grammar. Here's the kicker--those direct translations are fairly understandable, aren't they?If you are going to argue that because English is a different language from French and therefore not European, then every single state in Europe is not European. I garuantee there are more differences between the french and german languages than there are between spanish and french and italian. 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?

Wait, haven't you been arguing the exact opposite?Is this yet another case of "proof for is actually proof against"?

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. 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.

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.

---

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.

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?

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: 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.

Ah, so you think swedish has no prefixes like "a" and "the"?Well, on that account your wrong.Oh, and my relatives there definitely know how to use the prefixes. I'm not sure which Europeans you're talking about. When my relatives speak of god, unless it's "the god of X", they say god. This holds true in their native tongue as well.Again, you're running into the problem of education.All languages all pliable and adaptable. The reason english became the international language has much to do with the british empire, not with any "critical difference".ABE:
another problem with "grammartical" is that it makes no sense. Sure, english is pliable and adaptable, but even Shakespeare would not have written 'grammartical'. Maybe you meant to say "grammatical", which does exist?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

That would be because you are wrong. Completely, categorically, absolutely wrong.

Do you know any non-native speakers of English? I know of 13. Some are better at english than others. Some are really damn good at english. One is a finnish-swede who teaches at my university, and her english is impeccable.Do you know any foreign languages? Something tells me you don't. This too is wrong. I often find myself thinking of something about which I have no clue what word to use to describe what I am thinking. Or I know the word but can't recall it. You don't have to know the word and its meaning in order to think in terms of that word and its meaning.By the way, I like the contradiction: Later you claim that the word is the source of everything.
Another contradiction:
If everything is post creation of the universe, then how can "word" (which you describe as a force) exist to create the universe, when it must exist after creation like everything else, because it is a force, a tool?Or maybe, you just don't have a clue about physics. I'm betting that this is the case.

Read the sentence after the one you quoted. I said that I still think of things that I can't get the word for because I've simply forgotten it.Case in point--two summers back, I forgot the word 'mallard', a type of duck. In sweden we saw some mallards, and I was trying to tell me relatives what it was in english. I obviously knew what I was talking about but didn't have the word. A half hour later I remembered it. I blink my eyes without thinking. It's something that happens without need for thought. My heart beats at about 70 bpm without me thinking about it. Kick my balls and I will scream without thinking "hey, I should scream to reveal my pain".
Actions don't need thoughts. Fallacy of composition. It does not necessarily follow that because the components are finite the whole must be, or that because the whole is the constituent parts must be. An example: Humans are visible to the naked eye, and humans are made of atoms. Therefore, atoms are visible to the naked eye. In fact, if physics is right, every single one of the particles that make up our bodies are flitting in and out of existence. By your illogic, that would mean we are flitting in and out of experience constantly. Also, a particle can be in two places at once. By your illogic, that would mean we can be at two places at once. You've never taken math, have you? What happens when you expand infinity? You get infinity. Oh, okay. You never have taken higher level math. I guess that makes sense, given that it seems you don't know any foreign languages and think that native speakers are far better than non-native speakers. False.

quote:

---

the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community

​

audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs

​

a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings

---

And that's from merrian-webster.And I see you still don't understand your contradiction. If nothing existed before the universe (such as forces), and language (the 'word') is a force (as you do describe it), then the 'word' cannot be used to create the universe, for to create implies to exist before the creation. What you have is this:force not exist before universe.
force create universe. Um, okay. Then why do you say: This implies that at least you know how languages originally came about. If you can explain it, it is not inexplicable. Do you not read what you write? I doubt it, when you can't even handle the math on infinity.

I'm beginning to wonder if he's talking about the attempt to standardize the language.I believe I found what he's been talking about. It also fits with his circa 800 c.e. date.Old English - Wikipedia

quote:

---

the bulk of the surviving documents from the Anglo-Saxon period are written in the dialect of Wessex, Alfred's kingdom. It seems likely that with consolidation of power, it became necessary to standardise the language of government to reduce the difficulty of administering the more remote areas of the kingdom. As a result, paperwork was written in the West Saxon dialect

---

Granted, he is naturally dead wrong on why this standardization occurred. It wasn't to stuff it to the french. At the time, it was the vikings invading england (yay ancestors!), and they controlled the northern tip of scotland. Alfred apparently managed to merge many anglo-saxon kingdoms in 876, and given that old english was highly variable (kirke, churke, kurke, churche are some examples I believe), it makes sense for him to standardize it for administrative purposes.Let's see how he manages to twist this to try and support him.