On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:33:14 -0000, "Walker" <walker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"Custos Custodum" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:hkvbr2l0g3tm9klspjfo5vihk5if6smbjl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:23:16 -0000, "Walker" <walker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>To Fitlikeman. Sorry about top posting, but ***bric never really
"died",
>>>many ***bric words exist in Scots and even standard English, as well as
in
>>>place-names.
>>
>> You'd be hard pressed to list more than a hundred that aren't place
>> names or dialect.
>Complete rubbish!
>>
OK, then. List them. In fact, I'll make it easy for you - list 50
words of standard, modern English, no place names, dialect or obscure
technical terms, that can be unequivocally traced to a ***bric root.
>>> Also English is nothing like Anglo-Saxon/Old
>>>English/Platdeutsch or whatever else you want to call it.
>>
>> Nonsense. You're frothing again. The similarities are there to see for
>> anyone who takes the trouble to learn a little about both languages.
>Complete rubbish!
Really? The core vocabulary of English is predominantly Germanic,
especially when one looks at older, obsolete forms. English shares its
strong/weak verb classification with modern German and presumably the
other Germanic languages too. Verbs that are strong in English are
usually strong in German, and the process of ablaut (e.g. sing, sang,
sung) is similar, if not identical, for both. English and German verbs
have only two 'true' tenses, the remainder being formed using
auxiliaries.
The comparison and position of adjectives follow the same pattern for
both languages.
English word order is generally SVO. German word order is more
flexible, but the verb is still in second place. What was ***bric
(=Celtic?) word order? VSO?
And yet, despite all this evidence of common ancestry, you continue to
deny that English is essentially Germanic in origin and claim instead
that it is some sort of amalgam of ***bric and Latin.
>>> Ever noticed the
>>>prelieferation of Celtic auxillaries in English?
>>
>> What proliferation? (I assume that's what you meant). If you are
>> talking about 'progressive' tenses (I believe linguists call them
>> 'aspects' nowadays) then yes, it is possible, even probable, that they
>> are due to Celtic influence, as English is unique among the Germanic
>> languages in possessing such a feature.
>This response (antwort) negates your claim that English grammar and
>vocabulary is similar to that of German.
How does it do that? All I have done is to concede that 'progressive'
tenses (e.g. I am running) are not found in other Germanic languages
and are probably the result of Celtic influence. I would guess that
most languages exhibit external influences that are not shared by even
their closest relatives.
>What absolute rubbish you write!
It's still far short of the utter fantasy that you promote as
'academic research'.
>>
>>>Is that how Germans speak
>>>German?
>>
>> No, but German verbs closely mirror their English counterparts in most
>> other respects. Hardly surprising, given their common ancestry.
>>
>Complete rubbish!
So prove me wrong! I have already indicated the main areas of
similarity. Simply contradicting me adds nothing to your already
flimsy case.
|
