Linguistic purism in English?

[Empecinado]

I was in college for 5 years studying English as a major, and I can say I don't know what the heck you're talking about in terms of a phobia of certain speak-ways. Now, classes of people speak differently, sure... But I don't know how much of that is a result of a "phobia."

Fobia=rejection, preference about not use those words because sound priggish.

[Jackson]

Probably because there isn't much need to now, and it would put English at a disadvantage.

As i said in another thread (i think it was on this forum?) English is basically a West Germanic/north German dialect with a lot of non-Germanic vocab. However the amount of non-Germanic vocab changes on who is speaking, in what situation and what they are speaking about. For example a middle-class lecturer talking about something technical or complex (perhaps even lecturing in English!) will usually use a lot more than your average Joe going to the shop to buy something or just talking to a friend about ordinary things. However the lecturer will use more Germanic words when doing more ordinary things, so there is a both a 'class' split (social background more like) and a circumstance split. I bet you I've used a ton of Latin or French words in this paragraph.

It's also worth considering that English is a bit of a mix between West Germanic and North Germanic (at least according to some who have proposed the idea over the years) and it is also possible that there is Celtic influence in the way that we speak, although i haven't yet heard that linguists have found any really solid ground with that (although it wouldn't surprise me at all if it is the case, it would make sense). All this in the second paragraph is non-lexical, and based purely on how things are spoken, rather than the words used.

But basically i think there isn't purism because there is no advantage to it, and now we have got used to having the language how it is, and so has a lot of the world.

It's pretty interesting think how different things could be on just a couple of events in the past. For example if the Danes had won out over the Normans in the 11th century here, we'd most likely be speaking a hybrid West-North Germanic language with much less French-Latin influence, although i think that the language may well have not been global in the way that it is now, or not as much.

[HillY35]

Fobia=rejection, preference about not use those words because sound priggish.

That's the most sense I could make out of your remarks. I think such people are rarely found in academic circles, in polite society, or in any prominent place.
Very, very generally speaking America is not a culturally refined place, and has never championed refinement. But education survives here, and with it comes advancement. May it ever come.

[Jackson]

In regards to some of the comments above - While i wouldn't call it a phobia, there's definitely a big difference between 'posh' speak and normal speak. It's pretty easily noticeable, especially when there is a posh person from the south vs a non posh person from elsewhere in the country.

[Ouistreham]

It's also worth considering that English is a bit of a mix between West Germanic and North Germanic (at least according to some who have proposed the idea over the years)

This is the key point. English was from day one a mixed language that absorbed lots of specifically Danish words and grammatical traits, which made Middle English a completely new medium, and granted it with a tremendous ability to absorb novations borrowed from other languages.

Any "purism" would aim at returning to a previous stage of development, which is a sheer impossibility, unless you want to revive a grammar that would be akin to German, Frisian or Dutch.

[Jackson]

This is the key point. English was from day one a mixed language that absorbed lots of specifically Danish words and grammatical traits, which made Middle English a completely new medium, and granted it with a tremendous ability to absorb novations borrowed from other languages.

Any "purism" would aim at returning to a previous stage of development, which is a sheer impossibility, unless you want to revive a grammar that would be akin to German, Frisian or Dutch.

Well put.

Plus i think it's a good thing having these Romance words, they make the language more versatile in my opinion.

[Wolf]

Plus i think it's a good thing having these Romance words, they make the language more versatile in my opinion.

Maybe, but it is also possible to create new words from Germanic roots.

Have you visited this page?

[Jackson]

Maybe, but it is also possible to create new words from Germanic roots.

Have you visited this page?

True true. Actually yeah i've stumbled across that before, cheers for re-linking it though i haven't been to the page in a while. It's pretty interesting that.

To be honest it is could to read what English could sound like, but in terms of changing it now it's pretty unfeasible, but it's good that people are experimenting with it in that regard at least.

[Comte Arnau]

I'd say there's also a difference between Latinisms, which are often obvious, and those Romance words coming from Norman or French that adopted an English taste of their own. For instance, how many would identify catch - caught - caught as Romance in origin? After all, the contact with Latins and Neolatins in England has been higher through the centuries than that of other Germanic nations.

[Anglojew]

Probably because there isn't much need to now, and it would put English at a disadvantage.

As i said in another thread (i think it was on this forum?) English is basically a West Germanic/north German dialect with a lot of non-Germanic vocab. However the amount of non-Germanic vocab changes on who is speaking, in what situation and what they are speaking about. For example a middle-class lecturer talking about something technical or complex (perhaps even lecturing in English!) will usually use a lot more than your average Joe going to the shop to buy something or just talking to a friend about ordinary things. However the lecturer will use more Germanic words when doing more ordinary things, so there is a both a 'class' split (social background more like) and a circumstance split. I bet you I've used a ton of Latin or French words in this paragraph.

It's also worth considering that English is a bit of a mix between West Germanic and North Germanic (at least according to some who have proposed the idea over the years) and it is also possible that there is Celtic influence in the way that we speak, although i haven't yet heard that linguists have found any really solid ground with that (although it wouldn't surprise me at all if it is the case, it would make sense). All this in the second paragraph is non-lexical, and based purely on how things are spoken, rather than the words used.

But basically i think there isn't purism because there is no advantage to it, and now we have got used to having the language how it is, and so has a lot of the world.

It's pretty interesting think how different things could be on just a couple of events in the past. For example if the Danes had won out over the Normans in the 11th century here, we'd most likely be speaking a hybrid West-North Germanic language with much less French-Latin influence, although i think that the language may well have not been global in the way that it is now, or not as much.

The Normans were basically Danes too don't forget.