 |
langcafe2.myfreeforum.org
Come in and have your daily cup of languages!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Porthos
Moderator
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1787
Location: Californië, Verenigde Staten
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:43 am Post subject: Which West Germanic language is easiest to understand? |
 |
|
I apologize for writing in English on this forum, but I don't know your language.
I remember someone either here, or on antimoon saying that English is the easiest West Germanic language for Scandanavians to learn. Is this true, and if so, why?
Also, I've heard people say that English syntax greatly resembles that of North Germanic languages, and that it is actually more similar to North Germanic syntax than that of other West Germanic languages like Dutch and German. Is this true of pure myth?
_________________
Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Harrenys Targaryen
Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
1.) Yes, Swedish/Norwegian/Danish word order, like English, doesn't involve verbs going to the end of a sentence or clause, as is commonly the case with German/Dutch:
English: I could visit our library.
German: Ich konnte unsere Bibliothek besuchen.
Dutch: Ik kon onze bibliotheek bezoeken.
Swedish: Jag kunde besöka vårt bibliotek.
Norwegian: Jeg kunne besøke vårt bibliotek.
Danish: Jeg kunne besøge vores bibliotek.
2.) There's also one Scandinavian syntax feature that echoes its English counterpart, namely, an adverb preceding a verb, though it's restricted to subordinate clauses:
English: I know that they seldom read their books.
German: Ich weiss, dass sie ihre Bücher selten lesen.
Dutch: Ik weet, dat zij hun boeken zelden lezen.
Swedish: Jag vet, att de sällan läser sina böcker.
Norwegian: Jeg vet, at de sjelden leser sine bøker.
Danish: Jeg ved, at de sjælden læser deres bøger.
Thus, the connection between the syntax of English and that of the Scandinavian languages is no myth. Instead, it's one reason that native speakers of the latter may find the former more tractable compared to German and/or Dutch.
3.) Then there's the matter of verb conjugation, which is considerably more complex in German/Dutch than in English/Swedish/Norwegian/Danish:
English: I write, she writes, you (all) write
German: ich schreibe, sie schreibt, ihr schreibt
Dutch: ik schrijf, zij schrijft, jullie schrijven
Swedish: jag skriver, hon skriver, ni skriver
Norwegian: jeg skriver, hun skriver, dere skriver
Danish: jeg skriver, hun skriver, I skriver
4.) And, finally, past participle formation:
English: bought, helped, beaten
German: gekauft, geholfen, geschlagen
Dutch: gekocht, geholpen, geslagen
Swedish: köpt, hjälpt, slagit
Norwegian: kjøpt, hjulpet, slått
Danish: købt, hjulpet, slået
---
Of course, I'm not a Scandinavian (yet), so for matters of aural transparency please consult Walker.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porthos
Moderator
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1787
Location: Californië, Verenigde Staten
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | English: I could visit our library.
German: Ich konnte unsere Bibliothek besuchen.
Dutch: Ik kon onze bibliotheek bezoeken.
English: I write, she writes, you (all) write
German: ich schreibe, sie schreibt, ihr schreibt
Dutch: ik schrijf, zij schrijft, jullie schrijven
English: bought, helped, beaten
German: gekauft, geholfen, geschlagen
Dutch: gekocht, geholpen, geslagen
|
As a side point, I would like to make mention of the fact that once again, English is obviously far less similar to continental Germanic languages than they are to each other. I've been saying that for a long time, and I think the evidence speaks for itself, but few here wish to admit that for some reason. It's definitely without a doubt, a Germanic language and very Germanic, but that doesn't mean that it can't be the most unique language in the group, the way Romanian is very different from the rest of the major Romance languages.
Anyway, back to the original topic.
| Quote: | 4.) And, finally, past participle formation:
English: bought, helped, beaten
German: gekauft, geholfen, geschlagen
Dutch: gekocht, geholpen, geslagen
Swedish: köpt, hjälpt, slagit
Norwegian: kjøpt, hjulpet, slått
Danish: købt, hjulpet, slået
|
If I remember correctly, Old English at one point had the "ge" pre-fix. So it must have lost it at some point. Could contact and influence with Old Norse be a possible explanation for the loss of that feature?
| Quote: | German: Ich konnte unsere Bibliothek besuchen.
Dutch: Ik kon onze bibliotheek bezoeken
|
The word for translation of the Dutch/German would be:
I can our library visit
That's clearly very different from English, whereas the Scandanavian translations are identical in terms of word order.
So, these are just a few isolated examples, but generally speaking, is English syntax a lot more like Scandanavian langauges than it is like West Germanic ones?
I'm trying to determine the cause of the drastic changes in English between the Old English and Middle English periods. There was this huge loss of almost all inflection in English during that transition period, and its syntax was greatly altered, along with many grammatical features which served to distance itself from continental speakers. Modern Frisian speakers can get the gist of Old English, and we English speakers can't! That's saying something. So I'm trying to determine if Norse drastically altered English, and if Norse influence is responsible for all of the grammatical similarities, or if it was just conincedence. English seems to be like a creole langauge, or a makeshift tounge for communication between Anglo-Saxons and Danes. Yet the Danelaw was only in effect on eastern and northern parts of England, so the dialects of southwestern England should not reveal much Norse influence if that were the case. Also, there were comparitively few Norse people who actually settled in England, and certainly far less than the Anglo-Saxons or especially the Celts. Why did the Celts leave virtually no linguistic influence on the development of English, when they numbered around 3 million, and the Anglo-Saxons only around 200,000? Why did the Danes have such a large impact on English when they numbered far less than 100,000?
_________________
Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walker
Moderator
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Porthos wrote: | | So, these are just a few isolated examples, but generally speaking, is English syntax a lot more like Scandanavian langauges than it is like West Germanic ones? |
I'd say it is because of the placing of the verb, as Harrenys has shown. Of course there are things that English and German have in common that we don't have, like
Der Charakter der Stadt - the character of the city. Up here we don't have that of the-thing, we say stadens karaktär - the city's character. Maybe you say the city's character rather than the character of the city in English, but you see what I mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg in noord-frankrijk
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 851
Location: Parijs in Noord-Frankrijk
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Porthos wrote: | | If I remember correctly, Old English at one point had the "ge" pre-fix. So it must have lost it at some point. Could contact and influence with Old Norse be a possible explanation for the loss of that feature? |
In Old English, the <ge> prefixing past participles was probably pronounced /j6/ (X-Sampa) = /jɐ/ (IPA), that is in a different manner from German utterance for <ge>, namely /ge/ (X-Sampa & API).
Anyway, OE <ge> is often written <y> or <i.> in Middle English, thus hinting that the final vowel in /j6/ = /jɐ/ came to be dropped while the intial glide was recycled into a full (short, unstressed) vowel, probably /I/ (X-Sampa) = /ɪ/ (IPA).
So basically past-participle prefixation was still in force after the Danish invasions. It merely changed.
| Porthos wrote: | I'm  to the of the in English between the Old English and Middle English . There was this loss of almost all in English that , and its was greatly , along with many which to itself from speakers. speakers can get the of Old English, and we English speakers can't! That's saying something. So I'm to if Norse English, and if Norse is for all of the , or if it was . English seems to be like a , or a makeshift tounge for between and Danes. Yet the Danelaw was only in on eastern and northern of England, so the of southwestern England should not much Norse if that were the . Also, there were few Norse who settled in England, and far less than the or the . Why did the leave no on the of English, when they around 3 , and the only around 200,000? Why did the Danes have such a on English when they far less than 100,000? |
Sorry to use that sort of technique normally intended for Antimoon, but I felt there was a word missing in your investigations : French.
| Walker wrote: | Of course there are things that English and German have in common that we don't have, like
Der Charakter der Stadt - the character of the city. Up here we don't have that of the-thing, we say stadens karaktär - the city's character. Maybe you say the city's character rather than the character of the city in English, but you see what I mean. |
I highly suspect the original Saxon genitive to have been relatively declining, since the 11th century, under the competition of Fr <de>, of which En <of> would simply be a calque. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benjamin [inactive]
Connoisseur
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 1675
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg wrote: | Anyway, OE <ge> is often written <y> or <i.> in Middle English, thus hinting that the final vowel in /j6/ = /j?/ came to be dropped while the intial glide was recycled into a full (short, unstressed) vowel, probably /I/ (X-Sampa) = /?/ (IPA).
So basically past-participle prefixation was still in force after the Danish invasions. It merely changed. |
And it still exists in some dialects, as spoken by some older rural people in Southwest England.
Low Saxon has also dropped past-participle prefixing, at least in most dialects.
Another way in which English syntax is more similar to Scandinavian syntax than to German syntax:
English: Benjamin's house
Danish: Benjamins hus
German: das Haus Benjamins |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg in noord-frankrijk
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 851
Location: Parijs in Noord-Frankrijk
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin wrote: | | greg wrote: | Anyway, OE <ge> is often written <y> or <i.> in Middle English, thus hinting that the final vowel in /j6/ = /j?/ came to be dropped while the intial glide was recycled into a full (short, unstressed) vowel, probably /I/ (X-Sampa) = /?/ (IPA).
So basically past-participle prefixation was still in force after the Danish invasions. It merely changed. |
And it still exists in some dialects, as spoken by some older rural people in Southwest England. |
And also in English :
En <yclept> <ycleped> ← OE <gecliopad>
En <afford> ← OE <geforđian>
En <alike> ← OE <gelic>
En <aware> ← OE <gewær>
En <enough> ← OE <genog>
etc.
| Benjamin wrote: | Another way in which English syntax is more similar to Scandinavian syntax than to German syntax:
English: Benjamin's house
Danish: Benjamins hus
German: das Haus Benjamins |
Nein, befürchte ich eigentlich nicht → Benjamins Haus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benjamin [inactive]
Connoisseur
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 1675
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg in noord-frankrijk wrote: | | Nein, befürchte ich eigentlich nicht ? Benjamins Haus. |
Ah schön, ich habe nicht das gewußt. Also, kann man beide hinter und nach der genetiv brauchen? So, sind "die Tatzen des Hundes" und "des Hundes Tatzen" beides richtig? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porthos
Moderator
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1787
Location: Californië, Verenigde Staten
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Porthos wrote:
I'm to the of the in English between the Old English and Middle English . There was this loss of almost all in English that , and its was greatly , along with many which to itself from speakers. speakers can get the of Old English, and we English speakers can't! That's saying something. So I'm to if Norse English, and if Norse is for all of the , or if it was . English seems to be like a , or a makeshift tounge for between and Danes. Yet the Danelaw was only in on eastern and northern of England, so the of southwestern England should not much Norse if that were the . Also, there were few Norse who settled in England, and far less than the or the . Why did the leave no on the of English, when they around 3 , and the only around 200,000? Why did the Danes have such a on English when they far less than 100,000?
Sorry to use that sort of technique normally intended for Antimoon, but I felt there was a word missing in your investigations : French. |
Aha!  So you admit that French exerted a tremendous re-shaping influence on the English language! Your happy faces are illustrative of how vital French loan-words are to English. So much of our vocabulary is of French origin, and they don't only consist of convinient, fancified alternatives for more everyday language in English. As you can see from the paragraph above, some of them have actually displaced their English counterparts. It would be nearly impossible for me to write the above without those French words. The French impact was by no means minimal, the way many of you here try to make it seem. The infiltration of French words was accomplished on such a massive scale that it actually re-shaped English, removing it from a once closer position to its continental Germanic relatives.
Many of you also claim that German and Dutch are themselves full of Greco-Latinate vocabulary, and that English is no different in this respect. Yet, the difference is that English adopted thousands upon thousands of Norman-French words centuries before Dutch and German began borrowing Greco-Latinate words for the sciences, or the arts, and has borrowed far more of them!
| Quote: | | Nein, befürchte ich eigentlich nicht |
If I'm translating this right, I believe word for word it would be:
No, fear I actually not
Again, very different syntax. What would that be in a Nordic language?
Anyway, I would like to get back to the topic of the thread.
Just like Spanish "biblioteca".....
So Walker, as a native Swede, do you find English to be the most like your language out of all of the West Germanic languages?
_________________
Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg in noord-frankrijk
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 851
Location: Parijs in Noord-Frankrijk
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Porthos wrote: | | Yet, the difference is that English adopted thousands upon thousands of Norman-French words centuries before Dutch and German began borrowing Greco-Latinate words for the sciences, or the arts, and has borrowed far more of them! |
Believe me, Norman-French doesn't mean what you were thinking of, and, conversely, the language you referred to was neither Norman nor French : it was Old French (a mix of Northern & Western Old-Oīl, ā la rigueur). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porthos
Moderator
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1787
Location: Californië, Verenigde Staten
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greg in noord-frankrijk wrote: | | Porthos wrote: | | Yet, the difference is that English adopted thousands upon thousands of Norman-French words centuries before Dutch and German began borrowing Greco-Latinate words for the sciences, or the arts, and has borrowed far more of them! |
Believe me, Norman-French doesn't mean what you were thinking of, and, conversely, the language you referred to was neither Norman nor French : it was Old French (a mix of Northern & Western Old-Oīl, ā la rigueur). |
| Quote: | Believe me, Norman-French doesn't mean what you were thinking of, and, conversely, the language you referred to was neither Norman nor French : it was Old French (a mix of Northern & Western Old-Oīl, ā la rigueur).
|
So was it or was it not the Norman dialect of Old French? Answer yes or no.
_________________
Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walker
Moderator
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Porthos wrote: | | Quote: | | Nein, befürchte ich eigentlich nicht |
If I'm translating this right, I believe word for word it would be:
No, fear I actually not
Again, very different syntax. What would that be in a Nordic language? |
Translating "Nein, befürchte ich eigentlich nicht" word for word doesn't really produce what one would actually say. The word "fear" doesn't really work in this context. But "no, actually not I'm afraid" would be "no, actually not am I afraid" in Swedish.
| Porthos wrote: | | So Walker, as a native Swede, do you find English to be the most like your language out of all of the West Germanic languages? |
In terms of word order, yes. But not in terms of vocabulary - that would be German. As far as I can tell, that is; I have never studied Frisian, Dutch or Afrikaans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porthos
Moderator
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1787
Location: Californië, Verenigde Staten
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In terms of word order, yes. But not in terms of vocabulary - that would be German. As far as I can tell, that is; I have never studied Frisian, Dutch or Afrikaans. |
I thought so, being that the Nordic languages borrowed exstensively from German.
But being that you know both English and Nordic langauages, would you say that English grammar, overall, is more like the Nordic languages than other West Germanic ones, or at least German?
_________________
Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walker
Moderator
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Porthos wrote: | | But being that you know both English and Nordic langauages, would you say that English grammar, overall, is more like the Nordic languages than other West Germanic ones, or at least German? |
Yes, I would. For example, we don't conjugate verbs according to person. Of course, in English you do that, but not as extensively as one does in German. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porthos
Moderator
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1787
Location: Californië, Verenigde Staten
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
So why do you think it is that English (a West Germanic language) grammar more closely resembles the Nordic languages than Dutch/German? In other words, why would this be?
_________________
Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walker
Moderator
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Porthos wrote: | | So why do you think it is that English (a West Germanic language) grammar more closely resembles the Nordic languages than Dutch/German? In other words, why would this be? |
Sorry, but I can't answer that. Something with Old Norse having an influence on English... but Old Norse and Modern Swedish are very different. During the times of the Hanseatic League Swedish borrowed not only words from German (Low Saxon) but was also influenced by its grammar. However, that grammar was later simplified. So it would appear a bit strange that the syntax of Swedish and English are similar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg in noord-frankrijk
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 851
Location: Parijs in Noord-Frankrijk
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Porthos wrote: | | So was it or was it not the Norman dialect of Old French? Answer yes or no. |
Non estoit ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porthos
Moderator
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1787
Location: Californië, Verenigde Staten
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some here have said that Danish phonology is remarkably close to English. Is this true? I've even heard it said that English phontetics are closer to Danish than to Dutch or German.
_________________
Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg in noord-frankrijk
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 851
Location: Parijs in Noord-Frankrijk
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Porthos wrote: | | Some here have said that Danish phonology is remarkably close to English. Is this true? |
En tout cas, le danois ne semble posséder aucune des diphtongues de l'anglais, hormis peut-ętre dans les séquences finales voyelles + <r>.
| Porthos wrote: | | So you admit that French exerted a tremendous re-shaping influence on the English language! |
Je n'en disconviens pas. Mais l'influence du franįais sur l'allemand et le néerlandais est d'une nature différente : l'allemand n'a jamais perdu son statut de langue littéraire sur son propre sol. Le cas du néerlandais est plus complexe, surtout en Flandres. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Tech Mastermind
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 180
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
North Germanic pronunciation is the closest to English. The easiest to understand, for me at least, is Dutch because I can speak it, and Scots.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
