Is English Romance?

[Gordon410]

lol. But read the dialogue I just posted.

 

[Warial]

Vocabulary is too mobile and transient for classification. For example, a medieval British peasant-born kid might be speaking with >90% Germanic vocabulary, but if he left his hueshipfamily and took the vows or became a squire, then in a few years he might be speaking with ~30% Romance vocabulary even in casual speech. On the other hand, while he might have learnt Norman or Latin, their grammar are unlikely to seep into his Ænglisc much.

That's not true. Your example has no bearing on language classifcation. That some peasant started using "to consume" instead of "to eat" doesn't change the fact that "to eat" is the most popular and basic lexem and is cognate with German "essen". On the other hand, that a peasant started using "to consider" instead of OE "eahtian" is insignifcant, because this item does not belong to basic vocabulary. All in all, vocab very much is used for classification and I dare say more so than grammar in many cases. However, it necessities siffing off true congnates reaching to the previous stages of languages from borrowings.

Hell, most branches are divergent on the basis of phonetic shifts.

And ancestry requires continuity, we see Old and Middle English records acquiring more and more Latinate vocabulary, eventually leading to Modern English, instead of Anglo-Norman acquiring more and more Germanic grammar, so that's that.

Agreed.

lol. But read the dialogue I just posted.

Ok. Please provide us with the evidence of English being a Romance language. As the general consensus is that English is Germanic with Romance adstratum the burden of providing proof falls on you.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Something to think about when it comes to the "heart and soul" of a language is music lyrics. I imagine Germanic words are much more common in music, where as you would see many Latin words in a research paper for example.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

bleh

*borrowing of grammar can happen, but much rarer.

And ancestry requires continuity, we see Old and Middle English records acquiring more and more Latinate vocabulary, eventually leading to Modern English, instead of Anglo-Norman acquiring more and more Germanic grammar, so that's that.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

That's not true. Your example has no bearing on language classifcation. That some peasant started using "to consume" instead of "to eat" doesn't change the fact that "to eat" is the most popular and basic lexem and is cognate with German "essen". On the other hand, that a peasant started using "to consider" instead of OE "eahtian" is insignifcant, because this item does not belong to basic vocabulary. All in all, vocab very much is used for classification and I dare say more so than grammar in many cases. However, it necessities siffing off true congnates reaching to the previous stages of languages from borrowings.

Hell, most branches are divergent on the basis of phonetic shifts.

Maybe I expressed it poorly:
Peasant kid at home: basic vocab
Church/nobility education: learned/acquired vocab/acrolect
"Hueship": the expected outcome of OE "hiwscipe" had it not been displaced by the Latin word "familia", one of the rare cases of core vocabulary displaced.

So I think we mean more or less the same?

 

[Warial]

Maybe I expressed it poorly:
Peasant kid at home: basic vocab
Church/nobility education: learned/acquired vocab/acrolect
"Hueship": the expected outcome of OE "hiwscipe" had it not been displaced by the Latin word "familia", one of the rare cases of core vocabulary displaced.

So I think we mean more or less the same?

Probably. Sorry, I'm used to fighting with pro-Altaists and amateurs who think that Japanese "mizu" and Korean "mul" (both mean water) must be related.

 

[metalinvader665]

Maybe I expressed it poorly:
Peasant kid at home: basic vocab
Church/nobility education: learned/acquired vocab/acrolect
"Hueship": the expected outcome of OE "hiwscipe" had it not been displaced by the Latin word "familia", one of the rare cases of core vocabulary displaced.

So I think we mean more or less the same?

For English speakers, the more educated your speech becomes, the more you'll use French/Latin loanwords in your speech.

Lol you just did it again(and again while I was typing this).. People keep answering you, and you acknowledge the answer, then slightly rephrase the same question.. I don't know what your on man, but I need to get some of that! Like I feel like if no one had posted in this thread but you, there would still be like 10 of your posts in a row saying the same sh!t.

If this is the same OP, then there's a 9-page thread on AH.com regarding this same subject, in which yes, I've posted on too. Kinda weird to find the same thread here.

 

[Gordon410]

"Why not the vocabulary?"

You: "Because vocabulary is not a good determination of language origin because it is too mobile and transient for classification."

I: "Well, what is a good determination of language origin?"

You: "Grammar."

I: "But you cannot ignore the minority which is the vocabulary."

You: "No one is ignoring the minority."

I: "You are by ignoring vocabulary."

You: "No! I am not ignoring vocabulary. I agree there are thousands of Romance loanwords."

I: "And you disagree that English is Romance?"

You: "Correct! It is Germanic."

I: "Then it is by Germanic dominance that English is Germanic."

You: "No! It is not by dominance. English is ultimately Germanic."

I: "What about Romance loanwords in vocabulary?"

You: "They are discounted in language classification."

I: "Why?"

You: "Because language classification is determined by the grammatical structure not the overall vocabulary."


I, in turn, will ask, "Why not the vocabulary?"

You: "Because vocabulary is not a good determination of language origin because it is too mobile and transient for classification."

I: "Well, what is a good determination of language origin?"

You: "Grammar."

I: "But you cannot ignore the minority which is the vocabulary."

You: "No one is ignoring the minority."

I: "You are by ignoring vocabulary."

You: "No! I am not ignoring vocabulary. I agree there are thousands of Romance loanwords."

I: "And you disagree that English is Romance?"

You: "Correct! It is Germanic."

I: "Then it is by Germanic dominance that English is Germanic."

You: "No! It is not by dominance. English is ultimately Germanic."

I: "What about Romance loanwords in vocabulary?"

You: "They are discounted in language classification."

I: "Why?"

You: "Because language classification is determined by the grammatical structure not the overall vocabulary."


I, in turn, will ask, "Why not the vocabulary?"

It seems like you cannot answer this question. Every time someone tries to answer the question it raises another question - which raises another and so on until we arrive back at the original question. And why did we arrive back at the original question? Because it was never truly answered.

So, again I will ask, "Why not vocabulary?"

 

[hagagaga]

I believe you could write something meaningful using no Romance words, but the opposite is not true

Not relevant.

Probably. Sorry, I'm used to fighting with pro-Altaists and amateurs who think that Japanese "mizu" and Korean "mul" (both mean water) must be related.

Yeah. Those people are annoying. As a non-expert, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people asserting that Mongolic, Turkic, and Tungusic languages are related (and even then, I will not say that I believe that assertion), but that takes things a bit far.

 

[hagagaga]

It seems like you cannot answer this question. Every time someone tries to answer the question it raises another question - which raises another and so on until we arrive back at the original question. And why did we arrive back at the original question? Because it was never truly answered.

So, again I will ask, "Why not vocabulary?"

Because vocabulary is irrelevant.

Example:
Maltese is a Semitic language. It has no genetic relationship to any Indo-European language. The majority of its vocabulary, however, is of Italian origin. It just means that they had a lot of foreign loanwords in a particular dialect of Arabic that gave rise to its own language.

Let's apply what you are suggesting to something else. If I make a lot of money on the stock market, that doesn't mean that I come from a wealthy family. It means that I receive wealth from a different source.

 

[Warial]

It seems like you cannot answer this question. Every time someone tries to answer the question it raises another question - which raises another and so on until we arrive back at the original question. And why did we arrive back at the original question? Because it was never truly answered.

So, again I will ask, "Why not vocabulary?"

Why cannot you accept the fact that borrowed vocabulary is not used as a factor in determining language classification?

 

[Gordon410]

Why cannot you accept the fact that borrowed vocabulary is not used as a factor in determining language classification?

Answer my question first before I answer yours.

 

[Jos de trol]

English is germanic

 

[hagagaga]

Answer my question first before I answer yours.

Repeatedly asking a question after it has been answered and then objecting to when people don't feel like repeating themselves is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Gordon410]

Answer my question first before I answer yours.

Repeatedly asking a question after it has been answered and then objecting to when people don't feel like repeating themselves is intellectually dishonest.

Haven't received a straight answer.

 

[Gordon410]

Grouping languages into families is based on grammatical similarities. Why is vocabulary, word etymology, adstratum, etc. not included with language classification?

 

[Attalus]

Grouping languages into families is based on grammatical similarities. Why is vocabulary, word etymology, adstratum, etc. not included with language classification?

Because it does not show ancestry, which is the primary element in language classification ?

 

[Gordon410]

Because it does not show ancestry, which is the primary element in language classification ?

Read through the question carefully. Notice the word etymology. Etymology = origin = ancestry.

 

[Warial]

Grouping languages into families is based on grammatical similarities. Why is vocabulary, word etymology, adstratum, etc. not included with language classification?

Vocabulary and etymology is included in classification. Adstratum not because it is not native, but borrowed. In other words: has no etymology in English, no ancestry in English and doesn't fit word formation rules of English. Do you understand now?

 

[Gordon410]

Vocabulary and etymology is included in classification.

Then what about Romance vocabulary?