"Custos Custodum" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:u2ler2ps9a6t0g26l4r7rasoaeoara1n7c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Wright, who was a famous 19th. century philologist and linguist, proved
that
English arose from a mish-mash of Low German, Danish, Norse, and Welsh, to
which were added French and Latin words. Anglo-Saxon is ancient Saxon and
100% German. Gobineau's theory of the recial supremecy of Germans is not
even accepted by Germans now-a-days, why try to flog old Anglo-Saxonist
rubbish?
|
