On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:50:22 -0000, "Walker" <walker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"Custos Custodum" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:efsbs2lbupm9494r4u2k5roph1ebpmu5at@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:28:38 -0000, "Walker" <walker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"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.
>>
>> What claims did he make for the Welsh influence, and what proof did he
>> offer? Your use of 'Low German' in this context is misleading and runs
>> counter to current academic practice.
>>
>>>Anglo-Saxon is ancient Saxon and
>>>100% German.
>>
>> Well, duh! Actually, 'Anglo-Saxon' is an umbrella term used to
>> describe the closely related Germanic dialects of the Angles and
>> Saxons who settled these shores shortly after the Romans left. Related
>> to modern German through their common ancestry, it is the foundation
>> of modern English and is usually called 'Old English' nowadays.
>>
>>>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?
>>>
>> Who gives a toss about Gob****e's theories? You're frothing again.
>> Time for your medication.
>
>Gobineau was the founder of German racism, to which you seem to be an
avid
>admirer.
How on earth did you arrive at that ridiculous conclusion?
>You seem to know nothing about the history of ancient Germany.
Don't believe everything you think you see.
>Parts of England were settled by Germans after the fall of the Roman
Empire
>in the West.
No they weren't. They were settled by Germanic tribes. The ideas of
'Germany' and 'German' only came into being with the Holy Roman Empire
in the 9th century, and did not become a political reality until 1871.
>German ceased as a spoken language in the British Isles a long
>time ago,
German has never been spoken to any extent in the British Isles, apart
from royal circles. The original Germanic dialects didn't really die
out - they just evolved into something else. There's plenty of
evidence of the continuity right through to the present day. They
certainly weren't 'replaced', which I believe is your pet theory.
> and the language we now call English does indeed bear traces of
> German, but it also bears traces of many other languages.
English is structurally a Germanic language - everything else is
merely flesh on the bones, no matter how much that contradicts your
crackpot theories.
>To describe
>ancient Low German as Old English is just nonesense.
>
You're the only one misusing the terms. Anyway, I've had enough of
trying to educate someone who has a closed mind and who's obviously
borderline 'special needs'.
|
