Talk:History of the English language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Latin and Greek
There is a brief note about Latin and Greek words being introduced via Christianity. When? Didn't the Romans occupy Britain at some time? Could Latin words have been adopted during the Roman occupation, and not second-hand via Germanic tribes?124.99.205.23 13:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Roman occupation of Britain was from 43 to 410—before the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Even if there had been Anglo-Saxons there before 410, the language was not open to borrowing then, as can be seen from the fact that it did not borrow Brythonic words. The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons began in 596. --teb728 19:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) I believe the wave of borrowing which resulted from the introduction of Christianity added principally words that were specifically Christian like church, bishop, and priest—words that would have been of no use to the pagan Anglo-Saxons at the time of the Roman occupation --teb728 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- But the West Germanic tribes had already borrowed some words from Latin even before the Angles and Saxons left the Continent for Britain; words like cherry, butter, and street. Also church, as it's convenient to have a name for prominent buildings you see other people using, even if you don't use them yourself. (English had a word for mosque long before there were any English-speaking Muslims, after all.) —Angr/talk 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Though church is from Greek - but probably you meant that. Discussed at kirk. --Doric Loon 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Either I meant that, or I meant that Germanic borrowed it directly from Latin, which itself borrowed it from Greek. It's a little weird because neither Greek or Latin normally uses the word that Germanic church was borrowed from; they both use ekklesia instead. —Angr/talk 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
When Caesar arrived in Britain, he met people whom he considered to be originally Belgic immigrants from Northern Gaul (De Bello Gallico v.xii). He tells us that the Belgae are a Germanic, not a Celtic people (De Bello Gallico ii.iv). England was speaking Germanic when Caesar arrived. Thus this concept of England being originally Celtic has absolutely no base in anything. The reason it was assumed that England spoke a Celtic language was that Tacitus tells us that the Britons share nearly the same language with that of Gaul. It was assumed that "Gaul" means Celtic Gaul. Actually, Northern Gaul, known as Belgica, spoke the "Belgian" tongue, a Germanic tongue, probably the ancestor of Frisian and Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozushi (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- If Caesar thought Britain was inhabited by Germanic peoples when he arrived, he was mistaken. They were Celts; all the evidence points to this. According to our article on the Belgae it isn't certain whether they were Germanic or Celtic, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this article, as the inhabitants of Great Britain before the mid-5th century were unambiguously Celts, speakers of Brythonic languages. —Angr 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
In its current version the page completely ignores the impact of 300 years of Roman England. Is there a reason for this? 172.206.105.159 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes; the 300 years of Roman Britain took place before the English language arrived on the island. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Written English
When did English become a written language?124.99.205.23 13:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's some unreferenced info I found: An Anglo-Saxon inscription dated between 450 and 480 AD is the oldest sample of the English language. During the next few centuries four dialects of English developed:
* Northumbrian in Northumbria, north of the Humber * Mercian in the Kingdom of Mercia * West Saxon in the Kingdom of Wessex * Kentish in Kent
During the 7th and 8th Centuries, Northumbria's culture and language dominated Britain. The Viking invasions of the 9th Century brought this domination to an end (along with the destruction of Mercia). Only Wessex remained as an independent kingdom. By the 10th Century, the West Saxon dialect became the official language of Britain. Written Old English is mainly known from this period. It was written in an alphabet called Runic, derived from the Scandinavian languages. The Latin Alphabet was brought over from Ireland by Christian missionaries. This has remained the writing system of English. 124.99.205.23 13:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- See also Anglo-Saxon literature.--Doric Loon 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Language Evolution
Nature (449 (11 October 2007) pp 713 to 716) includes a letter concerning the evolution of verbs in the English language over the past 1200 years. It addresses the rate at which verbs evolve to use the dental suffix (ie become "regular" in using the "-ed" ending to signify past tense). The researchers adduce that the half-life of an irregular verb scales as the square root of its usage frequency. From this they postulate half lives varying between 300 years for rarely used verbs up to 38,800 years for the most common verbs used (be, have). Really good read. Should this be part of the article or simply a reference? Quartic 01:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say at best, add it as an External link at Germanic weak verb, if it has a URL. It's only a letter to the editor, right, not a peer-reviewed article? And while Nature is fine for the natural sciences, I've never been impressed by their coverage of linguistics. —Angr 06:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, its a letter, not a peer-reviewed article. No URL. Thanks for your analysis / advice. I'll take no further action now. Quartic 13:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Internet?
What about the influence of the internet? I have the feeling that an article exists, but shouldn't this page link to it? If one doesn't, I'll make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monroetransfer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- This page is an overview of the evolution of the English. Without a major expansion, talking about the influence of the internet would be overly specific.
- The influence of the internet on vocabulary and on the world-wide spread of English is touched on at English language. If there were a link to a more specific article, I would think it should be from there.
- The effect of English on the internet is discussed at English in computer science. --teb728 t c 22:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. Am I to take it then that there is no page specifically discussing this? I'll begin researching and maybe a long time from now I'll have enough to lay the groundowork for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monroetransfer (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Modern English?
Is the Oliver Twist passage really a prime example of Modern English? It uses conventions that, while still grammatically correct, are not in common use today (i.e. using semicolons in the place of commas, single quotes in spoken dialogue, and the double colon ["said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:" instead of "said, ...", which would be considered standard today). While I know that by definition, that is an example of Modern English, English has evolved over the last 150 years and that is no longer what you would see in literature today. Perhaps a quote from a newer source is warranted?
EvilReborn (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why is "Anglo-Saxon" really Frisian?
If we accept the paradigm of the Germanic invasions/migrations being predominently made up of (in descending order?) Angles, Saxons and Jutes, plus some Franks and a small admixture of Frisians, it seems odd that the resultant "Anglo-Saxon" or Early English language is most closely related to Frisian, rather than being derived from the majority(?) Angle and/or Saxon, or being (at least for a time) a geographical patchwork of Angle, Saxon and Jutish. I remember reading somewhere a suggestion that, because the Frisians were coastal dwellers and therefore prominent in sea trade and transportation, their tongue was used as a Lingua franca (!) by the other groups and for this reason became the common tongue of the newly settled lands. Is this idea worth tracking down source-wise and incorporating into the article, or has it been discredited? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've never heard it before. Sounds interesting. The Jade Knight (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
