05-09-2014, 05:08 AM
Sorry Ed, but you are incorrect. Grammarians had for the longest time been trying to shoehorn English into Latin grammar because they thought English was a Romance language. Of course now we know differently, that English is a Germanic language. This was due in large part to the fact that 60% of English words were derivative of the Old French, which wasn't much more than a dialect of Latin at the time of the Norman invasion in 1066.
"The Norman conquest of England in the 11th century gave rise to heavy borrowings from Norman French, and vocabulary and spelling conventions began to give the appearance of a close relationship with those of Latin-derived Romance languages (though English is not a Romance language itself)."
Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas (1978). "Latin Influences on Old English". An excerpt from Foreign Influences on Old English. Retrieved 5 September 2010.
There is a nice little article here English Language Wiki
That is a lot easier to read than me having to pull out my text from two semesters of "The History of the English Language", in which I was forced to learn Old English enough to recite and interpret "Beowulf" and enough Middle English to do the same with Chaucer's the "Canterbury Tales".
"I find that the Romance languages have no strong tradition of anastrophe"
Well of course not, why should they. I never said that the Latin speaking poets reversed syntax in their language, I said that the influence of the courts which spoke Old French influenced English poets to use anastrophe to imitate the court language. This continued for many years as not only was the court French, but also the Church.
Here is the facts of the case. Inversion was practiced in English poetry, we only have to look as far as Shakespeare to prove that. The question then is why? As you have said, such inversion was not practiced in the romance languages, why would it be practiced in English, a Germanic language? The answer is quite simple, it is the same reason English is rife with Old French derived words, and why the German word for the same thing is considered vulgar. This is all due to the influence of the Norman conquest, as well as other Latin influences such as the Church which continued up until the time of Shakespeare. In fact it was not until the Protestant Reformation, that England broke away from the heavy influence of the Latin, or about 500 years. The more absurd stance would be to say that these things had no influence on the English language, and that poetry shows no sign of such impact.
I was in a bit of a hurry writing this, but I have to go pick up my children from school. However, I think you get the gist of what I am saying, so please keep your logical rebuttal to that.
Thank you,
For Erthona, by dale the good
"The Norman conquest of England in the 11th century gave rise to heavy borrowings from Norman French, and vocabulary and spelling conventions began to give the appearance of a close relationship with those of Latin-derived Romance languages (though English is not a Romance language itself)."
Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas (1978). "Latin Influences on Old English". An excerpt from Foreign Influences on Old English. Retrieved 5 September 2010.
There is a nice little article here English Language Wiki
That is a lot easier to read than me having to pull out my text from two semesters of "The History of the English Language", in which I was forced to learn Old English enough to recite and interpret "Beowulf" and enough Middle English to do the same with Chaucer's the "Canterbury Tales".
"I find that the Romance languages have no strong tradition of anastrophe"
Well of course not, why should they. I never said that the Latin speaking poets reversed syntax in their language, I said that the influence of the courts which spoke Old French influenced English poets to use anastrophe to imitate the court language. This continued for many years as not only was the court French, but also the Church.
Here is the facts of the case. Inversion was practiced in English poetry, we only have to look as far as Shakespeare to prove that. The question then is why? As you have said, such inversion was not practiced in the romance languages, why would it be practiced in English, a Germanic language? The answer is quite simple, it is the same reason English is rife with Old French derived words, and why the German word for the same thing is considered vulgar. This is all due to the influence of the Norman conquest, as well as other Latin influences such as the Church which continued up until the time of Shakespeare. In fact it was not until the Protestant Reformation, that England broke away from the heavy influence of the Latin, or about 500 years. The more absurd stance would be to say that these things had no influence on the English language, and that poetry shows no sign of such impact.
I was in a bit of a hurry writing this, but I have to go pick up my children from school. However, I think you get the gist of what I am saying, so please keep your logical rebuttal to that.
Thank you,
For Erthona, by dale the good
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.