The Many Origins of the English Language
August 8, 2015 3:46 AM Subscribe
Philip Durkin (the author of the linked piece, and please credit the author, folks!) is deputy chief editor of the OED and knows his stuff. I wrote about his work here, and there's some interesting stuff in the comments. Thanks for the post!
posted by languagehat at 9:02 AM on August 8, 2015
posted by languagehat at 9:02 AM on August 8, 2015
knows his stuff
If you say so.
Is he from New Zealand? It seems odd that Māori shows up so prominently (kiwi, moa, haka, and... ???), but Algonquian's nowhere to be found.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:14 AM on August 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you say so.
Is he from New Zealand? It seems odd that Māori shows up so prominently (kiwi, moa, haka, and... ???), but Algonquian's nowhere to be found.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:14 AM on August 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Sys Rq: "Māori shows up so prominently (kiwi, moa, haka, and... ???)"
Mana! (Like in video games!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:26 AM on August 8, 2015
Mana! (Like in video games!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:26 AM on August 8, 2015
It seems odd that Māori shows up so prominently (kiwi, moa, haka, and... ???), but Algonquian's nowhere to be found.
Not really? Māori is a language, Algonquian is a group of languages. So those "Algonquian" words are Arapaho or Powhatan or Naragansett, etc. (And there probably weren't/aren't enough from any one particular language to account for more than a very small percentage of the total loanwords in English in the relevant period...probably 1650-1850).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:51 AM on August 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Not really? Māori is a language, Algonquian is a group of languages. So those "Algonquian" words are Arapaho or Powhatan or Naragansett, etc. (And there probably weren't/aren't enough from any one particular language to account for more than a very small percentage of the total loanwords in English in the relevant period...probably 1650-1850).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:51 AM on August 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
What is "early Scandinavian," then? It's not a language. Not even an official group of languages, truth be told. I guess he just meant Old Norse, but who the hell knows.
And, like, the absence of Old English (or Anglo-Saxon or whatever term you prefer), but the inclusion of Latin, kind of handwaves the fact that people were speaking the latter in Britain for 500 years before they were speaking the former. Anglo-Saxon did not "borrow" from Latin so much as failed to overwrite it totally.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:02 PM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
And, like, the absence of Old English (or Anglo-Saxon or whatever term you prefer), but the inclusion of Latin, kind of handwaves the fact that people were speaking the latter in Britain for 500 years before they were speaking the former. Anglo-Saxon did not "borrow" from Latin so much as failed to overwrite it totally.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:02 PM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
And, like, the absence of Old English (or Anglo-Saxon or whatever term you prefer), but the inclusion of Latin, kind of handwaves the fact that people were speaking the latter in Britain for 500 years before they were speaking the former.
Not really; people spoke Celtic languages (Latin was the language of government and Church, but not the language of the people).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:40 PM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not really; people spoke Celtic languages (Latin was the language of government and Church, but not the language of the people).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:40 PM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
…would be better illustrated using a "graph".
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 4:25 PM on August 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 4:25 PM on August 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
(Latin was the language of government and Church, but not the language of the people)
Romans are people too. Maybe not the people, but then I never said that, did I?
posted by Sys Rq at 4:46 PM on August 8, 2015
Romans are people too. Maybe not the people, but then I never said that, did I?
posted by Sys Rq at 4:46 PM on August 8, 2015
Does the study weight for frequency of use?
The short article touches on this at the end, but it's not clear.
If it did, I'm sure German and Scandinavian would have higher proportions, with all the everyday words from them - house, cook, weather, school, and so forth.
posted by Steakfrites at 8:52 PM on August 8, 2015
The short article touches on this at the end, but it's not clear.
If it did, I'm sure German and Scandinavian would have higher proportions, with all the everyday words from them - house, cook, weather, school, and so forth.
posted by Steakfrites at 8:52 PM on August 8, 2015
Going far back, what exactly is a loan-word? Everything except Anglo-Saxon? Are there essentially English words? Does the final cumulative chart not count what he considers non-loan-words?
posted by Steakfrites at 9:12 PM on August 8, 2015
posted by Steakfrites at 9:12 PM on August 8, 2015
« Older KROQ Freddy Snakeskin On Air, circa 1983 | Small Science Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Nanukthedog at 8:03 AM on August 8, 2015