@mandog Well since the Britons were based in modern day Wales /North England/South West Scotland.Yet you refer to the French speaking part of England. I'm not really sure what kind of a Briton you are. Are you an Angle? Saxon? Dane? Or maybe you're a Norman? 😀
Problem in this case is they are similar things so whilst the extremes would clearly be one or the other you have some variants which could be classed as either.
Quite. So... our "rich" language is still insufficient?
Us Brits are living proof that we can overcome oppression and tyranny. Surely the Celts can do the same if they wanted and grouped together.
Well the context was quite different. English becoming widespread was a political process by the elites. But the eradication of Welsh for example was a policy imposed from outside Wales. When a dominant group wants to stamp out a minority group there are lots of reasons for it and lots of ways to do it. It gets complex.
So… our “rich” language is still insufficient?
Insufficient for what? Our language guides and shapes out thoughts and feelings as we introspect and talk to others. With different concepts available in language, we do that process differently. Self expression is hugely complex, human emotion is far bigger than can be expressed in any language which is why we have art and music and so on. It's why poetry is different to prose. No language can cover everything, but different languages have different concepts, contexts and constructs.
Here's an example: Look at transgender arguments. People are objecting to using non-binary pronouns, for example, saying it's nonsense and that you can only be a man or a woman. Well, the science doesn't really back that up but people think it's binary because our langauge only has two genders. Other languages have three. If English had always had three, there'd be absolutely no issue with being the third gender. You'd just refer to someone as 'herm' or whatever and the whole issue would never have existed. We'd always have had three sets of toilets. Our language defines our thoughts. Even if you accept the concept of being non-binary, you'll no doubt view it as a positive and progressive thing, and be a bit proud of yourself for doing that. You wouldn't, if we had always had three genders because it would be completely normal.
In Korean shows again, there are often extended scenes where people discuss who's older than whom. Well, it turns out that there's a complex series of honorifics that you have to use depending on whether someone is older or younger or more or less senior in an environment. Now, this means that it's a thing, that it's an issue. In the workplace, more senior and older people have rank just because they are older. That means you are under pressure to defer to them. Can you imagine overruling a colleague in a UK business just because they're 2 years older than you?
In 100 years we'll all have light brown skin and speak Esperanto. It all started with the introduction of the railways and the standardisation of time zones.
Us Brits are living proof that we can overcome oppression and tyranny.
Brits are living proof of an inability to resist invasion and the subservient acceptance of foreign invader languages.
Until one province of France conquered and put a stop to all further invasions.
Rosbif-eating surrender monkeys.
the subservient acceptance of foreign invader languages.
Ehh.. not quite how it works 🙂
Until one province of France conquered and put a stop to all further invasions.
Also not what happened...
Ehh.. not quite how it works
Of course it is. When was the last time you heard someone speak Brythonic in the UK Parliament?
And I'll remind you that Parliament is a French word.
Brought over when a French province invaded and conquered Britian.
Edit: Even the motto of your King Charles is in French ffs.
Cafe, restaurant, deja vu, croissant
All French...who knew?
people think it’s binary because our langauge only has two genders. Other languages have three.
We have three also. Though some folk might object to being referred to as "it."
"Them" is perfectly functional. I take your point, but (like mine earlier) I don't think it's the greatest example.
We have three also.
No, we don't. It is not for people and them was historicallyfor plural, generally. Not the same thing as languages that really do have three specific genders.
Do we really need two words for stew and broth
Of course we do, because you can't "broth over a problem". The world would be a very dull place if we all spoke the same, and thought in the same way.
molgrips Full Member
@ernie good grief.
I was referring to your use of the words ‘subservient acceptance’.
You think it was forced? Well I reckon "Dieu et mon droit" could now be replaced with a Brythonic phrase fitting of a country which has "overcome oppression and tyranny".
Btw your "good grief" comment suggests that you are perhaps taking this subject a tad seriously. Please don't take offense - none intended.
Until one province of France conquered and put a stop to all further invasions.
Who were in fact descendants of Scandinavians, occupying land that was Gaul Celticia/Belgica, but had in turn been conquered by Italians, who were themselves originally Greeks and Croatians
Given that Greek is one of the oldest surviving languages still spoken (largely unchanged) for about 3500 years, perhaps we ought to have a go at that?
Plus of course, The Normans didn't "put a stop to all further invasions"
Actually I am not sure that the majority of the invasion force was even Norman, it also included Bretons, Flemish, and other French troops. The invasion was however by a French speaking province of France.
What further invasions of Britian after the Normans are you thinking of - the Nazis invasion of the Channel Islands?
Btw your “good grief” comment suggests that you are perhaps taking this subject a tad seriously. Please don’t take offense – none intended.
It refers to your tendency to agonise over small details to the detriment of the thread...
The Normans conquered and made themselves the elite, bringing Norman French with them. The existing inhabitants of England didn't accept French, they carried on speaking Old English which is why after a few hundred years the elites eventually assimilated into English, not the other way round. That's why you and I are speaking English now and not French.
Brythonic (and Gwydelic) languages persisted in other parts of the British Isles and still do today.
Also, Normandy was not a province of France in 1066, I don't think, that happened later.
Finally, the last successful invasion of England was in 1688 by the Dutch.
The Normans were Vikings as in 'Norse Men'.
Haven’t read the whole thread so apologies if this has already been said.
Seems to me that some languages serve greater purpose as a symbol of oppression than as working tongues with actual everyday utility.
Not saying that that doesn’t give them another perfectly valid utility, just an observation.
My tuppenceworth (a phrase I love but not actually necessary for effective communication). From the utilitarian point of view of communication, business, science etc then it makes sense for us all to speak one language. And realistically that language would be English. English is already the 'lingua franca', a phrase that hopefully winds the French up (-:
But however we would lose so so much if other languages were allowed to die out. Languages aren't a direct word for word translation of one to the other. They all have their nuances and subtleties that can't always be conveyed easily by translation. For example the Scots word (and yes, Scots is probably more a dialect than language) 'dreich' is a lovely word that can't be fully appreciated by an English translation.
The OP mentioned Scots Gaelic (and by the way up here it's pronounced 'Gah-lic, and we spell whisky properly, whereas our cousins over the water pronounce it 'Gay-lic, and don't). Whisky is another great example in fact. In Gaelic it's 'uisge beatha' which literally means 'water of life'. You can see where their priorities lay!!
And languages can be a thing of art too. Even if you don't understand a word, try listening to someone like Julie Fowlis singing Gaelic songs. Absolutely beautiful. I only know a couple of dozen words of Gaelic, mostly connected to mountains. Even there you see how much is lost in translation. I'd much rather say I've just climbed Sgurr Dubh More than the Big Black Peak.
And there's comedy, much which revolves round puns and word play that would never work when translated.
So overall yes, we definitely should keep languages alive.
No, we don’t. It is not for people
Why not? 'It' feels impersonal perhaps but that's only because we don't generally use it to refer to people as there's been little need. It's only relative recently that we've become, for want of a better word, "woke" about gender issues. You likely wouldn't think twice about saying 'it' to refer to a dog or cat of unknown sex.
and them was historicallyfor plural, generally.
I don't believe this is correct. Rather it's the other way around, the singular form was once common but has fallen into disuse. (I'd have to look it up to be 100% certain though.)
In any case, it's a moot argument. You could say similar of 'you,' you is a plural and using it as a singular form of address is a relatively modern phenomenon. The singular form is thee / thou (and still persists in some corners, my uncle might have enquired as to my movements with "weer's thi bin?").
If we can cope with the almost universal acceptance of 'you' in the singular in the space of a generation or so, we can do the same with 'them'.
We can but that wasn't my point at all. I was trying to demonstrate that our language defines how we think, to an extent which can be significant. This means that linguistic diversity should be preserved in a living sense not simply an academic one.
The OP mentioned Scots Gaelic (and by the way up here it’s pronounced ‘Gah-lic, and we spell whisky properly, whereas our cousins over the water pronounce it ‘Gay-lic, and don’t). Whisky is another great example in fact. In Gaelic it’s ‘uisge beatha’ which literally means ‘water of life’. You can see where their priorities lay!!
Apocryphally perhaps, the Irish spell whisky as 'whiskey' to differentiate their product from the crap the Scots were turning out at the time.
Sgurr Dubh Mor not Sgurr Dubh More. Stupid autocorrect that doesn't speak Gaelic!!
Apocryphally perhaps, the Irish spell whisky as ‘whiskey’ to differentiate their product from the crap the Scots were turning out at the time.
Interesting. I wasn't actually aware of that. Must go check it out. I did have my tongue very much in my cheek though, for sake of clarity.
I almost added "so don't think you're special" but didn't want you to take it the wrong way. (-:
The Irish spell it Whiskey because that's how someone wrote out the word according to their English.
Is being able to speak Gaelic / Welsh / Manx / Cornish / etc a vital part of an area’s heritage, or is it time we just let them die and strive towards a common language which everyone can understand globally?
I think the original question conflates two issues - whether language is important to heritage, and whether a single, unified language is desirable.
I think it is beneficial for anyone to learn a second language to the point of basic fluency:
Having only one language is like spending your life with one eye shut - sure, you can see everything that you need to, and get by perfectly well... However it's almost impossible for anyone to describe to you what you're missing in terms you can understand if you have only ever looked through one eye.
A second language (whatever it is) opens your other eye; gives you a perspective and makes you realise that concepts can be broader than the language used to describe them.
Languages aren’t a direct word for word translation of one to the other. They all have their nuances and subtleties that can’t always be conveyed easily by translation.
^Exactly that - IME it's a difficult concept for monoglots to appreciate: i.e. They expect other languages to have a direct 1:1 equivalent of the (usually) 'English' word that carries the same connotations.
I consider that Welsh, Gaelic, etc. serve the purpose of 'opening the other eye' as well as any other language. In the areas that they are taught, they have the fantastic benefit of native speakers being around; place names and signage and history in the language, TV programmes in the language (less of a argument now with on-line streaming) and cultural links to the area which (IMHO) make it a less sterile experience than learning (say) a European language. In addition, it serves to keep the culture alive.
I learned Welsh at school and was once fluent. There are stories and legends that were first recorded in the 12th century that are still readable and reference place names that are still in use.
Bottom line: Everyone should be taught a second language to the point of fluency from an early age. If that's relevant to the culture of their area, then all the better.
It refers to your tendency to agonise over small details
LOL! oh the ironing. Lighten up fella, some of what I said might not have been entirely serious or factually precise. It was in reference to the claim that Brits had "overcome oppression and tyranny”, a comment which I assumed was also not intended to be taken entirely seriously.
I am serious about English being rich in vocabulary due to successive foreign invasion though. I was actually agreeing with your claim that English has "an unusually large number" of synonyms.
They expect other languages to have a direct 1:1 equivalent of the (usually) ‘English’ word that carries the same connotations.
Is that actually true? (genuine question, I don't know)
I'd have thought it perhaps true of folk who've never given it a second thought, but surely most people know that foreign languages aren't just direct word substitution? Or am I giving folk too much credit?
Someone mentioned jokes earlier. Idioms clearly don't translate well - tell a French person that it's raining cats and dogs and they'd be like "les chats et les chiens... quoi?" Or sometimes, jokes rely on it. A guy I used to work with often referred to his "autoschlussel hosen" - khaki trousers.
(apologies for any grammatical crimes against language there, it's been a while)
... now I'm thinking we need a foreign language humour thread.
Is that actually true? (genuine question, I don’t know)
In my experience (as qualified above) it seems to be quite common - e.g. *insert language here* has X words for YYYY (e.g. rain, snow, fish, whatever):
They probably don't - It's likely that there are X words in that language that convey differing meanings in the native language which are reduced to one in English (with the resultant loss of context or nuance).
What Tillydog said ^^ 'They' don't have 20 words for snow. They have a word for wet snow, a word for old snow, a word for dry powdery snow you can't make snowballs from etc etc etc. All things we are familiar with (well, most of) but we don't have single words for them.
This conveys a deeper understanding and experience of snow. It's a bit like me calling it 'wine', someone else calling it a Pinot Noir, someone else calling it a Burgundy Pinot Noir etc etc.
Spent time in North Wales this summer and was delighted and amazed at how strong the use of their language is and how it seemed to unify and reinforce their cultural identity. As a non Gaelic speaking Scot it made me feel great a respect for Wales and a desire for Scots Gaelic to have a renaissance.
There are still a smattering of Gaelic speakers here and they do teach it in the schools and it is part of the cultural identity of these Highlands and Islands. Similarly, there are other Scots dialects such as Doric and Lallands with efforts to preserve them too. The problem with a lot of what people believe to be contemporary Scottish history is just romantic nonsense dreamt up by people like Sir Walter Scott for an Anglicised Victorian audience.
If you like the natural environment and looking at place names sometimes the language helps to bring the geography to life. I’m a part-time postie, there are no street names or numbers, just house names many in Gaelic. I have 2 houses not far apart that are translated of “the house on the rock” and “the house of the rock”.
Not the same thing as languages that really do have three specific genders.
What are these three genders and which languages?
Hawaiian is one.
German has. Der, die, das. Approximately, he, she, it. I expect Germanic descendent languages to be similar.
I can't remember though whether it's like French where everything is either masculine of feminine so you get rampant lunacy like tables are all female. Like I say, it's been a while!
Those are grammatical genders though not personal genders, they don't bear any relation to personal gender.
German has. Der, die, das. Approximately, he, she, it.
VERY approximate. Many "inanimate objects" are Der or Die.
What are these three genders and which languages?
Hawaiian is one.
Is that a language or a gender?
Old English had male, female and neuter including nouns for women across all 3 genders!
Is that a language or a gender?
It's a pizza.
Why should we keep languages alive?
Simply, it means everything to its speakers. My son’s grandparents were among the founders of an illegal Basque school under Franco, where teaching in Basque would land you in prison. The school started in a basement, and now has over 2000 students including my son. Spanish is taught as a foreign language at age 8.
Ive also met people in Wales and abroad, and once you’ve had a conversation in Welsh, the contact is often maintained. The connection goes deeper and is something that people who solely speak English can often miss.
As a non-Hindi speaker of dual Mauritian and English heritage, I wish that my own father had maintained an environment were that was important. I sometimes feel remote from part of my culture.
As he was multi-lingual himself, fluent in Hindi, French, English and Creole from birth and also fluent in the related languages of Urdu and Punjab - as well as familiar with spoken Cantonese, I don’t think he believed it valuable in the west. His own father ensured that they all spoke Hindi, English, French and Creole from birth…
Yeah, not everyone who speaks many languages thinks it's valuable. You may at first think it's just for communication, but you may also realise what's lost after you've lost it.
My great-grandparents were native Welsh speakers, they were farmers from a farming family who were pre-industrial inhabitants of the South Wales Valleys. They didn't speak Welsh to my grandmother because they thought she needed to speak English to get ahead in life and speaking Welsh would be a disadvantage. Imagine thinking that about your own language?
