3 ms·

Yes, you could go back and back and back. But the point of this project is to see what a modern "pure" Germanic English would be like.

bloppe 4y ago
Sure, I just think it would make more sense to pick a real date then. No words that would be unrecognizable to a typical English speaker before 1066? Sure. You'd still have to define "typical" because even modern English speakers do not all speak an identical language, and this notion of "updating to modern spelling and phonology" becomes a strange exercise. All I'm saying is, the word "pure" doesn't make sense to me here.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  It's also not like Norman French was a "pure" offshoot of Latin either. It was heavily influenced by the languages of the Franks and Gauls. That said, what I find really interesting here is that William The Conqueror was only something like 4 generations removed from people whose "French" was more or less still a dialect of Latin.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    And that’s not to mention that William’s great-great-great grandfather Rollo was a Norseman who himself conquered part of northern France, and was allowed to keep his conquests in exchange for swearing allegiance to the French king and converting to Christianity. I think the term “Norman” is actually related to “Norseman”, in fact. (“Rollo” was, incidentally, probably not his real name.)
lisper 4y ago
> the point of this project is to see what a modern "pure" Germanic English would be like. The absurdity of this is manifest in the name: "pure Germanic English". That's like "pure California Champaign" or "pure Wisconsin Parmesan". There is no such thing as "pure English", Germanic or otherwise, because one of the defining characteristics of English is that it is, and always has been, an amalgam of many different languages accrued over time. Even Old English had four different dialects. And certainly a "pure modern English" is the very paragon of an oxymoron. If it's "pure", it's not English. There's nothing wrong with playing around with language. There is something wrong with calling the result "pure" because it casts negative aspersions on everything else as "impure", which is a word that carries a lot of disparaging implications.
- Tor3 4y ago
  Agreed. English is not the only language deeply influenced by other languages. The other "Germanic" languages aren't necessarily any more "pure" than English. The other day I came across an article (unfortunately I can't find the link) which talked about how the Scandinavian languages were forever changed by the contact with the Hansa trade union, some 40% of Norwegian vocabulary, for example, is from Low Middle German. The article showed example sentences where every single word was from LMG, but at the same time perfectly fine Norwegian.
  - culebron21 4y ago
    Grammar stays the same in borrowings. For instance, Italian has greek borrowings for centuries, that disobey the gender endings (-o for masculine and -a for feminine, m. fotógrafo -> f. fotógrafa), and the biggest offender is the Greek suffix -ista, which can have both genders (communista, feminista, etc.). Nevertheless Italian grammar didn't get broken. (I'm personally outraged that they say "il mouse" (pronounced il máus), instead of native il topo/la rata as every other Latin language, but Italian grammar still functions fine.).
jameshart 4y ago
Which is all a fun linguistic ‘what-if’ game - but when you start posting ideas online about ‘pure Germanic heritage’ you might find you attract an audience who are not just interested in word games.
- bigpeopleareold 4y ago
  Certain people would be attracted to things even if you didn't mention the word 'pure'. We all clearly understand that there will be people will have impulses towards provincialism, etc. I just think though, by avoiding the word 'pure' to describe something like this, even if it is not exact, this becomes another form of language purification. in this case, it's leaning towards prophesizing how a concept would be approached.

bloppe 4y ago

Sure, I just think it would make more sense to pick a real date then. No words that would be unrecognizable to a typical English speaker before 1066? Sure. You'd still have to define "typical" because even modern English speakers do not all speak an identical language, and this notion of "updating to modern spelling and phonology" becomes a strange exercise. All I'm saying is, the word "pure" doesn't make sense to me here.

nerdponx 4y ago
It's also not like Norman French was a "pure" offshoot of Latin either. It was heavily influenced by the languages of the Franks and Gauls. That said, what I find really interesting here is that William The Conqueror was only something like 4 generations removed from people whose "French" was more or less still a dialect of Latin.
- philwelch 4y ago
  And that’s not to mention that William’s great-great-great grandfather Rollo was a Norseman who himself conquered part of northern France, and was allowed to keep his conquests in exchange for swearing allegiance to the French king and converting to Christianity. I think the term “Norman” is actually related to “Norseman”, in fact. (“Rollo” was, incidentally, probably not his real name.)

lisper 4y ago

> the point of this project is to see what a modern "pure" Germanic English would be like. The absurdity of this is manifest in the name: "pure Germanic English". That's like "pure California Champaign" or "pure Wisconsin Parmesan". There is no such thing as "pure English", Germanic or otherwise, because one of the defining characteristics of English is that it is, and always has been, an amalgam of many different languages accrued over time. Even Old English had four different dialects. And certainly a "pure modern English" is the very paragon of an oxymoron. If it's "pure", it's not English. There's nothing wrong with playing around with language. There is something wrong with calling the result "pure" because it casts negative aspersions on everything else as "impure", which is a word that carries a lot of disparaging implications.

Tor3 4y ago
Agreed. English is not the only language deeply influenced by other languages. The other "Germanic" languages aren't necessarily any more "pure" than English. The other day I came across an article (unfortunately I can't find the link) which talked about how the Scandinavian languages were forever changed by the contact with the Hansa trade union, some 40% of Norwegian vocabulary, for example, is from Low Middle German. The article showed example sentences where every single word was from LMG, but at the same time perfectly fine Norwegian.
- culebron21 4y ago
  Grammar stays the same in borrowings. For instance, Italian has greek borrowings for centuries, that disobey the gender endings (-o for masculine and -a for feminine, m. fotógrafo -> f. fotógrafa), and the biggest offender is the Greek suffix -ista, which can have both genders (communista, feminista, etc.). Nevertheless Italian grammar didn't get broken. (I'm personally outraged that they say "il mouse" (pronounced il máus), instead of native il topo/la rata as every other Latin language, but Italian grammar still functions fine.).

jameshart 4y ago

Which is all a fun linguistic ‘what-if’ game - but when you start posting ideas online about ‘pure Germanic heritage’ you might find you attract an audience who are not just interested in word games.

bigpeopleareold 4y ago
Certain people would be attracted to things even if you didn't mention the word 'pure'. We all clearly understand that there will be people will have impulses towards provincialism, etc. I just think though, by avoiding the word 'pure' to describe something like this, even if it is not exact, this becomes another form of language purification. in this case, it's leaning towards prophesizing how a concept would be approached.