← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Robbie

Thread 6089

Thread ID: 6089 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2003-04-10

Wayback Archive

Robbie [OP]

2003-04-10 16:50 | User Profile

There is a little hot dog shop a few towns away from me. Mom had found a clipping of the place in a local newspaper and showed it to me. "Check it out one day", she said.

And so I did. The first time I went was nice. Earlier today was my second trip. The first time I went I had to take a deep look at the menu because most of the hot dogs they had were Sabrett. Being a conscientious goy who tries to avoid kosher at all costs, this might be a place not worth going to. But they did sell Thumann's brand, so I chose that.

Anyhow, today when I went there, I had to hear the b.s. coming from Faux News Channel which they had on the TV mounted from the ceiling. I asked the clerk for a menu and I found it on the counter. As I looked through it, I noticed something very pathetic. No longer is the word "freedom" (as in a substitution for "French") limited to Rumsfeld and our blightwing corps. They had a little Amexican flag next to the word "Freedom Fries". I soon gave the clerk my order, and instead of ordering onion rings, I said "...and FRENCH fries." Surprisingly, the clerk didn't say a word but that was my first act of defiance with regards to this pathetic war for American tyranny and Israel's protection.

:th:

Texas Dissident

2003-04-10 16:53 | User Profile

STAY STRONG, BROTHER! :punk:

xmetalhead

2003-04-10 17:37 | User Profile

Excellent Robbie. Anyone, if you really want to be defiant, next time you want to order fries say: "Je prendrai les pommes frites, s'il vous plait"

or just call fries "pommes frites".....this should "fry" any lemming restaurant proprietor in his own fat.

Oh, yea, will the moron lemmings go on to ethnically clean the French word "restaurant"? (from French "rester"(to stay) + "courant" (running))

Any suggestions on a new term for that one? "Stay running establishment" maybe?

"Hey honey, let's go to a stay running establishment tonight!"

Hugh Lincoln

2003-04-10 18:33 | User Profile

Great stuff. I'm calling Rep. Moran's office to see if they'll send me a campaign T-shirt to wear proudly about town.

Franco

2003-04-10 22:47 | User Profile

Heh, heh.

I was not a fan of the modern-artsy, cosmopolitan, way-too-friendly-to-Marxism French until JewsWar III.

Now I am considering a Frenchy avatar at all BB forums....

Sisyfos

2003-04-11 00:45 | User Profile

**Oh, yea, will the moron lemmings go on to ethnically clean the French word "restaurant"? (from French "rester"(to stay) + "courant" (running))

Any suggestions on a new term for that one? "Stay running establishment" maybe?

"Hey honey, let's go to an stay running establishment tonight!"**

establishment = etablissement (fr)

You wish it were that easy, xmetalhead, for what is English but Germanic grammar and French vocabulary, perhaps as much as two thirds of root words, with sprinkling of Latin for balance. Pity that lemmings promoting current linguistic purges have never glanced French-English dictionary or considered word etiology. :shock:

Angler

2003-04-11 04:59 | User Profile

Good show, Robbie. :th:

We all have a responsibility, I think, to publicly express our disapproval of all the propaganda as much as we can.

xmetalhead

2003-04-11 16:21 | User Profile

Originally posted by Sisyfos@Apr 10 2003, 19:45 ** Pity that lemmings promoting current linguistic purges have never glanced French-English dictionary or considered word etiology. :shock: **

Sisyfos, c'est tout vrai. The English language borrowed very heavily from French, possibly because French was the language spoken throughout much of Medieval England?.....please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

The American lemming can't even speak proper English and could care less about any other language in the world, or even where and how the English language was developed. Language is an art hence abhorred by the masses.

When I decided to learn French a few years back, many people laughed at me although more in a "what the hell for" tone. Some said that it's useless to learn French, at least learn Spanish :unsure:

Alors, je ne sais quoi de dire plus!! Faites-moi savoir!

seq

2003-04-12 03:53 | User Profile

Germanic grammar and French vocabulary, perhaps as much as two thirds of root words,

If memory serves, my freshman English professor said it was Latin grammar and about 75% French

vocabulary.

Sisyfos

2003-04-13 10:43 | User Profile

The professor was incorrect. It is more precise to say that English is of Germanic origin rather than Latin. The branching of Indo-European Languages into Germanic and Romance (Italic) subgroups occurred before Latin came of age. English is of course a member of the West Germanic Family of languages not Romance. Regarding French vocabulary, it appears that we both overshot, but not by much.

I think for our purposes, and to furnish Robbie with potent ammunition with which he may more satisfactorily induce bewilderment among lemmings, it is convenient and reasonably correct to say that, for the most part, English is a mixture of German grammar and French vocabulary.

Let Joe Flagwaver ponder the real extent of alterations necessary if he desires ridding himself of “Old-Europe” associations. Chinese perhaps? If he seems reluctant, advise patience. In Washington State he need not wait too long, but, elsewhere, more restraint may be required before official changes come forth. :drool:

[url=http://www.anglik.net/englishlanguagehistory.htm]http://www.anglik.net/englishlanguagehistory.htm[/url]

[url=http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/oe-ie.html]http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/oe-ie.html[/url]

seq

2003-04-13 21:29 | User Profile

The professor was incorrect. It is more precise to say that English is of Germanic origin rather than Latin.

I think you misunderstood my post. He did not say that English was of Latin origin, of course its origin is Germanic. He said that English grammar was based on Latin grammar. And so it was:

**When English grammars came to be written, they were based on Latin grammar, even down to the terminology... **

[url=http://www.uoregon.edu/~spike/ling290/badEnglish.html]http://www.uoregon.edu/~spike/ling290/badEnglish.html[/url]

English is so complex and confusing because its rules and terminology are based on Latin. Bryson concludes that English and Latin have very little in common. He states: "making English grammar conform to Latin rules is like asking people to play baseball using the rules of football"

Bryson - *The Mother Tongue *

Latin's Impact on English Grammar

Latin's contribution to modern English has not been based solely on derivatives. The very ideas of grammar also came from the artificial structure of Classical Latin (the Latin used for poetry, oratory, and by the upper classes). Early English was in no way an artificial or learned language, and had no grammar, no rules, nothing but conflicting precedent in everything: spelling, word order, declension, and conjugation.

In this structural vacuum, those who wanted order were forced to create it, which they did by imposing classical grammar on the language.

[url=http://snafu.mit.edu/~bhslatin/latin/influences.shtml]http://snafu.mit.edu/~bhslatin/latin/influences.shtml[/url]

jamestown

2003-04-14 19:26 | User Profile

Latin's contribution to modern English has not been based solely on derivatives. The very ideas of grammar also came from the artificial structure of Classical Latin (the Latin used for poetry, oratory, and by the upper classes). Early English was in no way an artificial or learned language, and had no grammar, no rules, nothing but conflicting precedent in everything: spelling, word order, declension, and conjugation

The German language did not have any spelling rules until 1907 when Mister Duden ( a jew by the way ) was introducing common spelling and grammar rules for all puplic schools following a Prussian initiative. The upper classes of Germany prefered to speak French. King Frederic II of Prussia spoke French as his native language and bemocked the German language as primitive. Napoleon's troups were amazed during their occupation of Berlin that the common people were able to converse with them, also due to the large Hueggenot factor, Frederic's Berlin was 1/3 French. When the German army was invading France in 1870 the Prussian, Wurttemberg and Bavarian officer corps were conversing in French as they did not speak a common idiom. The German language was homogenized largely by Luther's bible translation, usually the only book commonly known in the old days. The idiom was originally devised at Praha university as the Austrian government needed a language standard for their administration. Generally French, Spanish and English seem to have more structure than German, due to the contact with the Latin language and the more centralist nature of these states. The rather chaotic German language is a reminder of the inability to create a unified state in their history. Norwegian is also a pretty young language, invented in the 19th century from several idioms, as far as I know spelling rules are pretty lax in that language. Obviously the nordics had never really their thoughts together like the latins.

Sisyfos

2003-04-17 07:37 | User Profile

I think you misunderstood my post. He did not say that English was of Latin origin, of course its origin is Germanic. He said that English grammar was based on Latin grammar.

Point. I conflated the two, and worse, mangled the definition of grammar, employing it in the broadest possible sense (e.g., phonetics, vocabulary and syntax) when the strict meaning was more appropriate as we have addressed vocabulary separately. I have read your links in their entirety, seq, and while I’m obviously no expert (though perhaps a masochist) I’ll take issue with some of the commentary, and just maybe, explain my thinking and salvage something of myself.

U of Oregon,

Early English was in no way an artificial or learned language, and had no grammar, no rules, nothing but conflicting precedent in everything: spelling, word order, declension, and conjugation.

Taken literally, this is silly (strict grammar def. acknowledged) . Every language evolved beyond few grunts possesses its own set of rules, because without regularities of structure and sound that the rules specify, nobody could learn it. More likely, the pencil-neck is saying that Early English had relatively simple grammar, employing a limited number of rules with few exceptions. English grammar is still relatively simple when compared with most other languages. When compared with the likes of Navaho it’s child’s play.

**English is so complex and confusing because its rules and terminology are based on Latin. . . **

Naturally the terminology of the discipline of English grammar is Latin in origin since learned Englishmen took this branch of knowledge from the Romans (who in turn filched it from the Greeks). The issue is to what extent did new rules supplant the ones in existence.

Bryson,

Latin's contribution to modern English has not been based solely on derivatives. The very ideas of grammar also came from the artificial structure of Classical Latin (the Latin used for poetry, oratory, and by the upper classes).

Here we have it that English is blessed not just with Latin word infusion (as were many European languages during and after the Renaissance), but that the ideas of grammar and structure came from Latin. This latter point can only concern rules for syntax and inflection. As the influence on vocabulary is not in dispute, these aspects of grammar remain central to our question.

Since I did not invent the phrase “Germanic grammar and French vocabulary,” but pulled it from my subconscious, I must have heard it or read about it. Where, I cannot recall but I did remember reading what I thought was an indirect confirmation during my Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911 ed.) phase. Here is part of what prompted my all-or-nothing initial statement.

[url=http://35.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GR/GRAMMAR.htm]http://35.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GR/GRAMMAR.htm[/url]

**We must next get rid of the notion that English grammar should be modelled after that of ancient Rome; until we do so we shall never understand even the elementary principles upon which it is based. We cannot speak of declensions, since English has no genders except in the pronouns of the third person, and no cases except the genitive and a few faint traces of an old dative. Its verbal conjugation is essentially different from that of an inflexional language like Latin, and cannot be compressed into the same categories. In English the syntax has been enlarged at the expense of the accidence; position has taken the place of forms. To speak of an adjective “agreeing” with its substantive is as misleading as to speak of a verb “governing” a case. In fact, the distinction between noun and adjective is inapplicable to English grammar, and should be replaced by a distinction between objective and attributive words. In a phrase like “ this is a cannon,” cannon is objective; in a phrase like “ a cannon-ball,” it is attributive; and to call it a substantive in the one case and an adjective in the other is only to introduce confusion. With the exception of the nominative, the various forms of the noun are all attributive; there is no difference, for example, between “doing a thing” and “doing badly.” Apart from the personal pronouns, the accusative of the classical languages can be represented only by position; but if we were to say that a noun which follows a verb is in the accusative case we should have to define” king “as an accusative in such sentences as “ he became king “ or “ he is king.” In conversational English “ it is me “is as correct as “ c’est moi “ in French, or “ det er mig “ in Danish; the literary “it is due to the influence of classical grammar. The combination of noun or pronoun and preposition results in a compound attribute. As for the verb, Sweet has well said that “ the really characteristic feature of the English finite verb is its inability to stand alone without a pronominal prefix.” Thus “dream” by itself is a noun; “ I dream “ is a verb. The place of the pronominal prefix may be taken by a noun, though both poetry and vulgar English frequently insert the pronoun even when the noun precedes. The number of inflected verbal forms is but small, being confined to the third person singular and the special forms of the preterite and past participle, though the latter may with more justice be regarded as belonging to the province of the lexicographer rather than to that of the grammarian. The inflected subjunctive (be, were, save in “ God save the King,” &c.) is rapidly disappearing. New inflected forms, however, are coming into existence; at all events, we have as good a right to consider wont, shant, cant new inflected forms as the French aimerai (amare habeo), aimerais (amare liabebam). If the ordinary grammars are correct in treating forms like I am loving,” “ I was loving,” “ I did love,” as separate tenses, they are strangely inconsistent in omitting to notice the equally important emphatic form” I do love “or the negative form “ I do not love “ (“ I don’t love “), as well as the semiinflexional “ I’ll love,” “ he’s loving.” It is true that these latter contracted forms are heard only in conversation and not seen in books; but the grammar of a language, it must be remembered, is made by those who speak it and not by the printers. -

Our school grammars are the inheritance we have received from Greece and Rome.**

Obviously I was not thorough the first time. To detail analysis of English-Latin differences concerning syntax and inflection, the authors append that we owe our school grammars to Roman inheritance. The branch of learning we call grammar, of course, but what else and, specifically, what of the rules inherited given the differences detailed above.

More from Bryson,

In this structural vacuum, those who wanted order were forced to create it, which they did by imposing classical grammar on the language.

What happened in England was no different than what happened on the continent when the printing press came along. In European capitals the Latin educated elite (a tiny minority of monks, administrators and landowners) thought to bring the written word to the masses, but then as now, profit was central when it came to be decided how best to represent speech via writing. On this point the texts are all uniform: Every effort was made to make the writing representative of the speech used by the majority, illiterate or otherwise. To be sure, where common speech was deemed lacking the educated class made use of Latin.

But, again, given the differences in syntax and inflexion (most vocabulary hails from elsewhere) is it fair to say that we derive the bulk of the collective rules we call grammar from Latin. Why is English a Germanic Language? Is English merely a softer-sounding variant of German, i.e., is it just phonetics (since most of vocabulary is no longer old English/Germanic)? I figured that apart from phonetics, the language retained enough rules (however lax) to preserve its essential Germanic nature, for it to reserve the right to maintain this classification.

However fascinating (or not) all this is it is clear that experts have spoken otherwise. I defer to their expertise. As always, the education is appreciated. When you’re right you’re right, when you’re not you’re not. :crybaby: