Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: Is English syntax more akin to North Germanic Syntax?
I know very little about North Germanic languages, and I've tried researching the relationship between Scandanavian languages' syntax and that of English, but I come up with nothing on Google.
I've heard it mentioned by others on langcafe that English syntax is very similar to Scandanavian languages, and that English is the easiest West Germanic language for Scandanavians to learn. Is this so?
I've read that the plural form of English pronouns are of Norse origin, and that "-s" endings to denote plurals are also of Norse origin, as are various features of our grammar. Some have even suggested that modern English arose out of a creole of Norse-Anglo-Saxon contact. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:16 am Post subject: Re: Is English syntax more akin to North Germanic Syntax?
Porthos wrote:
I've read that the plural form of English pronouns are of Norse origin, and that "-s" endings to denote plurals are also of Norse origin, as are various features of our grammar. Some have even suggested that modern English arose out of a creole of Norse-Anglo-Saxon contact.
Doubtful: the -s plural, in my opinion, is more Romance than Germanic (and thus Norse). French and the Iberian languages (even Catalan, it seems) regularly form the plural with -s, Italian being the only major contemporary Romance language that doesn't use -s for plurals (-i for masculine nouns and -e for feminine ones for the most part instead).
As for Germanic language plurals:
Icelandic: -, -ar, -ir, -ur (-s has no place in this preserved language)
Danish/Norwegian: -, -e, -er (-s cannot be used because the definite articles -(e)n, -(e)t, -(e)ne are suffixes attached to the noun)
Swedish: -, -ar, -er, -or (same reason as Danish/Norwegian)
German: -, -e, -er, -(e)n for native words (though the first three endings often take an umlaut) and -s for loanwords
Dutch: -en, -eren, -s for native words and -'s for loanwords (I concede this one)
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Is English syntax more akin to North Germanic Syntax?
Porthos wrote:
I've heard it mentioned by others on langcafe that English syntax is very similar to Scandanavian languages, and that English is the easiest West Germanic language for Scandanavians to learn. Is this so?
Apparently so. I've met many Scandinavians who speak perfect English and they've said that English is the easiest language to learn. _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Is English syntax more akin to North Germanic Syntax?
Daniel wrote:
Porthos wrote:
I've heard it mentioned by others on langcafe that English syntax is very similar to Scandanavian languages, and that English is the easiest West Germanic language for Scandanavians to learn. Is this so?
Apparently so. I've met many Scandinavians who speak perfect English and they've said that English is the easiest language to learn.
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: Is English syntax more akin to North Germanic Syntax?
Porthos wrote:
I've read (...) that "-s" endings to denote plurals are (...) of Norse origin, as are various features of our grammar.
I think this is false.
Look at the declension for ME <ston> :
NS → stonØ
AS → stonØ
DS → ston(e)
GS → stones
NP → stones
AP → stones
DP → stones
GP → stones.
And now the declension for OE <stan> :
NS → stanØ
AS → stanØ
DS → stane
GS → stanes
NP → stanas
AP → stanas
DP → stanum
GP → stana.
Basically, all plural cases that had an end-marker very close the current plural marker in English did keep it. That pattern was extended to dative plural, then later to genitive plural also (although /s/ had always been the mark of genitive *singular*, not plural, in Old English — ).
Of course not all OE & ME words followed the <stan>/<ston> type of declension.
ME <name> :
NS → name
AS → name
DS → name
GS → name
NP → namen
AP → namen
DP → namen
GP → namene.
OE <nama> :
NS → nama
AS → naman
DS → name
GS → naman
NP → naman
AP → naman
DP → namum
GP → namena.
But the <s> pattern finally affected all words, including weak <en>-plurals. That's what we call réfection analogique in French. It's a very common phenomenon in diachronic lexical morphology (as in preimperial orolatin → late orolatin, for instance). However, the réalignement par analogie is thought to have first started in Northern England, then Southern England — where an opposite trend had begun (some s-plural nouns got an n-form). It is likely that French-plural pattern helped the northern trend expand and reach completion, save some curiosities like oxen etc. However, s-marks was by no mean an indication of plural in Early Old-French or Classical Old-French : for most masculines, it was above all an indication of case.
OF <murs>, <pueble> & <reis> = En <wall>, <people> & <king>
At some point, Old-French subject cases for regular masculines aligned themselves on oblique cases, thus yielding what is known today in Modern French. That process is comparable to that of Old & Middle English and probably helped make Middle-English plurals uniform, at a time when that language was gaining a literacy status.
Porthos wrote:
Some have even suggested that modern English arose out of a creole of Norse-Anglo-Saxon contact.
No. Modern English arises from Early Modern-English, which arises from Late Middle-English (at least 500 years after the Danelaw). At that time, Middle English was "intermingling" with Old French, not Old Norse.
No. Modern English arises from Early Modern-English, which arises from Late Middle-English (at least 500 years after the Danelaw). At that time, Middle English was "intermingling" with Old French, not Old Norse.
Of course I didn't mean "modern English" in that sense Greg. Be reasonable. I meant that the English we speak today might have been derived from a creole-like mixture of Anglo-Saxon and Norse elements in the Old English period, while it was making its transition to the Middle English period. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
In another thread, we have already established that English syntax is more similar to Scandanavian languages than it is to other West Germanic ones, at least according to two speakers of both. The question is, why? _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
In another thread, we have already established that English syntax is more similar to Scandanavian languages than it is to other West Germanic ones, at least according to two speakers of both. The question is, why?
Simply through evolution.
If you take a look at Icelandic and Norwegian (both North Germanic) and the locations where they are spoken, and the history behind them.
You'll notice that Icelandic still retains its heavy use of noun cases but Norwegian has largely lost them.
The theory is that Icelandic is spoken on a very isolated island far from other linguistic places and is low in immigration thingy so it has remained virtually unchanged over the last millennium. Norwegian is spoken in a bordered country with many different dialects.
English went through so much changes because of immigration and invasions. So naturally over time the cases and other features of English were lost. You have to remember that at the time there were settlers from Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
English went through so much changes because of immigration and invasions. So naturally over time the cases and other features of English were lost. You have to remember that at the time there were settlers from Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.
What time are you referring to, because if you're thinking of the major Norse settlement periods, (9-11th centuries), then I don't think they coincided with any noteworthy immigration from the Netherlands.
I know it underwent changes because of immigration and invasions. But I'm trying to determine why English grammar/syntax/morphology underwent such drastic changes when compared to other West Germanic languages, who it doesn't resemble at all in those aspects. Sadly, there is very little information on this on the internet.
Could these changes have been brought about by Norse influence? Other than a few syntactical and orthographic contributions, French influence was mainly limited to lexicon.
The only other probable explanation is that English, isolated from the dialect continuum on the continent, simply underwent a very unique course of evolution, thus uniquely distinguishing it from other West Germanic languages. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
The only other probable explanation is that English, isolated from the dialect continuum on the continent, simply underwent a very unique course of evolution, .....
The drastic changes that English grammar/syntax/morphology underwent might not be so unique in European history: the Latin language underwent the same process of simplification and deflexion during the Migration Period and changed within only a few centuries to new Romance languages (Spanish, Italian and French)
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
