Frisian isn't as close to (modern) English as some people seem to think

[Beit El]

I can follow the entire video with just Dutch, it sounds like just another Dutch dialect to me. The vocabulary is pretty much Dutch with an accent, the syntax is the same as Dutch (and different from English), didn't use English even once to understand while watching the video.

How much of the video can you follow with just English or your own language?

[Jackson]

Some bits, but it's mainly the different word order that makes it confusing. Every now and again bits sound like English with a very weird accent, like an extremely over exaggerated black country accent, sounds to me that 'sea' is pronounced like 'saay' which was quite interesting. Overall i wouldn't be able to understanding it without captions, but i might get a gist of what's going on. It's not that similar to modern English. The reasons Frisian is grouped with English is because of common changes from other West Germanic languages that are shared between only them, so they must have become separate from each other later than both did from other languages.

[Beit El]

sounds to me that 'sea' is pronounced like 'saay' which was quite interesting.

That's how it's pronounced in standard Dutch as well.

[Anglojew]

The similarity is between Frisian and Anglo-Saxon (eg Old English) without Norman influence. Linguists believe without the Norman invasion modern English would be very similar to modern Frisian (and modern Dutch).

[Xochi]

Barely anything. I know a bit of Dutch and Afrikaans so it kind of helps.

[Comte Arnau]

The influences upon both, specially upon Old English, have been so many and different since Anglo-Frisian times that no wonder they don't look alike any more. Frisian must also have been heavily influenced by Standard Dutch in the last centuries. Languages, a bit like phenotypes, don't always reveal that clearly their genetic history.

[Bloodnigger]

The similarity is between Frisian and Anglo-Saxon (eg Old English) without Norman influence. Linguists believe without the Norman invasion modern English would be very similar to modern Frisian (and modern Dutch).

Not very surprised. The so called "Saxons" of germany didn't have the technical or the organisational capability to mount such an invasion on their own before they came into prolonged contact with the Frisians.

The Batavians were both seafarers and held most of the western germans tribes in semi thralldom in such a degree that the romans ruled them through the Batavian royal house while placing a large military camp in Maastricht after the Civilis Revolt to keep an eye on them.

So it was mostly the Frisians who affected the saxons before the subsequent barbarian takeover of roman britain, not the other way around like German pangermanists liked to claim in the late 1800s. (whose aims were political instead of pure historiography) I also find it very amusing that the only competent germanic seafarers were the dutch by an astronomical margin throughout the ages.

[Anglojew]

Not very surprised. The so called "Saxons" of germany didn't have the technical or the organisational capability to mount such an invasion on their own before they came into prolonged contact with the Frisians.

The Batavians were both seafarers and held most of the western germans tribes in semi thralldom in such a degree that the romans ruled them through the Batavian royal house while placing a large military camp in Maastricht after the Civilis Revolt to keep an eye on them.

So it was mostly the Frisians who affected the saxons before the subsequent barbarian takeover of roman britain, not the other way around like German pangermanists liked to claim in the late 1800s. (whose aims were political instead of pure historiography) I also find it very amusing that the only competent germanic seafarers were the dutch by an astronomical margin throughout the ages.

They were all pretty similar-related (almost identical Germanic) tribes.

[FeederOfRavens]

It sounded like well pronounced gibberish to me.

[LightHouse89]

Not very surprised. The so called "Saxons" of germany didn't have the technical or the organisational capability to mount such an invasion on their own before they came into prolonged contact with the Frisians.

The Batavians were both seafarers and held most of the western germans tribes in semi thralldom in such a degree that the romans ruled them through the Batavian royal house while placing a large military camp in Maastricht after the Civilis Revolt to keep an eye on them.

So it was mostly the Frisians who affected the saxons before the subsequent barbarian takeover of roman britain, not the other way around like German pangermanists liked to claim in the late 1800s. (whose aims were political instead of pure historiography) I also find it very amusing that the only competent germanic seafarers were the dutch by an astronomical margin throughout the ages.

I disagree. Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians were all coastal peoples. However did they fued with each other? Ofcourse. The culture with all of them was very similar. The area the Saxons lived in was rather large compared to that of the Angles, Jutes and Frisians combined.....they were the largest tribe in the area and most likely exhibit much political influence. The Romans did view them as very menacing and actually bought them out to protect the southern shore of england and even an area in northern France. They were basically mercenaries working for the Roman Empire in the later ages before the fall of rome.....the saxons noticed how fertile Britain was and how useless the Roman-Britons were so they said screw it we owe these fruticakes nothing and invaded when the roman legions pulled out.