Which countries would you consider to be Germanic

[jerney]

It's not just French. The thing is though that until the 14th century English seems to have sounded a lot more like a West-Germanic language until there was a gradual vowel shift.

And English and Dutch are closer to their proto-Germanic origins in other ways than modern German. What's your point?

English and the Low German languages-Dutch, Flemish, and Plattdeutsch differ from Modern Standard German partly because Standard German has undergone a second or High German Consonant Shift. English preserves the older common Germanic sounds which were changed in High German between the sixth and the eighth centuries.

And besides, both German and Dutch also underwent vowel changes around the same time. From your own link:

German and Dutch also experienced sound changes resembling the first stage of the Great Vowel Shift. In German, by the 15th or 16th centuries, long [iː] had changed to [aɪ], (as in Eis, 'ice') and long [uː] to [aʊ] (as in Haus, 'house'), though some Alemannic dialects resist those changes to this day, as do Limburgish and Ripuarian. In Dutch, the former became [ɛi] (ijs), and the latter had earlier become [yː], which then became [œy] (huis). In German, there also was a separate [yː], which became [ɔʏ], via an intermediate similar to the Dutch. In the Polder Dutch pronunciation, the shift has actually been carried further than in Standard Dutch, with a very similar result as in German and English.

Dutch and German have, like English, also shifted common Germanic *[oː] to [uː] (German) or [u] (Dutch), as in Proto-Germanic *fōt- 'foot' > German Fuß, Dutch voet (as well as the rare secondary *[eː] to [iː] in German and [i] in Dutch). However, this similarity turns out to be superficial on closer inspection. Given the huge differences between the structures of Old English vowel phonology on one side, and that of Old Dutch and Old High German on the other, this is hardly surprising. While there is no indication that English long vowels other than ? did anything but move up in tongue-body position, Dutch [u] and German [uː] appear to have been raised through a process of diphthongisation.

[The Lawspeaker]

And English and Dutch are closer to their proto-Germanic origins in other ways than modern German. What's your point?

English clearly isn't as is it a mishmash of Germanic words and French, Latin and Greek. The Scandinavian languages would probably be closed.

And besides, both German and Dutch also underwent vowel changes around the same time. From your own link:

Not to the point that they can no longer be called Germanic.

[jerney]

English clearly isn't as is it a mishmash of Germanic words and French, Latin and Greek. The Scandinavian languages would probably be closed.

The most common, every day used words are Germanic and again, lexical borrowing does not change a language's classification.

Not to the point that they can no longer be called Germanic.

You're the only one claiming English isn't Germanic all the while having nothing to back it up. Being willfully ignorant really isn't becoming.

[The Lawspeaker]

The most common, every day used words are Germanic and again, lexical borrowing does not change a language's classification.

English has seen more lexical borrowing then Germanic languages in general. Where does a language stop being Germanic ? Tens-of-thousands of words in English are of French, Greek, Latin origins.

You're the only one claiming English isn't Germanic all the while having nothing to back it up. Being willfully ignorant really isn't becoming.

Maybe if you would have learned German and been fluent at it you would been able to understand the differences between a Germanic language and a non-Germanic language. Because you were raised outside Europe you are completely unable to spot the differences in sounds between Germanic languages and English. No one has denied that has a Germanic bases but it has seen so many non-Germanic influences that it has drifted from the origins. English, in that respect, is a language of it's own.

Now why don't you retype what I just wrote in German and let's see how that works and I will retype it in Dutch and you can see for yourself.

[jerney]

English has seen more lexical borrowing then Germanic languages in general.

Lexical borrowing does not change a language's classification.

[The Lawspeaker]

Lexical borrowing does not change a language's classification.

How far can you go with the lexical borrowing ? There is more water in that glass then wine.

[jerney]

How far can you go with the lexical borrowing ? There is more water in that glass then wine.

Lexical borrowing does not change a language's classification. You're making a fool of yourself by speaking about things which you know nothing about.

[The Lawspeaker]

Lexical borrowing does not change a language's classification. You're making a fool of yourself by speaking about things which you know nothing about.

Why don't you retype what I said earlier in German and see for yourself. It gives you the great opportunity to try out your mother-tongue.

Maybe if you would have learned German and been fluent at it you would been able to understand the differences between a Germanic language and a non-Germanic language. Because you were raised outside Europe you are completely unable to spot the differences in sounds between Germanic languages and English. No one has denied that has a Germanic bases but it has seen so many non-Germanic influences that it has drifted from the origins. English, in that respect, is a language of it's own.

[Corvus]

Jerney, are you able to speak German fluently, because that would put more weight to your allegations.

[The Lawspeaker]

Jerney, are you able to speak German fluently, because that would put more weight to your allegations.

She doesn't as she was raised in America.