MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
How Fast Do Languages Change? (Linguistics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 46, 47, 48
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hi Rex, nice to have you back.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yay!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The world is catching us up. They've reached the stage of asking the question

Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In THOBR I claimed most entries in the OED are wrong because of faulty etymological assumptions. It turns out that it was more likely because of the involvement of Sean Penn and Mel Gibson https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5932728/
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:


Found this interesting:

Arabs denigrate their own languages of hearth and home as al-ammiya (or darija in North Africa), “slang,”


This Arabic word for "slang" likely means about the same as the English word "vulgar," which was used to describe non-Latin European languages.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
In THOBR I claimed most entries in the OED are wrong because of faulty etymological assumptions.


We might want to consider the possibility that the errors were deliberate.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not without entering a parallel universe. There are (literally) hundreds of people who have contributed entries to the OED. Were they are all in on the secret?
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

And don’t forget the nutcase at the beginning. How could they have got him in on it?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You're referring to Step Six in this section of our own great founding work (soon to be published)

--------------------

Since there were no Anglo-Saxons to speak of in Scotland, it might be thought this [the theory that English is an evolved form of Anglo-Saxon] would result in a few Glasgow kisses being handed round, but the Scots are reasonably well-educated and have come up with a plan of their own devising

Step 1: Scots are speaking Celtic
It’s a given

Step 2: Some Anglo-Saxons from Northumbria push into the Lothians for a bit
No boats required

Step 3: Scots take fright, ditch Celtic, take up Anglo-Saxon
We’ve always held the Indian sign over them

Step 4: Scots turn Anglo-Saxon quite independently into a completely different language they call Lallan Scots
Which turns out to be uncannily similar to English

Step 5: After the Anschluss with England, the Scots ditch Lallan Scots for Standard English like everyone else
Except during Burns Night

Step 6: Scots take over the English dictionary industry
Not a word of thanks either

---------------------

Or do you mean the mad one?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Not without entering a parallel universe. There are (literally) hundreds of people who have contributed entries to the OED. Were they are all in on the secret?


Of course not. But that's not how you play this game.

You start with a premise then see if you can make it work. First problem: Everyone has to be in on it. So. Is there a way the errors could be deliberate and everyone NOT be in on it? That's how it's done.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I got there before you

There is nothing new in any of this. In the high Middle Ages demand for religious relics was so great, and the pilgrim trade so profitable, there must have been workshops turning them out in volume. Even a simple piece of the True Cross is not something your average vicar can knock up behind the vestry. Where was he to get one? Where was a pilgrimage centre to get its full complement of sacred accessories? And to add to the difficulties, how were they to be acquired without the staff knowing? They are True Believers too.

But I wish to hear more about the OED model. Would you be kind enough to spell it out. Just a little.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
But I wish to hear more about the OED model. Would you be kind enough to spell it out. Just a little.


Shucks. I'm just making this up as I go along.

However; what I do know is this: The ancient history of Britain was faked and everything prior to 1812 and much prior to 1867 has been tampered with. That means someone had a motive to fake that history (though, as to the nature of the motive, I can yet only speculate).

Nevertheless, word origins are inherently historical in nature (being traced to a supposed ancient past). Therefore, whatever motivations inspired the forging of history, those same motivations would have been present for the writing of the dictionary.

Now; it's quite possible that the fake history came first and the authors of the dictionary simply worked with what they were given. But it is at least nearly as likely that the authors of the dictionary were part of the process of historical forgery.

To flesh out this hypothesis, we have to ask that question you gave us; how was the historical content of the dictionary to be forged "without the staff knowing?"
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As you know, I am not as nervelessly radical as you are so my assumption is that modern academics came up with

1. English is evolved Anglo-Saxon
2. Anglo-Saxon is a Germanic language
3. The Latinate content of English was provided by the Normans

The compilers of the OED assumed all this to be not just true but self-evidently true and therefore looked at every word in the OED (apart from neologisms etc) and decided either

1. It was either Germanic or it was Latinate
2. Looked for similar words in either Germanic or Latinate languages
3. Provided an etymological origin of the word accordingly.

Since everybody in the entire world (apart from us) prostrates themselves on the ground in worship of the OED, everything is calm and ordered in the world. Just like everyone likes it (apart from us).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

OLD ENLGISH Pidlisna
Liudmila Pidlisna
Crazee gal, crazee speller.

INTRODUCTION
Languages, like nations, have their own history. Studying the rise and growth o! the language is no less exciting than studying the world’s history. One cannot explain the structure and peculiarities of the contemporary English language without knowing the main lines o! its centuries old evolution.

Out of the mouth of babes. Though it is worth pointing out that the contemporary English language has not been evolving for centuries, it has been evolving for the thousands of years since the birth of language. Something linguists and historians, with their crazee insistence on always working with the written record and their crazee demand that everything be given a label so it can be put on one of their lists, have a woeful tendency to forget.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 46, 47, 48

Jump to:  
Page 48 of 48

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group