Language Development and possible Optimizations

[Bijo]

'lo.


[---Took some time to write this up, so bear with me. Also, if you see any error in my claims, please objectively point them out.---]

Being interested in languages, I try to observe where it's going with some of them. I mainly look at Dutch and English, but discuss your own mother tongue if you'd like.

It's just that when I look at English, wanting to be creative, I look for ways to shorten the language. In other words, when writing, I want it to be more effective, shorter, etc. This can be done using certain words, but you'd also have to take into account the syllables.

For instance, look at French. It's common (when writing) to "glue" certain words - or should I more accurately say sounds(?) - to each other. To some extent this happens in English. Look at the examples below.

There's
He's/She's/It's
I've/You've/They've
This'll
It'd

When I think about it, we can even take it further. Look below.

'takes a lot t'utter a thing like that.
Notice "t'utter" (which of course means "to utter"). And also naturally the "takes" at the start: it's common to sometimes leave away personal referrals (in this case 'it'). I merely added the ' to indicate the absence of a word to be there normally (since the 't' of "it" coincides with the 't' of "takes").

Another example.

T'even out th'effort done, .....
Notice how 'to' and 'even' are glued together, just like 'the' and 'effort'.

Or:
D'you see the .......
Which I believe is commonly used with British English in spoken language.

I think you get my point about this and vowels. Maybe you could even suggest more... "language optimizations" or perhaps you have critique, etc.?
____________________
About Dutch for the Dutch-speaking (or anybody else):


The same could go for Dutch and probably other languages. This language in any case has had outside influences. Anyway, look below.

Er is veel te regelen. (There's a lot to take care of.)
I think we could first apply some simple stuff here.

D'r is veel te regelen. or better yet Er's veel te regelen.
Looks good to me. ("D'r" comes from "Daar" meaning "There.") But we can go further.

Er's veel t'regelen.
Looks even better to me. And so we could go on almost endlessly with finding ways "t'optimize" ( heh heh :P) the language.

____
What came over me to even think of such things? Ah, the matter just interests me. And I ask myself whether any language development is even occurring (excluding slang). Maybe in a hundred years English (and others) have developed into something else? Who knows?

In another language I know, it's very common to "glue". When you think about it, it's like sometimes you'd glue two, three, words together (or if you want to express it in vowels.... many vowels that are left out!).

Example.

Yu e musu go syi a man, te a doro. (You've got to see the man when he arrives.)
If I would have to speak that out physically it wouldn't sound like you'd expect if you read the thing there, but it'd sound very shortened. Look below.

Shortened Expression/Pronunciation of above sentence:
[eem goh sha mung, tah doroh]

eem = yu e musu (one syllable for 3 words!)
goh = go
sha = syi a
mung = man
tah = te a
doroh = doro

It's just fascinating to me when I analyze it.
_______

I'm curious if you know any more ways to "optimize" and (with that) perhaps "enhance" or develop language. If it's about English I have this thing about words in mind. Personally I hardly see it used, but please tell me if it's common, at all... my guess is it's not.

It's about combining two words into one: the first is a word in itself referring to a direction to a place and it can be responsive or not; the second is, well... kinda the same principle, you'll see. (I dislike terminology so my overall descriptions will have to do :P) These combinations of words are common in Dutch(, and I think in German as well). They're mostly literally translated, and I'm no historian or official linguist, but obviously since the languages have certain similar roots.... well, you get what I'm saying.

Examples:

Whereby
Wherewith = with which/what
Therewith = with that/it
Whereto = to which/what/etc.
Thereto
Therein
Herein
Thereupon
Whereupon ----------ETC.

Question repetition: is it common to use these words in English? I've only seen them sometimes on packages or in contracts occasionally.

My point is that when we use these words commonly, we basically optimize the language slightly. How? Like this: we use one word instead of two. Look below.

The book with which I gained much knowledge has done me good.
We're going to replace "with which" now.

The book wherewith I gained much knowledge has done me good.
And there we have one word - the same meaning - instead of two.
_____

A question I raise: is it possible for a language like English to apply that "one-syllable-for-three-words" principle I described earlier, and could this actually be properly executed (in some form) and eventually even standardized?


Thanks for reading :)

[Marshal Murat]

Sounds like someone wants to start another language.
Like Esperanto. That's the name right?

Good luck. Make it popular, and you'll get your name in history. Either as a failure, or a success. Make it effective, adaptable, and very easy to learn.

Unlike Esperanto.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't want to speak Pijin English. I like the depth of language, and how one can make cutting statements without out resorting to overuse of a few swear words as is the prelidiction of a large portion of society.

English may not be efficient, but it has a great ability to tolerate bieng mangled and still retain the ability to communicate meaning.

~:smoking:

[ShadeHonestus]

Ebonics is an efficient way to butcher the language and retain no meaning...

[Duke Malcolm]

Whereby
Wherewith = with which/what
Therewith = with that/it
Whereto = to which/what/etc.
Thereto
Therein
Herein
Thereupon
Whereupon ----------ETC.

Question repetition: is it common to use these words in English? I've only seen them sometimes on packages or in contracts occasionally.


There words are not in common use, no. They are generally considered more formal, slightly archaic. I would be surprised if (younger) people knew what the former 4 meant.

[Bijo]

@Marshal Murat
Hmmm, no not really: I don't intend to start a new language, like Esperanto, which I think sought/seeks to become a universal language worldwide. I'm looking at languages separately (mainly English) and their developments, and find ways to enhance and optimize them. But you've given me a nice idea, though! :)

@Duke Malcolm
Hmmm, you seem to know what they mean, and you're young! :) I must ask you: do you have an interest in languages, per chance?

[Duke Malcolm]

@Duke Malcolm
Hmmm, you seem to know what they mean, and you're young! :) I must ask you: do you have an interest in languages, per chance?

I have an interest only in English. Especially learning obscure and archaic words in place of unwieldy phrases to confuse people in my school...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bijo, words such as herein are used in official documents and writing in general but not speech.

As to the rest of your suggestions, they make me slightly sick (litterally). If you want to know why I suggest you read 1984 by George Orwell. Our language has become complex and varied in order to express complex ideas.

Those without a large vocabulary are unable to express such ideas, which is why education and literature are the traditional preserve of the rich.

[Blodrast]

Just to add on what Wigferth Ironwall said, heretofore and the others are also quite commonly used in the academic community (i.e., universities), when writing papers (I mean conference publications, journal articles, etc). At least in my field (computers).

[Bijo]

Ironwall, I have no time to read an entire book to understand your point of getting sick by my suggestions. Why don't you just explain it briefly?


Hmmm, if it is what I think it is you're trying to say, then my response is below.

My suggestions in the first post do not lower the language's nature (of English) to express these complex ideas mentioned. It would make it even more complex, from the current viewpoint on English we have now, instead of less complex.

(The vocabulary also doesn't degrade with these suggestions about juxtaposing words and sounds and attaching them to shorten the language.)

[Papewaio]

Just read Shakespeare and you will see that English (along with any living language) will evolve with time.


Those without a large vocabulary are unable to express such ideas, which is why education and literature are the traditional preserve of the rich.

But which comes first? Mastery of vocabulary is the modern masons handshake. Learn the jargon and you will get far more leverage in a specialist field.

[Bijo]

Just read Shakespeare and you will see that English (along with any living language) will evolve with time.
Hmmmm. Languages have evolved with time, but time isn't the only factor to be considered. One might even say time is just a "necessary side factor." Human action (in this context Shakespeare's especially) have contributed, not just time. Just saying it just in case :)

Shakespeare with its/his English shows development from then until now roughly. But it's irrelevant. His works are from another time and because English had evolved back then (as it had before that, and before that, etc.) doesn't mean it will evolve greatly in our time and in the future. It would be illogical to assume it would if we consider time alone, based on historical events, expecting the same principle again. However, it's plausible at best.

What's missing, then, the factor, is human action in our time (or maybe I just haven't seen it). So if it's true we're missing the factor of human action, and looking at your statement, how can you be 100% sure English will evolve?

(PS: I can't help it. I'm critical and got a thing for discussion :bow:)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In 1984 English is boiled right down to make it more "efficiant" and less flexable. This "NewSpeak" uses exactly the ideas you propose and is used to promote social control, the only ones with a full education are the social elite.

As to degredation, these words have fallen out of use in English, not even Shakespeare uses them consistantly:

Ye, Thou, The, Thy, Thine.

Ye is the second person plural equivialnt of "me" and has fallen out of use, causing confusion. The others are the second person singular counterparts to "I, me, my, mine" their falling out of use causes further confusion because all we have left are the plural versions, of which we have lost "ye."


So yay, we have fewer words and more confusion.

Oh, and you really do need to read 1984 to understand just what you are proposing.

Language is beautiful and it's manipulation is and art not a science. If I said to you "paint, but with one brush and five colours" what would you say to me?

[Papewaio]

Hmmmm. Languages have evolved with time, but time isn't the only factor to be considered. One might even say time is just a "necessary side factor." Human action (in this context Shakespeare's especially) have contributed, not just time. Just saying it just in case :)

Shakespeare with its/his English shows development from then until now roughly. But it's irrelevant. His works are from another time and because English had evolved back then (as it had before that, and before that, etc.) doesn't mean it will evolve greatly in our time and in the future. It would be illogical to assume it would if we consider time alone, based on historical events, expecting the same principle again. However, it's plausible at best.

What's missing, then, the factor, is human action in our time (or maybe I just haven't seen it). So if it's true we're missing the factor of human action, and looking at your statement, how can you be 100% sure English will evolve?

(PS: I can't help it. I'm critical and got a thing for discussion :bow:)

I said with time English changes, I didn't say because of time it changes.

English will continue to change as the the cultures that use it change. The rate of change if anything will speed up with more people, greater speed of communication and more developments. Plenty of new words are added to our vocabulary every year, from jargon to pop culture the sources are many and varied.

A dead culture will lead to a dead language, at which point the language won't change.

[gunslinger]

There's
He's/She's/It's
I've/You've/They've
This'll
It'd


J'eetyet?
no.
Y'untoo?
Ahight.
-- Jeff Foxworthy --

A half-baked theory: Since the vast majority of people in English-speaking countries are now literate, common movies are seen by English speakers all over the globe, and literature is cheap and mass produced, change in the English language will become nearly non-existent, with the exceptions being new techinical jargon and pop culture slang. However, with the ability of more amatuer writers to spread their wares, the rules for grammar and punctuation will be relaxed and simplified. After all, most people don't even know that to unecessarily split an infinitive is incorrect, or that a preposition isn't something you should end a sentence with. I have even seen punctuation rules change in my thirty year lifetime. For example, when I was in grammar school the comma in the above sentence [. . .the globe, and literature. . .] would have been correct. Now I understand that it is no longer necessary to place a comma before the word "and" when listing a series of words or phrases.

By the way, I just finished reading an excellent and entertaining book entitled The Professor and the Madman by Simon Winchester. It is the true story of the making of the Oxford English Dictionary and the certified insane American who played an enormous role in its creation.

[Fisherking]

Different regions and even different people will contract their word differently. TV has had a way of smoothing out many dialects to some degree. English is not so open to inventive spelling and contractions on a large scale…people get very annoyed with tiny spelling errors and like to demonstrate their knowledge by pointing those out…LOL

English is more open to adding new words or perhaps phrases.

I am relearning German after a very, very long time and they have changed their spelling of a lot of words. The easy example is daß to dass and rules for the sharp s "ß"vs. ss though I notice straße hasn't changed. These seem like trivial matters when it comes to having to memorise the gender and plural of almost every word and when a word it Accusative, Dative, Comparative, Nominative, etc. This along with combining words to make a paragraph long single word can be madding. I don't know if Dutch is similar but I would suspect that it is.

Just getting to cold beer can be a nightmare; kalte Bier, kaltes Bier, kaltem Bier, then salad...grün Salat, grüner Salat, grünen Salat, grünem Salat. Of course the man is also an example, der Mann, den Mann, dem Mann and somewhat more confusing is it die Frau or der Frau…I haven't even touched on male and female words for occupations or 50 was to make a plural.

Can you help these people simplify their language please. Even if it is only giving them a single key on the keyboard for sch.

[BDC]

Words with a gender is what killed French for me.

Different tones killed Mandarin. I couldn't even manage to say hello properly.

[Stig]

____________________
About Dutch for the Dutch-speaking (or anybody else):


The same could go for Dutch and probably other languages. This language in any case has had outside influences. Anyway, look below.

Er is veel te regelen. (There's a lot to take care of.)
I think we could first apply some simple stuff here.

D'r is veel te regelen. or better yet Er's veel te regelen.
Looks good to me. ("D'r" comes from "Daar" meaning "There.") But we can go further.

Er's veel t'regelen.
Looks even better to me. And so we could go on almost endlessly with finding ways "t'optimize" ( heh heh :P) the language.

____

You can even optimize this, as you said
regelen can become regel'n as you don't need that last e.
veel can also be spelled as völ

Now we have:
D'r is völ te regel'n

And this is also called Twents, or in a broader sense Low Saxon or Low German. Tho don't go and try to learn this language, keep away from it. The accent alone is bad enough ... I can tell you, I can speak Twents


Can you help these people simplify their language please. Even if it is only giving them a single key on the keyboard for sch.
I like German, it's pretty simple imo, you just have to get used to it.
And if you want a key for the sch give them to us Dutchies, we use sch en ch maybe even more often


I don't know if Dutch is similar but I would suspect that it is.
It is, we don't have any Nominativ, Genetiv, Dativ or Accusativ, but apart from that Dutch is considered far more difficult to learn.

[ShadeHonestus]

Now I understand that it is no longer necessary to place a comma before the word "and" when listing a series of words or phrases.


Comma fashion changes more than anything, I swear. I've lived through 3 comma vogue shifts so far and will no doubt see many more.


There was this writing analysis software developed by AT&T I believe, years ago and its still used by some schools today as a tool for students. In some cases teachers actually use it to grade writing (especially those English courses frequented by business majors to help that pitiful sort write better memos I guess). Anyway, the software is written to analyze writing on via very strict guidelines of word usage, sentence structure, punctuation etc etc. The interesting thing was that when Hemingway, Dickens and the sort were fed through, they were said to be writing at a 6th grade level.

[caravel]

In 1984 English is boiled right down to make it more "efficiant" and less flexable. This "NewSpeak" uses exactly the ideas you propose and is used to promote social control, the only ones with a full education are the social elite.

As to degredation, these words have fallen out of use in English, not even Shakespeare uses them consistantly:

Ye, Thou, The, Thy, Thine.

Ye is the second person plural equivialnt of "me" and has fallen out of use, causing confusion. The others are the second person singular counterparts to "I, me, my, mine" their falling out of use causes further confusion because all we have left are the plural versions, of which we have lost "ye."


So yay, we have fewer words and more confusion.

Oh, and you really do need to read 1984 to understand just what you are proposing.

Language is beautiful and it's manipulation is and art not a science. If I said to you "paint, but with one brush and five colours" what would you say to me?
Similarly words like hast, hadst, didst, dost etc have also fallen out of use. Other languages such as French and Spanish retain their equivalents of the sort of words, above and in Wigferth's post.

[Andres]

Language is beautiful and it's manipulation is and art not a science. If I said to you "paint, but with one brush and five colours" what would you say to me?

Well, some will make an outstanding painting with only one brush and five colours, others will make an abominable creation with six brushes and hundreds of different colours...

A simple and clear text is to be preferred over an unnecessarily over-complicated monstruous text, created like that just to demonstrate the level of education of the writer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Correct, although placing hast, hadst etc is a little harder. I'm not entirely sure how to manipulate them and I'm studying Middle English.

[Fisherking]

Since we are on the subject of language here, I hope it is okay if I point up some pointy-head's opinion that is so dumb you wonder why we educate some people.



WORD HISTORY Nothing seems more Irish than the leprechaun; yet hiding within the word leprechaun is a word from another language entirely. If we look back beyond Modern Irish Gaelic luprachán and Middle Irish luchrupán to Old Irish luchorpán, we can see the connection. Luchorpán is a compound of Old Irish lú, meaning “small,” and the Old Irish word corp, “body.” Corp is borrowed from Latin corpus (which we know from habeas corpus). Here is a piece of evidence attesting to the deep influence of Church Latin on the Irish language. Although the word is old in Irish it is fairly new in English, being first recorded in 1604.
Most people who know anything about languages knows that the Celtic Languages and Latin have a common root. One tiny clue might be that the Romans said so themselves. Pardon me if I am sometimes shocked at the levels of ignorance among the so-called educated.
If the word is old in Irish it might be older than Latin…last time I checked Irish was considered one of the oldest languages spoken.

Just my guess but I doubt this guy would know tá from níl and knows didily about foclóir in any language.:smash:

[BDC]

All about Lojban. A language which actually makes sense.

[Fisherking]

Yes, that a good one! There are likely more speakers of Klingonish or Tolken's Elvish…:wink:

[BDC]

Yes, that a good one! There are likely more speakers of Klingonish or Tolken's Elvish…:wink:
Yes, but the entire world could be taught Lojban in a few weeks. And you can program computers with it too.

[Randarkmaan]

As to the rest of your suggestions, they make me slightly sick (litterally). If you want to know why I suggest you read 1984 by George Orwell. Our language has become complex and varied in order to express complex ideas.


Damn! You beat me to it! And I have to add to Bijo; Read 1984! It will either totally put you off the idea of a simplified language with a smaller vocabulary, or strengthen your belief in it, if you want a totally controlled society where it is very hard to express discontent and "heresy" because the language lacks words which define those.

One example from Newspeak is: What is the need for the word bad/good, when ungood/unbad is even better because it represents the complete opposite of the word?

[Pannonian]

Damn! You beat me to it! And I have to add to Bijo; Read 1984! It will either totally put you off the idea of a simplified language with a smaller vocabulary, or strengthen your belief in it, if you want a totally controlled society where it is very hard to express discontent and "heresy" because the language lacks words which define those.

One example from Newspeak is: What is the need for the word bad/good, when ungood/unbad is even better because it represents the complete opposite of the word?
I can explain Newspeak good, but Wigferth explains plusgood, and Randarkmaan explains doubleplusgood.

[Bijo]

I said with time English changes, I didn't say because of time it changes.

English will continue to change as the the cultures that use it change. The rate of change if anything will speed up with more people, greater speed of communication and more developments. Plenty of new words are added to our vocabulary every year, from jargon to pop culture the sources are many and varied.

A dead culture will lead to a dead language, at which point the language won't change.
I also didn't say that you said because of time it would change, but said that you said that with time it would change, which is what you said, meaning, in any case, the important factor of human action was still excluded :bow:



You can even optimize this, as you said
regelen can become regel'n as you don't need that last e.
veel can also be spelled as völ

Now we have:
D'r is völ te regel'n

And this is also called Twents, or in a broader sense Low Saxon or Low German. Tho don't go and try to learn this language, keep away from it. The accent alone is bad enough ... I can tell you, I can speak Twents
[/u]
Hmmmm.

I remember saying or better yet..., signifying Er's veel t'regelen was my preferred one over the one with D'r, which you ended up using as example. You also dismissed, while before that mentioning as you said, the t'regelen.

I would have to exclude the Twents here 'cause it was about Dutch in this context of the quotes (even if the ö would take less space than ee) (but I wouldn't mind learning more about your Twents anyway :)

So if we would combine what I had and what you had, we'd have Er's veel t'regel'n. Though this might be optimal arguably, I wouldn't recommend it, for the last apostrophe would be too much and unnecessary. One could even argue Er's veel t'reg'len would be "better" 'cause it would more approach the spoken language, though still it looks like too much.

The attaching of te and regelen would save space, or should I say "would use less characters" if you know what I mean - the ' for the last e of regelen wouldn't, let alone the fact it would make it look unnecessarily confusing for some, while two attached words are more doable.

:bow:

@Ironwall and Randarkmaan
Alright, I'll have a look at 1984 if I have time for it (which I probably won't have :P) :bow:


Damn! You beat me to it! And I have to add to Bijo; Read 1984! It will either totally put you off the idea of a simplified language with a smaller vocabulary, or strengthen your belief in it, if you want a totally controlled society where it is very hard to express discontent and "heresy" because the language lacks words which define those.

[.....]
But my original idea was not about simplification. I sought to develop it, as in making it complexer which I said to Ironwall in one of the early posts, though I see what you're getting at.
Using my propositions and examples about attaching words: if we keep our current words and complex ideas expressions, but only apply the attachment of these words to shorten the language, shortening sounds and saving character space, this would obviously make the language slightly more complex.
The smaller vocabulary... hmmmm. I didn't yet think of minimizing vocabulary drastically (if that's what you mean), but only the examples I used earlier (about wherewith, therewith, herein, therein, etc.

I don't know what to say about that what you mention... the controlled society and heresy and such, probably because I don't see the relevancy (yet?) :sweatdrop: Maybe in 1984, as I come to understand what you and Ironwall said about it, the idea looked similar to some extent and was used to control society, but I hope you're not actually implying I intended to have such an idea - to control society, which wasn't my purpose.... HEREWITH! :2thumbsup:

:bow:

Hey! You've gotten two bows, Randaarkmaan. Y'owe me 20 bucks for th'extra one! :laugh4:


M'long response's weared m'down :dizzy2:

[ajaxfetish]

While I think I understand where you're trying to go with this, keep in mind that it takes an extremely influential individual to actually be able to engineer such changes as you have in mind. It's the human element that causes language to evolve with time, as you've pointed out, but it's a collective human element. People imitating each other, adapting language to culture and society, etc. It's not something that can really be controlled. The most likely way for one individual to be able to significantly change language would be to become an immensely popular writer (ala Shakespeare) and incorporate their changes into their writing. Otherwise it's more going with the flow. After all, the primary function of language is to communicate, and if one individual makes changes others do not recognize, it will hinder rather than aid communication.

My two biggest hopes for English evolution in the near future:

1. The acceptance of they/them/their, etc. as a gender-nonspecific third-person singular, since there is no word which adequately fills that role as yet, and with the rise of political correctness it is becoming increasingly important. 'They' is the most common way to express it in spoken language, and I expect will eventually become grammatically acceptable (and we already have a precedent of the same word filling both singular and plural roles in the second-person 'you')

2. The continual phasing out of the word 'whom.' English has steadily become less inflected with time (as noted already by the absence now of forms such as hath or hadst), and who has become frequently used in spoken language to fill the objective as well as subjective case. I feel awkward and unnecessarily formal using the word 'whom' and hate trying to remember when to use it and make it sound natural.

Ajax

[Suraknar]

To whom it may concern,


Since we are on the subject of language here, I hope it is okay if I point up some pointy-head's opinion that is so dumb you wonder why we educate some people.


Most people who know anything about languages knows that the Celtic Languages and Latin have a common root. One tiny clue might be that the Romans said so themselves. Pardon me if I am sometimes shocked at the levels of ignorance among the so-called educated.
If the word is old in Irish it might be older than Latin…last time I checked Irish was considered one of the oldest languages spoken.

Just my guess but I doubt this guy would know tá from níl and knows didily about foclóir in any language.:smash:

Indeed Latin is Close to Celtic, since both come from the sub linguistic familly of Celto-Italo-Tokharian in the linguistic tree.

While Tokharian went on its own branch, the other two divided in to sub groops of Italic and proto-Celtic branches.

On the Italic side, we find the Oskombrian and Latin, the later giving way to French, Italian. portuguese, Spanish and Romanian.

On the Proto-Celtic we find one sub-branch of Goidelic languages such as Manx, Gaulish giving way to Irish and Scotish Gaelic, another sub-branch of Brythonic languages, including Welsh, Cornish and Breton.

All of the above plus many more for a Total of 430 languages, are all part of the Indo-European familly, so we do find many similarities amongst them all.

[Suraknar]

Ah yes,

irish is one of the oldest, Celtic languages still spoken. But there are many still existing languages that are older than celtic itself.

[Bijo]

While I think I understand where you're trying to go with this, keep in mind that it takes an extremely influential individual to actually be able to engineer such changes as you have in mind. It's the human element that causes language to evolve with time, as you've pointed out, but it's a collective human element. People imitating each other, adapting language to culture and society, etc. It's not something that can really be controlled. The most likely way for one individual to be able to significantly change language would be to become an immensely popular writer (ala Shakespeare) and incorporate their changes into their writing. Otherwise it's more going with the flow. After all, the primary function of language is to communicate, and if one individual makes changes others do not recognize, it will hinder rather than aid communication.
Hmm, yes, indeed: a very influential individual. I should've done linguistics and become a writer or some important authority :laugh4: Then again, if I'd done that, these studies might've kept me from even coming up with this stuff right now.

I'll have no choice but to use it as much as possible, and spread it among people. Maybe I'll start right now, heh heh :yes:


My two biggest hopes for English evolution in the near future:

1. The acceptance of they/them/their, etc. as a gender-nonspecific third-person singular, since there is no word which adequately fills that role as yet, and with the rise of political correctness it is becoming increasingly important. 'They' is the most common way to express it in spoken language, and I expect will eventually become grammatically acceptable (and we already have a precedent of the same word filling both singular and plural roles in the second-person 'you')
Hmmm, must say that 'you' is quite clear in use nowadays, but suppose we'd use the word 'ye' (or another) for plural. That'd make it more clear. I thought 'they' was already grammatically accepted generally though.


2. The continual phasing out of the word 'whom.' English has steadily become less inflected with time (as noted already by the absence now of forms such as hath or hadst), and who has become frequently used in spoken language to fill the objective as well as subjective case. I feel awkward and unnecessarily formal using the word 'whom' and hate trying to remember when to use it and make it sound natural.
I have no problems with it really, I think. The person whom I have seen. : when I try to make it sound natural I'd say it like [de pursen hoo-my've seen] If I'm correct, 'whom' is used only when it refers to an entity not performing a verb. At least that's how I remember.
But if I might chip in here, I'd suggest to use the word 'that' for both things and persons, in both cases wherein 'that' performs the verb, or doesn't, etc. I thought this was pretty much accepted too, though. Maybe it's normal in American English? :dizzy2:


All this thinking while having a bad flu and a cold isn't good for my brain *drops down, dead*

[ajaxfetish]

'They' is certainly accepted as a plural form. I'm speaking of using in places that might otherwise use 'he or she,' such as, 'If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, they may write you a ticket.' Since the gender of the police officer could be male or female, it's awkward to try to express it otherwise. This is the way most people (at least those that I communicate with) speak, though it's technically still incorrect in written language. Ye has been absent from spoken English for a long time now, and 'you' is used for both the singular and the plural. I suggest doing the same with 'they.'

And you're correct on the technically proper use of 'whom.' It is used to substitute for an object of a verb or preposition, while 'who' substitutes for a noun in the subjective position. I think 'whom' has had its day in the sun, and it's time to move on.

Ajax

edit: stupid mistake

[Fisherking]

Languages in general can be fascinating things. But as far as streamlining or improving them goes…how do you do that? We usually don't care what someone else thinks of how we speak and if some self appointed board decided to add or take way words, I think it would make little difference.

American English still uses some words in older ways than British English…i.e. Fall for Autumn which they particularly dislike. The English also modified their pronunciations of some words in the 19th century because of fashion…giving them their more distinctive elements of accent. The differences in some spellings are due to spellings not being fixed at the time of the split between the two countries.

I have heard it said that the oldest forms of spoken English are to be found in Ireland.

It is interesting comparing English and German in many respects as a thousand years or so ago they were pretty much the same. It isn't much of a stretch to see who much of it was modified. Sentence structure is closer to Norwegian and or maybe Friesian (just a guess) and perhaps a bit closer to the German Imperfects (which are usually only found in written vs. spoken) but then I am not a linguist and these are only anecdotal observations.

I wouldn't mind some more informed opinions on the issues, especially from speakers of related languages.

[Bijo]

[...] 'If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, they may write you a ticket.' Since the gender of the police officer could be male or female, it's awkward to try to express it otherwise. This is the way most people (at least those that I communicate with) speak, though it's technically still incorrect in written language.
It's indeed incorrect: logically it doesn't make sense, but then again language sometimes ain't logical, heh heh, and in a way actually makes sense :yes:

I'd suggest another solution, though. We must create a personal word to replace 'it', 'he', and 'she', as a general "universal" third-person word. If we do that, not only do we don't have to use the incorrect 'they' in such a case, but we'd also eliminate possible so-called "sexism" or whatever one should call it.

In the other language I speak (the one mentioned in the first post) there's a third-person word which is a (pronounced like [ah]). It means 'it', 'he', or 'she', then followed by a verb. (It also means 'the' if it's followed by a noun.)

There's also a word which is en, pronounced like , meaning 'it', 'her', or 'him'. That makes me think that if we were to create such third-person words for English, we'd have to take the other forms of it into it as well.

But there might be (bad) consequences. The one I'm thinking of at the moment is reduced clarity.



[...] I think whom has had its day in the sun, and it's time to move on.
I think so too, or it must be used in the proper cases when it eases pronunciation, like with the [hoo-my've] - the 'oo' and then the 'm' sound just feels "right".
I still think 'that' must be used for both things and persons in most cases.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think English should take over what French is doing with it. They use [i]que (when the word it refers to is not performing the verb) and qui (when the word it refers to is performing the verb). (Can you tell I don't like terminology? :P)



It is interesting comparing English and German in many respects as a thousand years or so ago they were pretty much the same. It isn't much of a stretch to see who much of it was modified. Sentence structure is closer to Norwegian and or maybe Friesian (just a guess) and perhaps a bit closer to the German Imperfects (which are usually only found in written vs. spoken) but then I am not a linguist and these are only anecdotal observations.

I wouldn't mind some more informed opinions on the issues, especially from speakers of related languages.
Maybe you could try some of the other Dutch members. I think at least one of 'em speaks Fries, but my memory might betray me.

[ajaxfetish]

I'd suggest another solution, though. We must create a personal word to replace 'it', 'he', and 'she', as a general "universal" third-person word. If we do that, not only do we don't have to use the incorrect 'they' in such a case, but we'd also eliminate possible so-called "sexism" or whatever one should call it.
There have been attempts to do this, with words such as 'shim.' None have been satisfactory enough to catch on in general usage. As I said earlier, language isn't something that can be changed by an individual or a board, it must be changed by the population in general. I support 'they' because it has half a chance of success, as it is already in popular spoken usage.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The difference between who and whom is the difference between Subject and Object, just like I and Me, they or them. It's not difficult to use and it would actually be nice to see it making a return.

[Bijo]

'If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, they may write you a ticket.'
The word one comes to mind here. I think it'd be a decent replacement in the context.

---> 'If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, one could write you a ticket.'

In that sentence one eliminates sexism, and it secures singularity.


Another solution would be:

---> 'If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, you could be written a ticket.'

It makes as much sense and is correct.

[TosaInu]

Er's veel t'reg'len would be "better" 'cause it would more approach the spoken language, though still it looks like too much.


Reg'len is how it is seen at times. It's pronounced by some as ree glen instead of re ge len (not officially). So we already see reg'len in text.

Te reg'len door de wet der waere reed'lijckheyt,. En 't meeste deel van hun, door dwalinghen verleyt,. Weer in de roomsche kerck en godtsdienst te versaemen

http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/will028belg07_01/will028belg07_01_0022.htm

Joop de Kruif loopt even wat te reg'len

http://home.tiscali.nl/~nypels/hofnieuws/2-2004.html

I guess the n will drop at some point too.

[ajaxfetish]

The word one comes to mind here. I think it'd be a decent replacement in the context.

---> 'If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, one could write you a ticket.'

In that sentence one eliminates sexism, and it secures singularity.


Another solution would be:

---> 'If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, you could be written a ticket.'

It makes as much sense and is correct.
'One' is capable of filling that role in some situations, but doesn't always fit too well, and in American English at least sounds very pretentious. Your second suggestion doesn't answer the issue at all. You simply changed it to a passive construction and failed to acknowledge the agent. Requiring use of the passive whenever a gender-nonspecific pronoun would otherwise be needed would cripple communication. As I've said already, 'they' is already in popular use in this role, unlike some of the other suggestions you are making, and the singular-plural issue is in my opinion a non-issue, considering the precedent established by 'you.' Furthermore, to me at least, 'they' sounds much more natural than alternatives.

Ajax

[Bijo]

'One' is capable of filling that role in some situations, but doesn't always fit too well, [...]
That's why I said it fit well in the context, which was the relevant case.



Your second suggestion doesn't answer the issue at all. You simply changed it to a passive construction and failed to acknowledge the agent. [...]

Because it was the purpose "not to address the issue," heh heh :) The second suggestion simply solves the problem and doesn't require another third-person word to make clear that "you might be written a ticket" by the police officer who was mentioned already before that part.

Any clear-thinking person would know it would be the police officer who'd write you the ticket, therefore the agent is still acknowledged. This solution is just as clear, and is pragmatical and effective.

Sorry if I don't respond to the next lines in your post, but you know I dislike terminology :P


[...] to me at least, 'they' sounds much more natural than alternatives.

Your point was taken already before. It sounds understandable, but 'they' is still a word reserved for third-person plurality. It makes sense in an illogical way, but doesn't in a logical way, and the logical way is what I'd prefer. To everybody his own taste.

Any case, I was just thinking while I wrote that last part. Way I see it in another simple way, is to just use 'he'. Some of those people might complain about the sex issue, but the way I see it, 'he' is then being used as a general word not specific of gender anyway, much like 'one' and 'they' are. 'He' is then supposed to refer to 'the police officer' and NOT 'the male police officer', NOT implying 'the police officer' is male.

I rejoice in this language talk with you, Ajax Good stuff :bow:



Reg'len is how it is seen at times. It's pronounced by some as ree glen instead of re ge len (not officially). So we already see reg'len in text.

Te reg'len door de wet der waere reed'lijckheyt,. En 't meeste deel van hun, door dwalinghen verleyt,. Weer in de roomsche kerck en godtsdienst te versaemen

http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/will028bel...07_01_0022.htm
Hmmmm. I'm not so familiar with that stuff you showed, but it looks VERY OLD to me. Nether-German language, brrr :sweatdrop: And if that stuff's old and it looks like it, then the example you gave is irrelevant, for the time frames are too different. If we'd see reg'len in text, it'd be in old texts mainly, not in modern ones.


Joop de Kruif loopt even wat te reg'len

http://home.tiscali.nl/~nypels/hofnieuws/2-2004.html

This sentence is part of a song. In lyrics it's common to use different wording and creation, for fitting purposes, regarding syllables, regarding style, etc. For example: ain't is perfectly accepted in lyrics even though it's not in accepted everyday English. Ain't takes only one syllable, and can then be used in a certain way in lyrics/music, or maybe they'd chose aren't or are not or isn't, etc., if it'd fit better.

[TosaInu]

So if we would combine what I had and what you had, we'd have Er's veel t'regel'n. Though this might be optimal arguably, I wouldn't recommend it, for the last apostrophe would be too much and unnecessary. One could even argue Er's veel t'reg'len would be "better" 'cause it would more approach the spoken language, though still it looks like too much.


I'm native. I noticed the bit about regel'n and regelen and realised that the 2nd e is often swallowed. I also recall seeing reg'len. But where are the good examples when you need one?

The first text isn't written yesterday, true. I didn't notice the second being a lyric (googled for samples), sorry.

It isn't official spelling. Not to my knowledge at least.


It's not just my opinion that a lot changes in the spelling over here. It isn't a normal evolution of language or even just progressive. It's going round in circles. Words that had to be sperated by underscores are now glued together and words that were one become two, two words are connected by an underscore and within a few years from now everything is randomly reverted again.

I had to learn the list of irregularities in highschool not so very long ago, it's changed twice or more within a few years since. In the past we had Het Groene Boekje, now we still have that book, but we also have other pseudo and unofficial spellings. Pseudo as it's used by some of the larger newspapers over here, instead of the offical.

The first letter in names of persons are capitalised, i.e John. But it's not Pyrrhusoverwinning anymore, but pyrrusoverwinning. Todays official reasoning: the general is dead, who knows, who cares. Sinterklaas is not dead yet and still written Sinterklaas. :book2:
It was Christen, it's christen now. It's Europarlementarier, but the profession of bakker is still bakker. :huh:


The teacher told me in highschool that Het Groene Boekje was a blessing: 'Granted there are a 'few' tiny irregularities but in the past (100's of years ago) there were no rules at all and people, able to write, just wrote how they thaught it had to be. Be grateful and study hard for that A grade'.
Right now we are almost back in the medieval times, as people do as they please. Too many changes to stay up to date.

http://www.onzetaal.nl/nieuws/groenwitb.php

The use of language in chats and SMS may influence it further. ff instead of even.

[Bijo]

@TosaInu
Hmmm, what you're saying about these modern Dutch spelling situations is nasty. I dislike how they keep changing these things over and over, as they've worked before well enough, but more importantly, things were set, and all that was needed is to learn the damn thing, to have conformist Dutch spelling throughout the country.

Especially how words that were one become two. It doesn't make sense! This ain't English!

Anyway, I'm still using typical older spelling probably, from what I learned in my younger years and it just looks good to me, and it looks correct. I don't know exactly why those language authorities keep changing or allowing certain stuff... maybe they have nothing to do. Or there's a need to complicate things that are already complicated enough for many Dutch people. Good for the economy: brings in more money; forces production of new spelling and teaching books; gives Dutch language teachers an edge over others, etc., etc. Arrrgh.

What all Dutch citizens need regarding their language is proper education in it and to not forget, and they need the authorities to stop messing around and keep it like it was before. (.... a - to sometimes connect words; never split up a word in two; etc.)

Whether it keeps circulating... possibly. In any case, they really need to get their act together and keep the language steady and get rid of stupid changes like two seperate words that make one, because it looks too much like English.

[TosaInu]

The samples set in my mind are words borrowed from English, not sure whether there are others. But still

-is it normal for English?
-why do we have to change when the word was copied decades ago? We also borrowed cadeau from the French language, while we have kado and that has been the standard for a bit. The proper plural is cadeaux, but that isn't the case in the Dutch language. What's the difference? Why do we have to be 100% up to date with UK and not with France?

Ik wil een Belg zijn :bigcry:

[Bijo]

Oh, you mean those words exactly copied from English, like 'computer' and the likes?

I thought you were among other things talking about, as was I, Dutch words split up into two seperate ones, like one can see nowadays "improvised" if that's the right word. A word like 'PC-aanbieding' many people would write 'PC aanbieding' which should be wrong in Dutch, but the principle is normal in English. Some of them would even spell 'muismat' like 'muis mat' which should be wrong.

What do you mean exactly by...
-is it normal for English? ?


-why do we have to change when the word was copied decades ago? We also borrowed cadeau from the French language, while we have kado and that has been the standard for a bit. The proper plural is cadeaux, but that isn't the case in the Dutch language. What's the difference? Why do we have to be 100% up to date with UK and not with France?

English seems to be the dominant world language, a business language, etc. Its influence is great, unlike French which is the language of a country that has degraded in terms of global power, technology, economy, military, etc. It's not "really" because of the UK so much anymore, but more because of the US I think, though they have both filled big roles.

And since France has lost its "superiority" longtime already, with the increased influence of English (British and American), and the American imperialist superpower, French words, though still there, will be less in use.

I didn't really follow the (consequential) logic in that last quote I made of your words :sweatdrop: but I think at the end you mean because we use cadeau and not cadeaux for the plural but cadeau's we tend to lean more towards English than French, because cadeau's has a more English touch to it, correct?

Hmmm, I'd say more but my flu is starting to hit me again :)

[TosaInu]

Hello Bijo,

Exact copies was what I was thinking about yes, not sure whether there are more 'Dutch' cases.

PC is short for personal computer, also an exact copy. I see your pont: a combination of Dutch and foreign in one word. That's another naughty exception, who knows where all those words are coming from? What if they are Dutchified later on? Change the rules again?

The Belgians replace it by something that matches the Dutch language: droogzwierder instead of centrifuge. I believe they're still in the Taalunie and thus also 'subjected' to Het Groene Boekje. But, they can focus better.

Normal for English.
1. Does this fullcolor, full color, full-color stuff happens a lot in the UK?
2. Why? I still think it's just adding extra confusion.

Logic in language rules is thus political influence, waan van de dag.

The logic is that I'm jealous at the Belgians for replacing foreign words by something that suits their own language (which is offically Dutch). I don't know whether their education system is better or that they don't have to learn 1,000's of new exceptions and weird rules every few years and thus more stable, but they often win language matches.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In English we don't really do compound words, full-colour and mouse-mat or full colour and mouse mat.

The second two are accepted but wrong and you wouldn't use them in any formal document, hopefully.

Edit: But it's different for different words. In American English longsword seems to be correct, in English its' long sword.

[Bijo]

[...]

It is interesting comparing English and German in many respects as a thousand years or so ago they were pretty much the same. It isn't much of a stretch to see who much of it was modified. Sentence structure is closer to Norwegian and or maybe Friesian (just a guess) and perhaps a bit closer to the German Imperfects (which are usually only found in written vs. spoken) but then I am not a linguist and these are only anecdotal observations.

I wouldn't mind some more informed opinions on the issues, especially from speakers of related languages.
Hmmmm. Someone previously mentioned 'hath' and 'hadst' in this thread and such which are from Early Modern English, or probably even Middle English :sweatdrop: It makes me think of German sometimes.... even now there are similarities between English and German.

I'm also no official linguist, but have an interest in languages, so here's some stuff I was thinking about :)

If I'm correctly remembering it, the basic extensions were:
---Middle English (present form)
to have

I have
we have

thou hast
ye hast
Ye hast

he/she/it hath
they have

---German (present form)
haben

ich habe
wir haben

du hast
ihr habt
Sie haben

er/sie/es hat
sie haben

.....Notice the st and t sounds, and 'thou' and the similar 'du'.


In the past forms sometimes they shorten the word: 'thou haddest' becomes 'thou hadst'. But the there's a similarity with German in the same principle: 'du hattest'.

More (modern spelled) words like: beer/Bier, mother/Mutter, on/an, house/Hause, is/ist, cat/Katze, ship/Schiff, come/kommen, God/Gott.

Also, the order of words sometimes:
Middle English---What hath he here?
German---Was hat er hier?

Middle English---Thou be'st a man.
German---Du bist ein Mann.

And some possessive words:
thine / dein (and some German extensions)
thy / dein

Dunno if it's of any use to you, Fisherking. I dug deep into my old memory for this :bow:

[Bijo]

[...]

The logic is that I'm jealous at the Belgians for replacing foreign words by something that suits their own language (which is offically Dutch). I don't know whether their education system is better or that they don't have to learn 1,000's of new exceptions and weird rules every few years and thus more stable, but they often win language matches.
Oh, they're just smarter than most Dutch people in that regard, I'm guessing :P

One thing's for sure: the Dutch education system ain't that good.



@Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
'Longsword' looks better than 'long sword' to me for some reason. I think it's because a 'longsword' was a certain standard object accepted as such, therefore one word was there for it. 'Long sword' would be generally more like "any sword that is long," as 'long' describes 'sword', but a 'longsword' had a typical nature and design. Makes sense to me :)

[Stig]

About regelen

I guess the n will drop at some point too.
Depends on it. I have a pretty strong Low Saxon (Twents) accent. Here we do pronounce the n, while we drop the e which is in front of it. However in the western part of the country they do it the other way around.
This is how I pronounce the world regelen:
ree gel n
which can be written as:
regel'n
While in other part of the country they pronounce it more like:
ree guh luh
which can be written as you said:
reg'le



Ik wil een Belg zijn
Nou nou Tosa, gaat dat niet erg ver

Tho sometimes I would agree with you. Not just for the beer and such, but also for the language, they speak proper Dutch.


Now there's one beautifull language imo. It's the Low German/Saxon language. It has all sorts of dialects but everything still looks a little like eachother. In that language you get this (for the verb To Sleep):
ich slaap
du slöppst
he, se, dat slöppt
wi slaapt/slapen
ji slaapt/slapen
se slaapt/slapen

And in German the verb To Say:
ich sage
du sag(e)st
er/sie/es sag(e)t
wir sagen
ihr sag(e)t
sie/Sie sagen

Which gets you this table:
Singular:
1st: . | e
2nd: st | st
3rd: t | t
Plural
1st: en/t | en
2nd: en/t | t
3rd: en/t | en


Now afaik Low Saxon has been unchanged for ages. It has almost no influences from other languages, except Dutch and German a little, as it was spoken by those who are in no contact with those languages. And still it's the same to what German now is. But then the Germans have a pretty unchanged languages (they still have declensions (dictionary work)).

[TosaInu]

Oh, they're just smarter than most Dutch people in that regard, I'm guessing :P

Possible.


One thing's for sure: the Dutch education system ain't that good.


I agree. Same problem really: meaningless updates.


I'm pirating the topic, sorry.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmmm. Someone previously mentioned 'hath' and 'hadst' in this thread and such which are from Early Modern English, or probably even Middle English :sweatdrop: It makes me think of German sometimes.... even now there are similarities between English and German.

I'm also no official linguist, but have an interest in languages, so here's some stuff I was thinking about :)

If I'm correctly remembering it, the basic extensions were:
---Middle English (present form)
to have

I have
we have

thou hast
ye hast
Ye hast

he/she/it hath
they have

---German (present form)
haben

ich habe
wir haben

du hast
ihr habt
Sie haben

er/sie/es hat
sie haben

.....Notice the st and t sounds, and 'thou' and the similar 'du'.


In the past forms sometimes they shorten the word: 'thou haddest' becomes 'thou hadst'. But the there's a similarity with German in the same principle: 'du hattest'.

More (modern spelled) words like: beer/Bier, mother/Mutter, on/an, house/Hause, is/ist, cat/Katze, ship/Schiff, come/kommen, God/Gott.

Also, the order of words sometimes:
Middle English---What hath he here?
German---Was hat er hier?

Middle English---Thou be'st a man.
German---Du bist ein Mann.

And some possessive words:
thine / dein (and some German extensions)
thy / dein

Dunno if it's of any use to you, Fisherking. I dug deep into my old memory for this :bow:

Interesting isn't it? Then try comparing English with Swedish and Norwegian, particually northern English.

One correction I would make, ye is the objective pronoun, the subjective was you in Middle English.

[Bijo]

Now there's one beautifull language imo. It's the Low German/Saxon language. [...]

[...]

Singular:
1st: . | e
2nd: st | st
3rd: t | t
Plural
1st: en/t | en
2nd: en/t | t
3rd: en/t | en


[...]
That's a nice list up there :) What more do you know about this Low Saxon?


@Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. Are you positively 100% sure? As far as I recall, it was the other way around. Here's an additional example (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/cbtls12.txt):

This worthy Duke answer'd anon again,
And said, "This is a short conclusion.
Your own mouth, by your own confession
Hath damned you, and I will it record;
It needeth not to pain you with the cord;
Ye shall be dead, by mighty Mars the Red.



It's been a while, but what I like about Middle English are the peculiar words at times. 'Soone' instead of 'soon', 'eyen' instead of 'eyes', 'deade' instead of 'dead', 'swyn' and not 'swine'.

There are some parts that I don't understand at all, but also remind me of French, but it could be anything if you don't know. Something like Perpetually, he n'olde no ranson or I n'ot wher she be woman or goddess, ...

By looking at the Canterbury Tales again, I saw one peculiar similarity between Middle English and German:
-starf (died) / starb

...that's the only one I could find in a short time.




Interesting isn't it? Then try comparing English with Swedish and Norwegian, particually northern English.

I'll try, but I must tell you I've never even looked at Swedish and Norwegian :sweatdrop:

[Stig]

What more do you know about this Low Saxon?
Well I can speak the regional Low Saxon dialect myself (writing is difficult tho).
Using this Wikipedia link can help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German

The dialect I speak myself is Twents (which has the status of regional language in Holland). This MS Word file can help you:
http://members.home.nl/dialexicon/versie/Grammatica.rtf
Mind you that's a more western form of the Twents afaik, from somewhere around Almelo. Where I come from we use different spellings. Like du instead of doe, wi instead of wiej and some more. And we have umlauts, which are sometimes not used (also depends on where you come from).


You might find this site interesting:
http://www.lowlands-l.net/grammar/
or this:
http://www.plattmaster.de/language.htm

But as I said, words are spelled differently in different places (the pronounciation is the same most of the time).



One "interesting" Low Saxon word is gaarn, which means garden. In German this is Garten, tho looking alike, they are pronounced very differently. The pronounciation of Gaarn is closer to "soft" Garden then "hard" Garten

[ajaxfetish]

By looking at the Canterbury Tales again, I saw one peculiar similarity between Middle English and German:
-starf (died) / starb

I wouldn't really consider any similarity between Middle English and German peculiar. English was a development of Anglo-Saxon; it's very Germanic in its origins (though with heavy Latin influences from the Norman conquest). You've pointed out earlier many of the other words that are nearly identical, at least phonetically, even between modern English and German.

Ajax

[Bijo]

I wouldn't really consider any similarity between Middle English and German peculiar. English was a development of Anglo-Saxon; it's very Germanic in its origins (though with heavy Latin influences from the Norman conquest). You've pointed out earlier many of the other words that are nearly identical, at least phonetically, even between modern English and German.

Ajax
True that it's Germanic. I used 'peculiar' as I'd already forgotten that fact at the moment. Of all the things I dig up from memory, I forget the most simple general one: the fact that English is Germanic in nature :laugh4:


@Stig
Platduits, hm! Have read about it a bit before some time, but these links will provide good stuff and add knowledge :)



Can somebody point out similarities between English and Norwegian an Swedish, 'cause I can't (yet) :P