What is “English” though? The English language is mish-mash or Norse, French, Latin, Greek, Danish, Spanish, and their old versions. It’s why it’s so difficult to get pronunciation right.
Look at the etymology of the majority of English words and it’ll be “middle english from anglo-french” or “old english from ancient greek” or something.
Some languages have diverged very little from their origins like Icelandic which allows reading 12th century texts without much difficulty, while others are barely distinguishable from their origins due to loans words, forced changes due to e.g royalty, invasion, and so on.
I’m sure a linguist could dive way more into depth, but “not English words” is the equivalent of “not a true Scotsman”.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”
–James D. Nicoll
I’m sure a linguist could dive way more into depth, but “not English words” is the equivalent of “not a true Scotsman”.
Pretty much. Once speakers start using the word, and expecting others to understand it, it’s already part of the lexicon of that language. Specially if you see signs of phonetic adaptation, like /ø/ becoming /u:/ in a language with no /ø/ (see: “lieu”) - and yet it’s exactly why people complain about those words.
And this sort of complain isn’t even new. Nor the backslash agianst it, as Catullus 84 shows for Latin and Greek.
What is “English” though? The English language is mish-mash or Norse, French, Latin, Greek, Danish, Spanish, and their old versions. It’s why it’s so difficult to get pronunciation right.
Look at the etymology of the majority of English words and it’ll be “middle english from anglo-french” or “old english from ancient greek” or something.
Some languages have diverged very little from their origins like Icelandic which allows reading 12th century texts without much difficulty, while others are barely distinguishable from their origins due to loans words, forced changes due to e.g royalty, invasion, and so on.
I’m sure a linguist could dive way more into depth, but “not English words” is the equivalent of “not a true Scotsman”.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” –James D. Nicoll
Pretty much. Once speakers start using the word, and expecting others to understand it, it’s already part of the lexicon of that language. Specially if you see signs of phonetic adaptation, like /ø/ becoming /u:/ in a language with no /ø/ (see: “lieu”) - and yet it’s exactly why people complain about those words.
And this sort of complain isn’t even new. Nor the backslash agianst it, as Catullus 84 shows for Latin and Greek.
My favorite part of this is the list of mishmash you use doesn’t reference German, as English structure is Germanic.
Indeed. It does cement my point further of just what a jumble of languages English is.