PDA

View Full Version : Anglish: English with Germanic words only



Etelfrido
09-18-2023, 07:17 PM
There have been various attemps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism_in_English) at preserving the purity of the English language. Among them, Anglish is a project which proposes the use of only native English words in its vocabulary, thus stripping it out of words of foreign origin which in the case of English are mostly from Greek, Latin and French, but also from some languages of the former colonies of the British Empire and beyond.

This (https://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/anglish.htm) is how the preamble to the US Constitution could look like:

English: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Anglish: "We the Folk of the Foroned Riches, to make a more flawless oneship, build rightness, bring frith and stillness to our land, shield one another, uphold the overall welfare, and hold fast the Blessings of Freedom to ourselves and our offspring, do foresay and lay down this lawbook for the foroned riches of Americksland."

In 1989 Poul Anderson published a text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncleftish_Beholding) on atomic theory with no loanwords and for that he used words from Old English and also coined new compound words from shorter Germanic ones. Below is his complete text.


For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life.

The underlying kinds of stuffare the firststuffs, which link together in sundry ways to giverise to the rest. Formerly we knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest andbarest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such as aegirstuff and helstuff.

The firststuffs have their being as motes called unclefts. These are mighty small: oneseedweight of waterstuff holds a tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most unclefts link together to make what are called bulkbits. Thus, the waterstuff bulkbit bestands oftwo waterstuff unclefts, the sourstuffbulkbit oftwo sourstuffunclefts, and so on. (Some kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling together in chills when in the fast standing; and there are yet more yokeways.) When unlike unclefts link in a bulkbit, they make bindings. Thus, water is a binding of two waterstuff unclefts with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit ofone ofthe forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand or more unclefts of these two firststuffs together with coalstuff and chokestuff.

At first it was thought that the uncleft was a hard thing that could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made up of lesser motes. There is a heavy kernelwith a forward bernstonish lading, and around it one or more light motes with backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of everyday waterstuff. Its kernel is a lone forwardladen mote called a firstbit. Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a bernstonebit. The firstbit has a heaviness about 1840-fold that of the bernstonebit. Early worldken folk thought bernstonebits swing around the kernel like the Earth around the Sun, but now we understand they are more like waves or clouds.

In all other unclefts are found other motes as well, aboutas heavy as the firstbit but with no lading, known as neitherbits. We know a kind of waterstuff with one neitherbit in the kernel along with the firstbit; another kind has two neitherbits. Both kinds are seldom.

The next greater firststuffis sunstuff, which has two firstbits and two bernstonebits. The everyday sort also has two neitherbits in the kernel. If there are more or less, the uncleftwill soon break asunder. More about this later.

The third firststuff is stonestuff, with three firstbits, three bernstonebits, and its own share of neitherbits. And so it goes, on through such everyday stuffs as coalstuff(six firstbits) or iron (26), to ones more lately found. Ymirstuff (92) was the last until men began to make some higher still.

It is the bernstonebits that link, and so their tale fastsets how a firststuff behaves and what kinds of bulkbits it can help make. The worldken of this behaving, in all its manifold ways, is called minglingken. Minglingers have found that as the uncleftish tale of the firststuffs (that is, the tale of firstbits in their kernels) waxes, after a while they begin to show ownships not unlike those of others that went before them. So, for a showdeal, stonestuff (3), headachestuff (11), potashstuff (19), redstuff (37), and bluegraystuff (55) can each link with only one uncleft of waterstuff, while coalstuff (6), sandstuff (14), germanstuff (32), tin (50), and lead (82) can each link with four. This is readily seen when all are set forth in what is called the roundaround board of thefirststuffs.

When an uncleft or bulkbit wins one or more bernstonebits above its own, it takes on a backward lading. When it loses one or more, it takes on a forward lading. Such a mote is called a farer, for that the drag between unlike ladings flits it. When free bernstonebits flit by themselves, it may be as a bolt of lightning, a spark off some faststanding chunk, or the everyday flow of bernstoneness through wires.

Coming backto the uncleftitself, the heavier it is, the more neitherbits as well as firstbits in its kernel. Indeed, soon the tale ofneitherbits is the greater. Unclefts with the same tale of firstbits but unlike tales of neitherbits are called samesteads. Thus, everyday sourstuff has eight neitherbits along with its eight firstbits, but there are also kinds with five, six, seven, nine, ten, and eleven neitherbits. A samestead is known by the tale of both kernel motes, so that we have sourstuff-13, sourstuff-14, and so on, with sourstuff-16 being by far the mostfound. Having the same tale of bernstonebits, the samesteads of a firststuff behave almost alike minglingly. They do show some unlikenesses, outstandingly among the heavier ones, and these can be worked to sunder samesteads from each other.

Most samesteads of every firststuff are unabiding. Their kernels break up, each at its own speed. This speed is written as the half-life, which is how long it takes any deal of the samestead to shift itself into half as much. The doing is known as lightrotting. It may happen fast or slowly, and in any ofsundry ways, offhanging on the makeup of the kernel. A kernel may spit out two firstbits with two neitherbits — that is, a sunstuff kernel — thus leaping two steads back in the roundaround board and four weights back in heaviness. It may give off a bernstonebit from a neitherbit, which thereby becomes a firstbit, and thrusts the uncleft one stead up in the board while keeping the same weight. Often, too, a mote is given off with neither lading nor heaviness, called the weeneitherbit. In much lightrotting, a mote of light with most short wavelength comes out as well.

For although light oftenest behaves as a wave, it can be looked on as a mote — the lightbit. We have already said by the way that a mote of stuffcan behave not only as a chunk, but also as a wave. Down among the unclefts, things do not happen in steady flowings, but in leaps over midway bestandings that are forbidden. The knowledge-hunt of this is called lump beholding.

Nor are stuff and work unakin. Rather, they are groundwise the same, and one can be shifted into the other. The kinship between them is that work is like unto weight manifolded by the fourside of the haste of light.

By shooting motes into kernels, worldken folk have shifted samesteads ofone firststuff into samesteads of another. Thus did they make ymirstuff into aegirstuff and helstuff, and they have afterward gone beyond these. These heavier firststuffs are all highly lightrottish and therefore are not found in the greenworld.

Some ofthe higher samesteads are splitly. That is, when a neitherbit strikes the kernel of one — as, for a showdeal, ymirstuff-235 — it bursts it into lesser kernels and free neitherbits; the latter can then split more ymirstuff-235. When this happens, weight shifts into work. It is not much of the whole, but nevertheless it is awesome.

With enough strength, lightweight unclefts can be made to togethermelt. In the Sun, through a row ofstrikings and lightrottings, four unclefts of waterstuff in this wise become one of sunstuff. Again, some weight is lost as work, and again this is greatly big when set beside the work gotten from a minglingish doing such as fire.

Today we wield both kinds of uncleftish doings in weapons, and kernelish splitting gives us heat and bernstoneness. We hope to do likewise with togethermelting, which would yield an unhemmed wellspring of work for mankindish goodgain.

Soothly we live in mighty years!

And its translation (https://wayback.archive-it.org/219/20220524151852/https://cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/hof_speechthought.pdf) into Modern English:


For most ofits existence, humanity did not know what things are made of, but could only guess. With the advent of science, we began to learn, and today we have a theory of matter and energy verified by observation, both in the laboratory and in daily life.

The basic types of matter are the elements, which combine in various ways to give rise to the remaining types. Until recently, we knew of ninety-two elements, from hydrogen, the lightest and simplest, to uranium, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such as neptunium and plutonium.

Elements are composed of particles called atoms. These are extremely small: the number of atoms in one ounce of hydrogen is equal to 2 times 10 to the 22nd power. Most atoms can combine to make what are called molecules. Thus, the hydrogen molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms, the oxygen molecule of two oxygen atoms, and so on. (Some types, such as helium, do not combine; others, such as iron, bond to form crystals when in the solid state; and there are yet other states of matter.) When different atoms combine in a molecule, they make compounds. Thus, water is a compound of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom, while a molecule in a biological cell may contain a thousand or more atoms of these two elements, along with carbon and nitrogen atoms.

At first it was believed that the atom (Greek for "partless") was a solid object that could not be further divided; hence the name. Now, however, we know that it is composed ofsmaller particles. There is a massive nucleus with a positive electric charge, and around it one or more light particles with negative charges. The smallest atom is that of ordinary hydrogen. Its nucleus is a single positively charged particle called a proton. Outside it is a negatively charged particle called an electron. The proton has amass about1840 times that of the electron. Early scientists thought electrons orbited the nucleus like the Earth around the Sun, but now we know they are more like waves or clouds.

In all other atoms there are also other particles, roughly as massive as the proton but with no charge, known as neutrons. We know a type of hydrogen with one neutron in its nucleus along with the proton; another type has two neutrons. Both types are rare.

The next larger element is helium, which has two protons and two electrons. Ordinary helium also has two neutrons in the nucleus. If there are more or fewer, the atom will soon split. More about this later.

The third element is lithium, with three protons, three electrons, and its own share of neutrons. And so it goes, on through such everyday materials as carbon (six protons) or iron (26), to ones discovered more recently. Uranium (92) was the last, until people began to produce elements even beyond it.

It is the electrons that bind, and so their number determines how an element behaves and what kinds of molecules it can help make. The science of this phenomenon, in all its diversity, is called chemistry. Chemists have discovered that as the atomic number of the elements (that is, the number of protons in their nuclei) increases, after awhile the elements begin to manifest properties similar to earlier ones. Thus, for example, lithium (3), sodium (11), potassium (19), rubidium (37), and cesium (55) can each bond with only a single atom of hydrogen, while carbon (6), silicon (14), germanium (32), tin (50), and lead (82) can each bond with four. This is readily seen when all are displayed in what is called the periodic table of the elements.

When an atom or molecule gains one or more extra electrons, it acquires a negative charge. When it loses one or more, it acquires a positive charge. Such a particle is called an ion (Greek for "traveler"), since the attraction between opposite charges moves it around. When free electrons move, it may give rise to a bolt of lightning, a spark from some solid substance, or the ordinary flow of electricity through wires.

Returning to the atom itself, the more massive it is, the more neutrons as well as protons in its nucleus. Indeed, soon the number of neutrons is larger. Atoms having the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons are called isotopes. Thus, ordinary oxygen has eight neutrons along with its eight protons, but there are also varieties with five, six, seven, nine, ten, and eleven neutrons. An isotope is identified by the total number of both nuclear particles, sothat we have oxygen-13, oxygen-14, and so on, with oxygen-16 being by far the most common. Having the same number of electrons, the isotopes ofan element behave almost the same chemically. They do reveal some different properties, especially among the more massive ones, and these can be used to separate isotopes from each other.

Most isotopes ofevery element are unstable. Their nuclei split, each at its own rate. This rate is measured by the halflife, which is the length oftime it takes any quantity of the isotope to convert itself into half as much. This process is known as radioactive decay. It may happen quickly or slowly, and in any one of several different ways, depending on the composition of the nucleus. A nucleus may eject two protons with two neutrons — that is, a helium nucleus — thus jumping back two places in the periodic table and four units in mass. It may emit an electron from one ofits neutrons, which thereby becomes a proton, thus shifting the atom one step up in the periodic table while keeping its mass constant. Often, a chargeless, massless particle, called the neutrino, is emitted. In much radioactive decay, a particle of light of very short wavelength emerges as well.

Although light most often behaves like a wave, it can be regarded as a particle — the photon. We have already said in passing that a material particle can behave not only like an object, but also like a wave. In the atomic realm, things do not happen continuously, but in jumps, skipping over intermediate states that are forbidden. Research on this subject is called quantum theory.

Nor are matter and energy unrelated. Rather, they are fundamentally the same, and one can be converted into the other. Their relationship is that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.

By shooting particles into nuclei, scientists have converted isotopes of one element into isotopes of another. Thus they have made neptunium and plutonium from uranium, and they have even gone beyond these. These more massive elements are all highly radioactive and therefore are not found in nature.

Some of the higher isotopes are fissile. That is, when a neutron hits the nucleus of one — uranium-235, for example — it breaks it into smaller nuclei and free neutrons; the latter can then split more uranium-235. When this happens, mass is converted into energy. It is not a large percentage of the mass, but nevertheless it is impressive.

With enough energy, lightweight atoms can be made to fuse. In the Sun, through a series of collisions and radioactive decays, four atoms of hydrogen become a single atom of helium. Again, some mass is lost as energy, and this energy is enormous when compared to the energy obtained from a chemical process such as combustion.

Today we use both kinds of atomic processesin weapons, and nuclear fission provides heat and electricity. We hope to do likewise with fusion, which would yield an unlimited source of energy for human profit.

Truly we live in great times!

The use of Old and Middle English letters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_alphabet#Archaic_letters) has also been proposed. My username has been an attempt at making people more aware of their existence. It'd make English more phonetic without having to adopt artificial measures with no roots to English's history.

Such ideas would certainly make English more alien to Romance language speakers and vice-versa.

Etelfrido
09-18-2023, 07:53 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9VYsl9QiCY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIo-17SIkws&t=6s&pp=ygUQYW5nbGlzaCBsYW5ndWFnZQ%3D%3D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMA3M6b9iEY&t=524s

Regnera
09-19-2023, 09:36 AM
It seems there're many invented words replace the words of non-Germanic etymology.

Creoda
09-19-2023, 10:47 AM
It's not hard to make everyday speech only with Old English words without sounding too odd, and get your meaning through, everything I'm saying right now is from Old English roots. Making new words is mostly needless, one could pick words of English beginnings above others if the will was there. The wordset for higher thoughts is lacking however, as these thoughts weren't in the daily lives of the greater folk back then. One hurdle with bringing this about is that it tends to make the speaker look slightly thick, low-born or uncouth. Truly in writing it's harder than in speech, as there one is given to look for higher words for the sake of understanding, whereas among one's kith and kin that might be seen as showy and unbelonging.

Creoda
09-19-2023, 11:31 AM
By the way, the Anglish word for 'Germanic' is meant to be Theedish, the would-be offspring of the Old English þēodisc. Otherwise you might say Dutch, as English folk once called all mainlanders of kindred tongue in the days of yore, both lowlanders and highlanders.

rothaer
09-19-2023, 12:26 PM
(...)

A very good thing IMO. It absolutely sharpens the consciousness.

The German language is not that destroyed yet and there is a notable awareness in German culture as for what is the own language and what are foreign words.

The German civil law book, the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch that was publisched in 1900 AD did contain just a single etymologically non German word and that is Hypothek. Also today in German jurisprudence there is still an awareness for using German words as for being correct. The jurisprudence is maybe the only academic division where the care for the German language is performed and where you do not seem more educated and elevated when you simply use German words. To me its a question of culture, care, pride, self-awareness, correctness and non-pretending honesty.

Maybe interesting: If you perform etymological German language it sounds absolutely normal in German and makes no odd impression. You can purify a careless German text and it sounds completely normal (and less educated to simple German commoners).

As for English, the most crazy and embarassing thing is that there in English is spoken of Charlemagne. An own Germanic king is named in a foreign language?! How patethic is that?! Ceorl the Great would he casually have to be named. And the king today is named Charles instead of Ceorl?! The English preferred to adopt a name form of their own Germanic name that was corrupted by Latinos?! How unaware und humiliating is that?!

Hulu
09-19-2023, 12:34 PM
That's how Albanians pronounce English - Anglisht

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 12:49 PM
By the way, the Anglish word for 'Germanic' is meant to be Theedish, the would-be offspring of the Old English þēodisc. Otherwise you might say Dutch, as English folk once called all mainlanders of kindred tongue in the days of yore, both lowlanders and highlanders.
Also related to Teutonic, which comes from the same source through Latin.

renaissance12
09-19-2023, 12:53 PM
20% of the german words derive from Latin.
65% of the english words derive from Latin ( via French).
1% of the italian words derive from English+ german.

rothaer
09-19-2023, 12:56 PM
It's not hard to make everyday speech only with Old English words without sounding too odd, and get your meaning through, everything I'm saying right now is from Old English roots. Making new words is mostly needless, one could pick words of English beginnings above others if the will was there. The wordset for higher thoughts is lacking however, as these thoughts weren't in the daily lives of the greater folk back then. One hurdle with bringing this about is that it tends to make the speaker look slightly thick, low-born or uncouth. Truly in writing it's harder than in speech, as there one is given to look for higher words for the sake of understanding, whereas among one's kith and kin that might be seen as showy and unbelonging.

Nice and impressive!

Luckily in German we have gone on developing the (etymological German) language for higher level and abstract thinking. It would be an inspiring source for Anglish. We often have two words: f. i. instead of foreign Helikopter we have Hubschrauber (liftscrewer) and instaed of just Telephon we also have Fernsprecher (farspeaker), beside Universum we have Weltall (worldall), beside Moment we have Augenblick (eyelook), instead of century we have Jahrhundert (yearhundred), instead of diary we have Tagebuch (daybook) etc.

Even a very modern word is etymologically German: Festplatte (allegedly a German invention) is even the source for hard disc (drive) and it has been translated into English with a misunderstanding. Festplatte means "fastened plate" (disc) in contrast to a (floppy) disk that is exchangeable. The related to "fest" meaning "hard" was not referred to in "Festplatte".

Creoda
09-19-2023, 01:00 PM
As for English, the most crazy and embarassing thing is that there in English is spoken of Charlemagne. An own Germanic king is named in a foreign language?! How patethic is that?! Ceorl the Great would he casually have to be named. And the king today is named Charles instead of Ceorl?! The English preferred to adopt a name form of their own Germanic name that was corrupted by Latinos?! How unaware und humiliating is that?!
Well the English don't take any ownership over Charlemagne, if anything as a Frankish King he's seen as French, wrong as it may seem. But the Latish folk that call themselves Franks are another rabbit-hole altogether.

Ceorl as a King is rather unlikely, as it meant a lowly land-worker, hence its begotten word churlish. But having a King with a French name is indeed a shame, how about re-taking a good old English name that's been born-again as the benchmark of manliness: King Chad! :p

renaissance12
09-19-2023, 01:01 PM
Anglish: "We the Folk of the Foroned Riches, to make a more flawless oneship, build rightness, bring frith and stillness to our land, shield one another, uphold the overall welfare, and hold fast the Blessings of Freedom to ourselves and our offspring, do foresay and lay down this lawbook for the foroned riches of Americksland."



Land is not a german/english word

The beginning of this anglish version is great..

rothaer
09-19-2023, 01:01 PM
Also related to Teutonic, which comes from the same source through Latin.

It does not come from the same source, however, not if you refer to Germanic. Only if you refer to the IE commonality it does.

rothaer
09-19-2023, 01:02 PM
Land is not a german/english word


But?

rothaer
09-19-2023, 01:03 PM
20% of the german words derive from Latin.
(...)

I'd oppose and say that then it's not German. :) But I know what you mean and your display is legit.

renaissance12
09-19-2023, 01:08 PM
But?

It is old Latin term used in French Provence...

rothaer
09-19-2023, 01:18 PM
Well the English don't take any ownership over Charlemagne, if anything as a Frankish King he's seen as French, wrong as it may seem. But the Latish folk that call themselves Franks are another rabbit-hole altogether.

Ceorl as a King is rather unlikely, as it meant a lowly land-worker, hence its begotten word churlish. But having a King with a French name is indeed a shame, how about re-taking a good old English name that's been born-again as the benchmark of manliness: King Chad! :p

You can frankly (related to the word for Franks) say Ceorl. We also have Kerl in German just meaning an arbitrary guy, a simp, a man, so likely pretty close to what you presented. And actually the name Karl / Ceorl is closely related to that if not even simply the same. But if you well have introduced Ceorl the Great, your churlish connotation will be marginalised. :)

King Chad, okay, but just as an interim solution for that humiliating Charles. :p

Btw. Charles pronounced in English is even a worsening. Consider how French do pronounce Charles ("Sharl"). This is much closer to the original Germanic Karl than is the English pronounciation after all this unfortunate forth and back.

We have a respective unfortunate stupid thing with Franz in German that is nohting but a corrupted re-import of Frank.

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 01:41 PM
It does not come from the same source, however, not if you refer to Germanic. Only if you refer to the IE commonality it does.

It's not indisputable (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/teutonicus), but it may have been acquired by Latin from Proto-Germanic (https://www.wordsense.eu/Teutonicus/) or even from Celtic peoples (https://www.etymonline.com/word/teutonic).

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 01:42 PM
Land is not a german/english word
Are you sure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/land#word-history)?

rothaer
09-19-2023, 01:46 PM
It is old Latin term used in French Provence...


Are you sure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/land#word-history)?

It is Germanic, see the pic from an etymological lexicon. You should check how that usage came up there. Maybe by Visigoths?

https://i.imgur.com/k6pV0rz.jpg

renaissance12
09-19-2023, 01:55 PM
It is Germanic, see the pic from an etymological lexicon. You should check how that usage came up there. Maybe by Visigoths?

https://i.imgur.com/k6pV0rz.jpg

I prefer an old Latin vocabulary to a recent German vocabulary.. Sorry..

Landa was used by latin speaking poets in South france 1.500 years ago....

The origin of latin word is a different question.

In Italy : ....In sogno mi parea / donna vedere andar per una landa / cogliendo fiori

(DANTE Purg. XXVII, 97-99) XIII century A.D.


Divina Commedia is older than 95% of german writings and in ITALY the "DIVINA
COMMEDIA" is not considered old at all..

Our students must study it

renaissance12
09-19-2023, 02:19 PM
Are you sure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/land#word-history)?

The oldest german writings..are not so old as some latin poem from south france, hundreds years earlier..

The earliest Old High German text is generally taken to be the Abrogans, a Latin–Old High German glossary variously dated between 750 and 780, probably from Reichenau.
The 8th century Merseburg Incantations are the only remnant of pre-Christian German literature.
The earliest texts not dependent on Latin originals would seem to be the Hildebrandslied and the Wessobrunn Prayer, both recorded in manuscripts of the early 9th century, though the texts are assumed to derive from earlier copies.

rothaer
09-19-2023, 02:25 PM
It's not indisputable (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/teutonicus), but it may have been acquired by Latin from Proto-Germanic (https://www.wordsense.eu/Teutonicus/) or even from Celtic peoples (https://www.etymonline.com/word/teutonic).

I fully agree to these two linguistic possibilities, whilst the connection with the Teutons (tribe) is undisputed.

Interestingly the German Wikipedia states that it is most likely that the Romans (and the Greeks) called this tribe Teutons after its most important military leader „Teutoboduus“ (Teutobod?). But then the lingusists give in and state that there are too many possibilities and resembling words stems. Germanic Thiudabod = Dietbod would seem fine at a first glance but as the reconstructed IE word for that Germanic word anyhow is *teuta, in this form is nothing specific Germanic anymore. Teutoboduus may also be a corruption of Germanic Thiudabod, though.

My conclusion: It is the same word stem as Germanic thiuda but it’s unclear on what level the commonality is. Is it corrupted by Romans Germanic or is it pre Germanic or Celtic and has it its common root with thiuda at the Germanic, the pre Germanic or the IE level?

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 02:31 PM
The oldest german writings..are not so old as some latin poem from south france, hundreds years earlier..

The earliest Old High German text is generally taken to be the Abrogans, a Latin–Old High German glossary variously dated between 750 and 780, probably from Reichenau.
The 8th century Merseburg Incantations are the only remnant of pre-Christian German literature.
The earliest texts not dependent on Latin originals would seem to be the Hildebrandslied and the Wessobrunn Prayer, both recorded in manuscripts of the early 9th century, though the texts are assumed to derive from earlier copies.

I know Germanic texts aren't as old as Latin ones, but that's not what is in question. According to Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/landa#Italian) "landa" is related to Proto-Celtic.

rothaer
09-19-2023, 02:33 PM
I prefer an old Latin vocabulary to a recent German vocabulary.. Sorry..

Landa was used by latin speaking poets in South france 1.500 years ago....

The origin of latin word is a different question.

In Italy : ....In sogno mi parea / donna vedere andar per una landa / cogliendo fiori

(DANTE Purg. XXVII, 97-99) XIII century A.D.


Divina Commedia is older than 95% of german writings and in ITALY the "DIVINA
COMMEDIA" is not considered old at all..

Our students must study it

After you maybe can not read what's in German on the pic, I can tell that there is also referred to that it was "land" in Gothic and that the respective Germanic word group together with related Celtic and Balto-Slavic words go back to a word *lendh-.

So this is not about any recent German vocabulary. And Divina Comedia is pretty irrelevant. Ironically in this context Dante Alighieri himself had a Germanic derived surname (from Aligher).

renaissance12
09-19-2023, 02:36 PM
I know Germanic texts aren't as old as Latin ones, but that's not what is in question. According to Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/landa#Italian) "landa" is related to Proto-Celtic.

And Proto-Celtic has insignificant relationships with the Germanic languages.

While protoceltic were many Italics old languages..

Italo-Celtic: https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3209840/view

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 02:41 PM
I fully agree to these two linguistic possibilities, whilst the connection with the Teutons (tribe) is undisputed.

Interestingly the German Wikipedia states that it is most likely that the Romans (and the Greeks) called this tribe Teutons after its most important military leader „Teutoboduus“ (Teutobod?). But then the lingusists give in and state that there are too many possibilities and resembling words stems. Germanic Thiudabod = Dietbod would seem fine at a first glance but as the reconstructed IE word for that Germanic word anyhow is *teuta, in this form is nothing specific Germanic anymore. Teutoboduus may also be a corruption of Germanic Thiudabod, though.

My conclusion: It is the same word stem as Germanic thiuda but it’s unclear on what level the commonality is. Is it corrupted by Romans Germanic or is it pre Germanic or Celtic and has it its common root with thiuda at the Germanic, the pre Germanic or the IE level?

Those are pertinent questions! If you ask me, "Teuto" seems very close to "Deutsch" in my opinion. I think the "eu" diphthong passed through some changes in German and it may have been better preserved in Latin. Also, in some German dialects there are many alternantes between voiced and unvoiced plosives (b and p, d and t, g and k), and there are also the th sounds that were dropped from German and became t or d from what I know.

I agree such an etymology might be unclear and hard to be sure if it's derived from Germanic, Celtic or from Proto-Indo-European.

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 02:47 PM
And Proto-Celtic has insignificant relationships with the Germanic languages.

While protoceltic were many Italics old languages..

Italo-Celtic: https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3209840/view

Yes, but it seems "land/landa" was preserved in Celtic, Germanic, Balic and Slavic languages but not in Italic ones.

renaissance12
09-19-2023, 03:25 PM
Yes, but it seems "land/landa" was preserved in Celtic, Germanic, Balic and Slavic languages but not in Italic ones.

Landa and Lande are common words in today Italian

rothaer
09-19-2023, 03:42 PM
(...) and there are also the th sounds that were dropped from German and became t or d from what I know.


I'd also have thought something like that but linguists are very insistent on th > d and that th > t is impossible as the development was t > th > d. I can not really assess that myself.

rothaer
09-19-2023, 03:45 PM
Landa and Lande are common words in today Italian

As for a preservation the crucial point will be a continouus use. Some antique (pre migration period) Latin sources would be fine.

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 03:49 PM
I'd also have thought something like that but linguists are very insistent on th > d and that th > t is impossible as the development was t > th > d. I can not really assess that myself.

I didn't know that, but I think the sources I've provided don't go against their claims, as they say the Germanic word had the th/þ sound and it was in Latin that Teutonicus gained a "t".

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 03:52 PM
Landa and Lande are common words in today Italian

But couldn't they have been loaned from Celtic?

rothaer
09-19-2023, 04:04 PM
I didn't know that, but I think the sources I've provided don't go against their claims, as they say the Germanic word had the th/þ sound and it was in Latin that Teutonicus gained a "t".

Absolutely possible that it went this way when they recorded "Teutoboduus" instead of maybe "Theudoboduus" or something like that. That would be the corrupted Germanic alternative.

I'm not sure but I think that one argument against this variant is that at that time (at the end of the 2nd century BC) much of the Germanic sound shift was not yet performed. At the turn of times you still have recorded Vacalus instead of Wahal(us) /Waal river (Low Countries) and there is recorded a guy named Catualda among the Markomanns (Bohemia) instead of Hadwald or something like that. So it's about the k > h shift and in the latter case also about the crucial t > > d shift but in this latter case it might (again?) be a Roman corruption as for the difficulties to reflect th.

rothaer
09-19-2023, 04:09 PM
But couldn't they have been loaned from Celtic?

Yes, but there are so many antique Latin texts. Before seriously considering such a loan I'd like to know a Latin source for that word from Antiquity.

rothaer
09-19-2023, 04:22 PM
Fun fact as for the Norman conquest (that brought so much French language) of England:

The Normans never lost England, they just lost most of their own Normandy (to France). The not lost remnant are the Channel Islands. So you can say that not England posesses the Channel Island but the Channel Islands still posess England.

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 05:28 PM
As for English, the most crazy and embarassing thing is that there in English is spoken of Charlemagne. An own Germanic king is named in a foreign language?! How patethic is that?! Ceorl the Great would he casually have to be named. And the king today is named Charles instead of Ceorl?! The English preferred to adopt a name form of their own Germanic name that was corrupted by Latinos?! How unaware und humiliating is that?!
Ceorl does seem a cool name with Old English pronunciation, but Latin Carolus has its appeal for me too hehe.

B01AB20
09-19-2023, 07:36 PM
As for a preservation the crucial point will be a continouus use. Some antique (pre migration period) Latin sources would be fine.

No pun intended... :D

But you express yourself in english with a lot, a big big lot, of latin derived words, despite of your opinion about the matter and despite you're a german speaker.

I think latin has killed many ancestral languages, almost all of them in Iberian peninsula, I'm not a fan of it, but reality is that latin has been the most influential language in Europe history and it is everywhere. And greek too, to a lesser extent, although in medicine and other sciencies greeks words and names are the majority.

Even chinese must have latin-derived words, although latin is not spoken outside the academic/religious circles for more than 1500 years.

Etelfrido
09-19-2023, 09:38 PM
I wish English and Romance languages still had a case system on nouns and adjectives.

B01AB20
09-19-2023, 11:42 PM
I wish English and Romance languages still had a case system on nouns and adjectives.

In that case :D romance languages would be still some kind of latin.

In evolution of languages it seems that cases are first thing that drops out.

Regnera
09-20-2023, 01:43 AM
[QUOTE=rothaer;7803838

As for English, the most crazy and embarassing thing is that there in English is spoken of Charlemagne. An own Germanic king is named in a foreign language?! How patethic is that?! Ceorl the Great would he casually have to be named. And the king today is named Charles instead of Ceorl?! [/QUOTE]
Wasn't he named "Karl"?

Regnera
09-20-2023, 01:47 AM
A very good thing IMO. It absolutely sharpens the consciousness.

The English preferred to adopt a name form of their own Germanic name that was corrupted by Latinos?! How unaware und humiliating is that?!

Are you serious or trolling?

Regnera
09-20-2023, 01:51 AM
No pun intended... :D

Even chinese must have latin-derived words, although latin is not spoken outside the academic/religious circles for more than 1500 years.
We don't have Latin-derived words except foreign loanwords,in fact we have many usual words of Buddhist/Sanskirt etymology.

Dick
09-20-2023, 03:56 AM
https://youtu.be/EQerDnIuDhQ?si=n9dZRjawJGwCVqbQ

English is classy even when resisting arrest.

NSXD60
09-20-2023, 05:33 AM
Ich been nau listnung zu... "I am now listening to..." So, how's that?

frankhammer
09-20-2023, 05:53 AM
It reads like some weird sci-fi where English people of the past were marooned on a distant planet.

Ruggery
09-21-2023, 12:44 AM
Fun fact as for the Norman conquest (that brought so much French language) of England:

The Normans never lost England, they just lost most of their own Normandy (to France). The not lost remnant are the Channel Islands. So you can say that not England posesses the Channel Island but the Channel Islands still posess England.

Do you mean that the only thing that currently remains from Normandy (medieval) are the Channel Islands?

Normandy was absorbed by part of the kingdom of France, and I suppose that culturally they became more French.

rothaer
07-31-2024, 12:36 PM
Do you mean that the only thing that currently remains from Normandy (medieval) are the Channel Islands?

Yes. And that they never lost England but still "possess" it. Only the mainland Normandy got lost to France.


Normandy was absorbed by part of the kingdom of France, and I suppose that culturally they became more French.

Yes, and they were already French culturally and linguistically in 1066 when they conquered England.

Beowulf
07-31-2024, 01:18 PM
Recently i realized that Anglish it's avalaible in Minecraft as a playable language.

Creoda
07-31-2024, 01:19 PM
Yes. And that they never lost England but still "possess" it. Only the mainland Normandy got lost to France.

They never lost England but they slowly became English (and the Kingly House of Normandy was unseated by the Plantagenets in the 1100s), I'd say the Hundred Years War when they lost their holdings in France is when they became English more or less. Henry Bolingbroke in 1399 was the first King since Harold Godwinson to make his speech upon crowning in English.

rothaer
07-31-2024, 01:41 PM
They never lost England but they slowly became English (and the Kingly House of Normandy was unseated by the Plantagenets in the 1100s), I'd say the Hundred Years War when they lost their holdings in France is when they became English more or less. Henry Bolingbroke in 1399 was the first King since Harold Godwinson to make his speech upon crowning in English.

So more than 300 years after the conquest in 1066.

And on the Channel Islands the French language disappeared as late as in the 20th century if I'm not mistaken.

Btw., the Channel Islands could offer one or another unexpected view:

https://i.imgur.com/Ty6C4LR.jpeg

Creoda
07-31-2024, 02:04 PM
So more than 300 years after the conquest in 1066.

And on the Channel Islands the French language disappeared as late as in the 20th century if I'm not mistaken.

Btw., the Channel Islands could offer one or another unexpected view:

https://i.imgur.com/Ty6C4LR.jpeg
Well, one might say it took the Hanoverians/Saxe Coburg-Gotha's nearly twain-hundred years to become English too....and they're still more Dutch by blood, William will be the first mostly English King in god knows how long.

Ruggery
07-31-2024, 04:56 PM
Well, one might say it took the Hanoverians/Saxe Coburg-Gotha's nearly twain-hundred years to become English too....and they're still more Dutch by blood, William will be the first mostly English King in god knows how long.

Normal, since English royalty as well as most European royalty had the custom of marrying between foreign nobility families rather than with native commoners.

Creoda
08-01-2024, 11:07 PM
From Orwell's Politics and the English Language (1946)
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/


Pretentious diction. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific impartiality to biassed judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid processes of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien régime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, Gleichschaltung, Weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g., and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in English. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, sub-aqueous and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers[1]. The jargon peculiar to Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use a Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the -ize formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentatory and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one’s meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.


Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:



I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:


Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

This is a parody, but not a very gross one. Exhibit 3 above, for instance, contains several patches of the same kind of English. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations – race, battle, bread – dissolve into the vague phrase ‘success or failure in competitive activities’. This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing – no one capable of using phrases like ‘objective’ consideration of contemporary phenomena’ – would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyse these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains 49 words but only 60 syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains 38 words of 90 syllables: 18 of its words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase (‘time and chance’) that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its 90 syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English. I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes.


In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:


While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find – this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify – that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one’s elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. By this morning’s post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he ‘felt impelled’ to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence that I see: ‘(The Allies) have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany’s social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a co-operative and unified Europe.’ You see, he ‘feels impelled’ to write – feels, presumably, that he has something new to say – and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.

I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists. There is a long list of fly-blown metaphors which could similarly be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job; and it should also be possible to laugh the not un- formation out of existence[3], to reduce the amount of Latin and Greek in the average sentence, to drive out foreign phrases and strayed scientific words, and, in general, to make pretentiousness unfashionable. But all these are minor points. The defence of the English language implies more than this, and perhaps it is best to start by saying what it does not imply.

Johnson Reed
08-01-2024, 11:20 PM
As for English, the most crazy and embarassing thing is that there in English is spoken of Charlemagne. An own Germanic king is named in a foreign language?! How patethic is that?! Ceorl the Great would he casually have to be named. And the king today is named Charles instead of Ceorl?! The English preferred to adopt a name form of their own Germanic name that was corrupted by Latinos?! How unaware und humiliating is that?!



Ceorl as a King is rather unlikely, as it meant a lowly land-worker, hence its begotten word churlish. But having a King with a French name is indeed a shame, how about re-taking a good old English name that's been born-again as the benchmark of manliness: King Chad! :p

https://anglisc.miraheze.org/wiki/Anglish_Given_Names

https://rootsenglish.miraheze.org/wiki/More_Anglish_Given_Names

Ceorl would apparently be Churl, had it not been re-borrowed from French as Charles.

I prefer some of these Anglish versions to the modern English versions, for example Maughmet is far more pleasant than Mahomet, which is far more pleasant than Mohammed, which is more pleasant than Muhammad. I also like Yorry, Mardew, and Aberham better than George, Mordecai, and Abraham.

However, I prefer some of the modern English versions to the Anglish versions. James is far more pleasant than Yacom, for example.

Creoda
08-01-2024, 11:38 PM
https://anglisc.miraheze.org/wiki/Anglish_Given_Names

https://rootsenglish.miraheze.org/wiki/More_Anglish_Given_Names

Ceorl would apparently be Churl, had it not been re-borrowed from French as Charles.

I prefer some of these Anglish versions to the modern English versions, for example Maughmet is far more pleasant than Mahomet, which is far more pleasant than Mohammed, which is more pleasant than Muhammad. I also like Yorry, Mardew, and Aberham better than George, Mordecai, and Abraham.

However, I prefer some of the modern English versions to the Anglish versions. James is far more pleasant than Yacom, for example.
I don't like the refitting of today's given names to Anglish, unless they dwelt somehow in Old English.

Johnson Reed
08-01-2024, 11:39 PM
I don't like the refitting of today's given names to Anglish, unless they dwelt somehow in Old English.

The first link is names that were attested in Old English. The second link is names that weren't and were reconstructed hypothetically.

Steelman22
08-01-2024, 11:44 PM
This is not remotely necessarry.

Creoda
08-02-2024, 12:34 AM
The first link is names that were attested in Old English. The second link is names that weren't and were reconstructed hypothetically.It's funny (not ha ha) reading through that list that that seemingly most first names of Old English roots today come not from Old English first names, but from last names, which themselves come from steadnames. Such as Ashley, Beverley, Blake, Bradley, Brandon, Brent, Brooke, Chelsea, Cliff, Clinton, Dale, Dean, and so on. Sometimes I've bemoaned last names reworked as first names, but for the sake of an unmingled tongue I can lump them ;)

rothaer
08-02-2024, 07:02 AM
The first link is names that were attested in Old English. The second link is names that weren't and were reconstructed hypothetically.

The names in the second link are all not even Germanic, so a "reconstruction" in Anglish is nonsense. There is no reason to "massacre" Anglish by linguistic pollution like was done with English.

Johnson Reed
08-02-2024, 09:17 AM
The names in the second link are all not even Germanic, so a "reconstruction" in Anglish is nonsense. There is no reason to "massacre" Anglish by linguistic pollution like was done with English.

I do like a lot of the non-Germanic names that have entered English, though. James is a fine name with a good royal history, and I like a lot of the Celtic names as well (but then again, I'm mostly Irish)