One problem I would see is that it seems many of your suggested words are non-regular; English's large number of irregular words, particularly verbs, are already problematic for language learners, and this will provide a barrier against their adoption and use. I also find they're oblique in some cases; "upness" for elevation makes sense as a linguist, but it took me a moment of thinking about the defining boundaries of the concept of "elevation" before i understood how the new word was the same.
@oetpay "new" here meaning old, of course. Elevation refers to the degree to which something has been raised, whereas upness literally describes that property; i think in our meaning-space, one would find elevation is understood by reference to the concept of raising something, whereas upness is a little harder because it requires one to understand that "up" is the end goal of raising. This makes upness a non-standard construction because nobody uses the phrase "that is very up" for a high thing
@oetpay essentially, this divorces "upness" from other concepts, making it harder to parse for someone who hasn't encountered it. We say "that is further to the left than that", rather than "that has more leftness"; that is, "up" is not an attribute that an object can have. compare "fruitfulness", where something can be "fruitful".
I think the words have potential to sink or swim, depending on how useful they are. Different folk have different preferences, and some kind of speicalist niche is always a possibility. So, if upness doesn't seem helpful, it won't be likely to be brought back - but if there is a feeling that it is expressive then it could be - it's down to all the users of Englich out there really!
Thank you for responding. I do however wonder how this could be effectively implemented. Do to the fact that English has spread across the globe and as a result has developed into distinct dialects I'm from Texas and I can attest to it . Also would it not take a lot of effort to bring back words that's haven't been used in a long time of course upness makes sense but what about the Anglo Saxon for things like flower and cat etc?
Yes, there are a lot of kinds of English; this tries to keep to standard spellings and thereby fit into mainstream English. A big challenge indeed to get words back, though given a chance, the most attractive could make it on the strength of their usefulness. That's the key really - what folk antually find useful; just knowing of their existence is a big step.
Oh yes, AS for flower we still have in 1) bloom, and 2) blossom. Cat I think would be the same.
I understand the premises you are trying to make. However it would be nearly impossible for us to know what direction our language would have taken had the Norman conquest had neither happened or failed. It would basically be all left up to speculation and we may end up confusing the language more than it already is
English could indeed have gone many ways and variations of ways. This is really only one of many possibilities.
Yes, there is much scope for speculation, but the book tries to cut this down by only working with known Old English words from around the time of 1066.
Maybe we could hope for more clarity if some of the simple but expressive words got back into English, like: oathbreach, mightly, townly, hearsome, outgang, upness. Would only take a little getting used to ...
There are several English words for what people might call a "computer", but I like "Rhymer", because "Rhyme" meant "count", and a computer is basically a counter; in Icelandic, they also call it a counter.
The question is "What should the standard be?", and another question "How do we keep New-English separate from normal English?".
Maybe a Board of top English academics could set the standards where there are options (so far, academia seems to be a little slow on the idea of re-enrichening English from its own roots).
Myself, I'd see this as something which can get into mainstream English by way of its usefulness and greater choices of expression. There is always scope for willing folk to use it either amongst themselves, much as is done with technical subjects.
@Eldsayer this is because english academics enshrine the idea of describing the language rather than dictating it. the linguistic approach is to remain very hands-off with the process of language change and leave it to people to define words before they're added to dictionaries or anything like that.
@pooptickler1337 there has never been a set standard for english; the question "what should the standard be" is always answered by common use, not academic or social consideration.
the argument for reintroducing these words is that they were removed during a period of cultural suppression when large parts of english (all of our inflections, for example) were flatly replaced by Norman French; whether they become adopted or standard has to be left to the speakers of the language, however.
The Normans introduced a rich vocabulary into the English language, we share 15,000 words with the French, although my sister who is fluent in German said German is easier to learn, due to it's grammar.
@lilyeve222 this is true; german is very regular, and there are a lot of germanic words in english that are relatively unchanged and also tend to be simpler, more common words; this makes it a language that almost seems familiar. the Normans, however, introduced much of this vocabulary by replacing the words already in use, and erasing systems and rules that made Old English confusing for them (they replaced the english inflections with their own, for example).
Basque is the oldest language in Europe btw & the language human creatures living in the land region of Britain were using to communicate with each other, before Anglo Saxon language & Latin, Scandinavian & French was introduced into our main language used today. English still maintains a Germanic grammar & base. The Americans changed a lot of English spellings. All of the European languages can be traced back to Basque... which itself stemmed from somewhere.
@lilyeve222 Basque is not exactly the oldest language in Europe; it was around in pre-Roman times, though different and known as Aquitanian. But all languages have such a heritage. Some scholars think it's pre-Indo-European, which does make it descended from a different root than other European languages.
Second point; Basque is actually a language-isolate, and no languages are descended from it, nor can any European languages clam to be its originator; NOTHING can be traced to Basque.
@lilyeve222 third point, of course, which follows from the second: to my knowledge, nobody in the region now known as Britain has ever spoken Basque. If you have a scholarly source for this, I'd love to see it, since it is entirely possible I'm simply not informed, however I do know that English possesses no Basque words, grammar or similar features, so would be very surprised to hear it. Before Anglo-Saxon, it was Celtic family languages such as Brythonic spoken in Britain.
Interesting, but I disagree with the "claiming some of our words back," that's ridiculous... how far back in time in communication do you wish to go... to ape communication? We communicate in the modern way in a language which is constantly evolving.
Few people in England would understand the Anglo Saxon language of literature like Beowulf today, nor the middle English used by Shakespeare.
And what about the way humans were communicating before the Anglo Saxons?
Some may find it useful to get known words back; thus, sunly and moonly may be useful in some contexts, or sayness (= expression) in others. Up to you though to take - or leave - if you don't find helpful.
Known words are one thing, but to back further is limited by records, which we don't have before a certain time. Yes, it would be nice to learn Basque, the oldest European tongue (am trying). Did the Lascaux folk speak early Basque? Maybe; long live these old tongues!
@lilyeve222 The words described here were removed from the English language not by natural process of change but intentionally by the Normans. They replaced anglish words and grammatical features with Norman French ones in a massive endeavour to make the country more hospitable for them. These have, essentially, been suppressed, rather than naturally lost.
The argument for them therefore doesn't depend on time, but rather on circumstance of its removal.
@hieronymus9 Yes, bit of it - it really goes in at the deep end though, whereas this starts with really simple stuff and works up. Also, How We'd Talk uses updates of actual recorded words, whereas Anderson really goes into more new territory. I think (personally) it would be best to start by gleaning known words from Old English, and then coining new ones (for newer concepts) as a next step.
@Shamhatter - thanks. Yes, I guess it has that potential, though I think it would be most fitting to see it come back into the heartland of standard English. Some clever use in historical novels might be a fruitful field to start off in ...
@PetraeKo whether a language picks up WORDS is not the point. It is the grammar that really counts. Some say that English has got more and more words. Well, my china set has got a lot more pieces since I unfortunately broke it - but this does not increase its value! It's what makes a china set a china set that does that; and grammar gives the language its function, not words.
in my opinion the worst influence of Norman French was the "polite" address, based on the French "tu"/"vous" distinction. Englishmen had no use for such a fatuous system, and ended up using the polite form for everyone. Consequently, English lost the only distinction that WAS important, between you singular (thou) and you plural (ye). Context does not always show this, and Modern speakers are sometimes unaware of the problem, being unable to conceive it if they have no other language.
It does seem odd, and a loss, that English has nearly lost thee/ thou, and ended up mainly using you instead. Interestingly, some local spoken forms of English (and Scots) have come to say 'yous' for plural, neatly showing that a gap in expression can get filled once more.
@Eldsayer what is even more ironic, in languages that HAVE maintained a polite/formal distinction, like Norwegian, Swedish, Danish - and even German now showing the same - it seems like the move within the last 50 years has been back to a simple Number Distinction. In Norwegian, the distinction is only one of number (the original "thou versus ye"), and the Polite Form has - in practice - fallen from use the last 50 years, rather like "whom" in English. It is only very rarely used.
@Eldsayer so to continue my last point, English lost its Number Distinction because of the (imposed) Politeness System it had no use for - and these other languages, having used the grammatical Number to express Politeness instead, are now clearly moving towards a mere Number Distinction. If this had happened in English, instead of using "you" as the Polite form, you would have gone back to using "thou" as singular and "ye/you" as plural. That is what has happened in Norwegian!
If you take into account the impact of French on English in history, the 56 members of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie..representing nearly 1 milliard of people, the French language is more a global language than English really is. English only represent 4 per cent of French language..Right ? Droite ?
@frankph5 except there are more English speakers than French speakers by several orders of magnitude. that's what determines a "global language"; the fact is, English is the lingua franca.
Well, the grammar was already changing before 1066, especially in N England, and we see some related tongues which underwent many changes akin to what happened with English (such as Frisian and Danish for example). But I don't doubt that English got some useful words from Norman French.
@Eldsayer you should also read Millward & Hayes "A Biography of the History of the English Language" as well as Baugh & Cable's "A History of the English Language". This will show you exactly the extent of the influence of Norman French on English., which is quite extensive.
Thanks - those sound worth checking out; have been through 'From Old English to Standard English' by Dennis Freeborn, which has a lot of relevant info.
Thanks - it can be bought through the web: Googling the title should get options for buying striaght from publisher as well as Amazon and other sellers (Amazon UK has I think six reviews at last count)
In Norway we have restored the older norwegian language which we call new-norwegian. It lives in parallell with the standard norwegian. Most western parts of Norway speaks this new-norwegian, which in fact is the older and genuine norwegian with closer relations to Icelandic and Old English.
My suggestion is that England revives these old english words in a new language called new-english.
Thank you - your comment was hidden so only read it not long ago. If some of the words can make it into English again (again, as they are updates of 'mislaid' words), then that would be welcome. I'd tend to see it happening more in specialist fields to start with, such as historical novels maybe, rather than in any given area. I'm aware that Nynorsk has a stronghold in SW Norway, the folkspeech of which it is based upon.
@sodada Beautiful idea,I had a web buddy who was interested in building a truly anglo-saxon lexicon for a purely germanic modern English,it would sound most beautiful for sure.I love when languages preserve their original lexicon,they can be traced back to the most remote linguistic roots,in this case,the indo-european ones,and we find magnificent phenomena like the linguistic convergence of words from distantantly related branches,even some structures themselves !
I live on the North East Coast of Britain; we still use about 80% of Old English. I have heard story’s of old fishermen communicating with Norwegians that they meet at sea, a common phrase here is “gannin yem” means going home in modern English. Your suggestion is very good; we should teach Old English at school.
Very interesting! I have heard this expression "ganning yem" for several years ago from some people from Newcastle. It was everyday speech for them :-)
@sodada I understand what you're saying but if English is purified then it'll lose its richness, this richness has made the English language what it is today, a language which can fully express concepts which other languages cannot, other languages have to borrow, what you're saying is still good we should bring back some old English words and revive the old English heritage
@sodada Great idea in this era of denationalization & destruction of the English identity i would definitely haul my holdall than carry my case any day...
Oh wow, that'd be great, I never thought of that. If we did that, we'd be exclusively talking OUR English once more.
Nowadays England is thought of exclusively as "Britain", and our language is essentially being destroyed by our overseas bastard children now.
It'd be nice to have something that makes you ENGLISH once more. Not British, not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh, not Australian, not American, not Canadian, not a New Zealander. ENGLISH.
To me,I look at the English Language as the hip-hop of languages because in Hip-Hop,the people who does the music samples from music from the past and makes a hip-hop sound from that sample. The English Language works the same way.
One problem I would see is that it seems many of your suggested words are non-regular; English's large number of irregular words, particularly verbs, are already problematic for language learners, and this will provide a barrier against their adoption and use. I also find they're oblique in some cases; "upness" for elevation makes sense as a linguist, but it took me a moment of thinking about the defining boundaries of the concept of "elevation" before i understood how the new word was the same.
oetpay 1 day ago
@oetpay "new" here meaning old, of course. Elevation refers to the degree to which something has been raised, whereas upness literally describes that property; i think in our meaning-space, one would find elevation is understood by reference to the concept of raising something, whereas upness is a little harder because it requires one to understand that "up" is the end goal of raising. This makes upness a non-standard construction because nobody uses the phrase "that is very up" for a high thing
oetpay 1 day ago
@oetpay essentially, this divorces "upness" from other concepts, making it harder to parse for someone who hasn't encountered it. We say "that is further to the left than that", rather than "that has more leftness"; that is, "up" is not an attribute that an object can have. compare "fruitfulness", where something can be "fruitful".
oetpay 1 day ago
Google 'Anglish'.
Oswulf1 6 days ago
We don't need 'upness'. We have 'rise'.
Oswulf1 6 days ago
@Oswulf1
'Upness' is I think suggested instead of 'elevation'
Eldsayer 6 days ago
@Eldsayer Yes, but it's still an awkward and needless word. One can talk of a rise in temperature and also a rise of ground.
Oswulf1 6 days ago
@Oswulf1
I think the words have potential to sink or swim, depending on how useful they are. Different folk have different preferences, and some kind of speicalist niche is always a possibility. So, if upness doesn't seem helpful, it won't be likely to be brought back - but if there is a feeling that it is expressive then it could be - it's down to all the users of Englich out there really!
Eldsayer 3 days ago
@Oswulf1 one cannot talk of "rise above sea level" or "at that rise".
oetpay 1 day ago
@oetpay We have 'height'.
Oswulf1 1 day ago
@Oswulf1 indeed we do; i wasn't disagreeing with you, i think upness has problems. I was just pointing out you were missing a sense of elevation.
oetpay 1 day ago
Thank you for responding. I do however wonder how this could be effectively implemented. Do to the fact that English has spread across the globe and as a result has developed into distinct dialects I'm from Texas and I can attest to it . Also would it not take a lot of effort to bring back words that's haven't been used in a long time of course upness makes sense but what about the Anglo Saxon for things like flower and cat etc?
MyLatin1 2 weeks ago
@MyLatin1
Yes, there are a lot of kinds of English; this tries to keep to standard spellings and thereby fit into mainstream English. A big challenge indeed to get words back, though given a chance, the most attractive could make it on the strength of their usefulness. That's the key really - what folk antually find useful; just knowing of their existence is a big step.
Oh yes, AS for flower we still have in 1) bloom, and 2) blossom. Cat I think would be the same.
Eldsayer 1 week ago
I understand the premises you are trying to make. However it would be nearly impossible for us to know what direction our language would have taken had the Norman conquest had neither happened or failed. It would basically be all left up to speculation and we may end up confusing the language more than it already is
MyLatin1 2 weeks ago
@MyLatin1
English could indeed have gone many ways and variations of ways. This is really only one of many possibilities.
Yes, there is much scope for speculation, but the book tries to cut this down by only working with known Old English words from around the time of 1066.
Maybe we could hope for more clarity if some of the simple but expressive words got back into English, like: oathbreach, mightly, townly, hearsome, outgang, upness. Would only take a little getting used to ...
Eldsayer 2 weeks ago
There are several English words for what people might call a "computer", but I like "Rhymer", because "Rhyme" meant "count", and a computer is basically a counter; in Icelandic, they also call it a counter.
The question is "What should the standard be?", and another question "How do we keep New-English separate from normal English?".
pooptickler1337 2 weeks ago
@pooptickler1337
Maybe a Board of top English academics could set the standards where there are options (so far, academia seems to be a little slow on the idea of re-enrichening English from its own roots).
Myself, I'd see this as something which can get into mainstream English by way of its usefulness and greater choices of expression. There is always scope for willing folk to use it either amongst themselves, much as is done with technical subjects.
Eldsayer 2 weeks ago
@Eldsayer this is because english academics enshrine the idea of describing the language rather than dictating it. the linguistic approach is to remain very hands-off with the process of language change and leave it to people to define words before they're added to dictionaries or anything like that.
oetpay 1 day ago
@pooptickler1337 there has never been a set standard for english; the question "what should the standard be" is always answered by common use, not academic or social consideration.
the argument for reintroducing these words is that they were removed during a period of cultural suppression when large parts of english (all of our inflections, for example) were flatly replaced by Norman French; whether they become adopted or standard has to be left to the speakers of the language, however.
oetpay 1 day ago
The Normans introduced a rich vocabulary into the English language, we share 15,000 words with the French, although my sister who is fluent in German said German is easier to learn, due to it's grammar.
lilyeve222 3 weeks ago
@lilyeve222 this is true; german is very regular, and there are a lot of germanic words in english that are relatively unchanged and also tend to be simpler, more common words; this makes it a language that almost seems familiar. the Normans, however, introduced much of this vocabulary by replacing the words already in use, and erasing systems and rules that made Old English confusing for them (they replaced the english inflections with their own, for example).
oetpay 1 day ago
Basque is the oldest language in Europe btw & the language human creatures living in the land region of Britain were using to communicate with each other, before Anglo Saxon language & Latin, Scandinavian & French was introduced into our main language used today. English still maintains a Germanic grammar & base. The Americans changed a lot of English spellings. All of the European languages can be traced back to Basque... which itself stemmed from somewhere.
lilyeve222 3 weeks ago
@lilyeve222 Basque is not exactly the oldest language in Europe; it was around in pre-Roman times, though different and known as Aquitanian. But all languages have such a heritage. Some scholars think it's pre-Indo-European, which does make it descended from a different root than other European languages.
Second point; Basque is actually a language-isolate, and no languages are descended from it, nor can any European languages clam to be its originator; NOTHING can be traced to Basque.
oetpay 1 day ago
@lilyeve222 third point, of course, which follows from the second: to my knowledge, nobody in the region now known as Britain has ever spoken Basque. If you have a scholarly source for this, I'd love to see it, since it is entirely possible I'm simply not informed, however I do know that English possesses no Basque words, grammar or similar features, so would be very surprised to hear it. Before Anglo-Saxon, it was Celtic family languages such as Brythonic spoken in Britain.
oetpay 1 day ago
Interesting, but I disagree with the "claiming some of our words back," that's ridiculous... how far back in time in communication do you wish to go... to ape communication? We communicate in the modern way in a language which is constantly evolving.
Few people in England would understand the Anglo Saxon language of literature like Beowulf today, nor the middle English used by Shakespeare.
And what about the way humans were communicating before the Anglo Saxons?
Should we go back to Basque?
lilyeve222 3 weeks ago
@lilyeve222
Some may find it useful to get known words back; thus, sunly and moonly may be useful in some contexts, or sayness (= expression) in others. Up to you though to take - or leave - if you don't find helpful.
Known words are one thing, but to back further is limited by records, which we don't have before a certain time. Yes, it would be nice to learn Basque, the oldest European tongue (am trying). Did the Lascaux folk speak early Basque? Maybe; long live these old tongues!
Eldsayer 3 weeks ago
@lilyeve222 The words described here were removed from the English language not by natural process of change but intentionally by the Normans. They replaced anglish words and grammatical features with Norman French ones in a massive endeavour to make the country more hospitable for them. These have, essentially, been suppressed, rather than naturally lost.
The argument for them therefore doesn't depend on time, but rather on circumstance of its removal.
oetpay 1 day ago
@pumblechook7
I say old chap,look up Proto English, there is a lot of people who believe a type of Old English was spoken here before the Roman conquest.
northman585 1 month ago
@northman585 Thanks, Northman. I have a book published in 1912, which suggests exactly this.
pumblechook7 1 month ago
A rise of degrees?
inkstersco 1 month ago
Have any of you read Poul Anderson's essay "Uncleftish Beholding"?
hieronymus9 1 month ago
@hieronymus9 Yes, bit of it - it really goes in at the deep end though, whereas this starts with really simple stuff and works up. Also, How We'd Talk uses updates of actual recorded words, whereas Anderson really goes into more new territory. I think (personally) it would be best to start by gleaning known words from Old English, and then coining new ones (for newer concepts) as a next step.
Eldsayer 1 month ago
@PetraeKo conceit.
organisten 1 month ago
@sodada That'd be really neat! Sort of like an Anglo-Saxon nadsat (of A Clockwork Orange) Cheers :D
Shamhatter 1 month ago
@Shamhatter - thanks. Yes, I guess it has that potential, though I think it would be most fitting to see it come back into the heartland of standard English. Some clever use in historical novels might be a fruitful field to start off in ...
Eldsayer 1 month ago
@PetraeKo whether a language picks up WORDS is not the point. It is the grammar that really counts. Some say that English has got more and more words. Well, my china set has got a lot more pieces since I unfortunately broke it - but this does not increase its value! It's what makes a china set a china set that does that; and grammar gives the language its function, not words.
organisten 1 month ago
in my opinion the worst influence of Norman French was the "polite" address, based on the French "tu"/"vous" distinction. Englishmen had no use for such a fatuous system, and ended up using the polite form for everyone. Consequently, English lost the only distinction that WAS important, between you singular (thou) and you plural (ye). Context does not always show this, and Modern speakers are sometimes unaware of the problem, being unable to conceive it if they have no other language.
organisten 1 month ago
@organisten
It does seem odd, and a loss, that English has nearly lost thee/ thou, and ended up mainly using you instead. Interestingly, some local spoken forms of English (and Scots) have come to say 'yous' for plural, neatly showing that a gap in expression can get filled once more.
Eldsayer 1 month ago
@Eldsayer what is even more ironic, in languages that HAVE maintained a polite/formal distinction, like Norwegian, Swedish, Danish - and even German now showing the same - it seems like the move within the last 50 years has been back to a simple Number Distinction. In Norwegian, the distinction is only one of number (the original "thou versus ye"), and the Polite Form has - in practice - fallen from use the last 50 years, rather like "whom" in English. It is only very rarely used.
organisten 1 month ago
@Eldsayer so to continue my last point, English lost its Number Distinction because of the (imposed) Politeness System it had no use for - and these other languages, having used the grammatical Number to express Politeness instead, are now clearly moving towards a mere Number Distinction. If this had happened in English, instead of using "you" as the Polite form, you would have gone back to using "thou" as singular and "ye/you" as plural. That is what has happened in Norwegian!
organisten 1 month ago
If you take into account the impact of French on English in history, the 56 members of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie..representing nearly 1 milliard of people, the French language is more a global language than English really is. English only represent 4 per cent of French language..Right ? Droite ?
frankph5 1 month ago
@frankph5
Well, yes, the large amount of French words in English is by definition a part of that make-up - of today's English. C'est tres interessant.
Eldsayer 1 month ago
@frankph5 except there are more English speakers than French speakers by several orders of magnitude. that's what determines a "global language"; the fact is, English is the lingua franca.
oetpay 1 day ago
Actually the Norman French conquering of 1066 made the English Language more lively than it did with the Old English grammar.
98bigbutt 2 months ago
Well, the grammar was already changing before 1066, especially in N England, and we see some related tongues which underwent many changes akin to what happened with English (such as Frisian and Danish for example). But I don't doubt that English got some useful words from Norman French.
Eldsayer 2 months ago
@Eldsayer you should also read Millward & Hayes "A Biography of the History of the English Language" as well as Baugh & Cable's "A History of the English Language". This will show you exactly the extent of the influence of Norman French on English., which is quite extensive.
desseretta2001 1 month ago
@desseretta2001
Thanks - those sound worth checking out; have been through 'From Old English to Standard English' by Dennis Freeborn, which has a lot of relevant info.
Eldsayer 1 month ago
I want this book!
KonstantineMortis13 2 months ago
@KonstantineMortis13
Thanks - it can be bought through the web: Googling the title should get options for buying striaght from publisher as well as Amazon and other sellers (Amazon UK has I think six reviews at last count)
Eldsayer 2 months ago
The question is... how we would have spoken if the Norwegians had won in 1066 :-)
schoorl200 2 months ago 16
@schoorl200
Yes, that would another field of work! Pointers though in some of the traditional N English and Scots dialects ...
Eldsayer 2 months ago
@Eldsayer I deem them as regional germanic languages,not dialects of English,but anyway,they´re beautiful,Northumbrian,Scots and Cumbrian .
Gwynsek 1 month ago
@schoorl200 I would buy you a beer for this comment
TheRoyalFuzzybug 2 months ago
@TheRoyalFuzzybug Hahaha, that is appreciated! I will keep that in mind
schoorl200 2 months ago
Very interesting. Thanks
benthejrporter 2 months ago
Good show.
xyzephan 2 months ago
In Norway we have restored the older norwegian language which we call new-norwegian. It lives in parallell with the standard norwegian. Most western parts of Norway speaks this new-norwegian, which in fact is the older and genuine norwegian with closer relations to Icelandic and Old English.
My suggestion is that England revives these old english words in a new language called new-english.
Regards
Sondre Danielsen
sodada 3 months ago 12
@sodada
Thank you - your comment was hidden so only read it not long ago. If some of the words can make it into English again (again, as they are updates of 'mislaid' words), then that would be welcome. I'd tend to see it happening more in specialist fields to start with, such as historical novels maybe, rather than in any given area. I'm aware that Nynorsk has a stronghold in SW Norway, the folkspeech of which it is based upon.
Eldsayer 2 months ago
@sodada I would totally love it if OE was revived.
That's totally interesting about Norway by the way! Who typically speaks New-Norwegian & the standard?
thanks! =)
desseretta2001 1 month ago
@sodada Beautiful idea,I had a web buddy who was interested in building a truly anglo-saxon lexicon for a purely germanic modern English,it would sound most beautiful for sure.I love when languages preserve their original lexicon,they can be traced back to the most remote linguistic roots,in this case,the indo-european ones,and we find magnificent phenomena like the linguistic convergence of words from distantantly related branches,even some structures themselves !
Gwynsek 1 month ago
@sodada Asinine.
olivelevel 1 month ago
@sodada
I live on the North East Coast of Britain; we still use about 80% of Old English. I have heard story’s of old fishermen communicating with Norwegians that they meet at sea, a common phrase here is “gannin yem” means going home in modern English. Your suggestion is very good; we should teach Old English at school.
northman585 1 month ago
@northman585
Very interesting! I have heard this expression "ganning yem" for several years ago from some people from Newcastle. It was everyday speech for them :-)
sodada 1 month ago
@sodada I understand what you're saying but if English is purified then it'll lose its richness, this richness has made the English language what it is today, a language which can fully express concepts which other languages cannot, other languages have to borrow, what you're saying is still good we should bring back some old English words and revive the old English heritage
ADIMM0 1 month ago
@sodada Great idea in this era of denationalization & destruction of the English identity i would definitely haul my holdall than carry my case any day...
All hail to the `New Anglo Lingo` ...
stiffex 1 month ago
Comment removed
IAmCaptainMarvel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sodada
Oh wow, that'd be great, I never thought of that. If we did that, we'd be exclusively talking OUR English once more.
Nowadays England is thought of exclusively as "Britain", and our language is essentially being destroyed by our overseas bastard children now.
It'd be nice to have something that makes you ENGLISH once more. Not British, not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh, not Australian, not American, not Canadian, not a New Zealander. ENGLISH.
IAmCaptainMarvel 1 month ago
Comment removed
sodada 3 months ago
This is majestic,oh precious ! Thank you so much for this vid !
Gwynsek 3 months ago
@Gwynsek
Trugarez
Eldsayer 1 month ago
To me,I look at the English Language as the hip-hop of languages because in Hip-Hop,the people who does the music samples from music from the past and makes a hip-hop sound from that sample. The English Language works the same way.
98bigbutt 3 months ago
Comment removed
walshtpt 5 months ago
Awesome book! Makes English more poetic and fun!
heartlandheathen 1 year ago