The situation which occurred with "thou" and "you" also happened with Middle Dutch "ghi" and "du". Under French influence, "ghi" (the 2nd person plural) became the formal form of "du". The use of "du" would decline until the 16th century in common speech, and is now only present in a few dialects.
To think that it shares the same root and similar spelling to my grandmother’s maiden name from a culture from a different part of Europe and my Germanic is interesting. Tbf it was used to describe the Normans.
The Celts also had their own word meaning 'foreign' derived from the same source as the Germanics. In this case the initial 'w' had become a 'g', gal-. It is the source of placenames like Galloway, Donegal and Galway, as well as some surnames like Gallagher.
Walter Scot summarised the formation of English language in his Book Ivanhoe : "In short, French was the language of honour, of chivalry, and even of justice, while the far more manly and expressive Anglo-Saxon was abandoned to the use of rustics and hinds, who knew no other. Still, however, the necessary intercourse between the lords of the soil, and those oppressed inferior beings by whom that soil was cultivated, occasioned the gradual formation of a dialect, compounded betwixt the French and the Anglo-Saxon, in which they could render themselves mutually intelligible to each other; and from this necessity arose by degrees the structure of our present English language, in which the speech of the victors and the vanquished have been so happily blended together; and which has since been so richly improved by importations from the classical languages, and from those spoken by the southern nations of Europe." now one can wonder whether English might be considered as a sort of European "Creole " language ?regarding the fact that it is neither fully Germanic nor fully Romance.
It's as far as I'm aware still a fringe theory but something most linguists don't put much stock in nowadays. The trouble with it is is that while there are certainly plenty of areas you can point to and say "this is Norman French influence" (some, not all, of the French vocab, various sound changes including the voiced and voiceless fricatives becoming distinct phonemes and the weirdness with the letter u, the influence on meaning of the second person pronouns), none of them are really big enough to mark it out as a distinctly different, learned foreign language which is effectively what a creole would be. That is, it is likely there was an unbroken chain of commoners speaking what they recognised as English, it just happens that quite a lot of change happened over a few generations and some of that change (though not all of it!) was down to Norman French influence. You can point to things like the vast simplification of the case system, except that this was happening already due to natural sound changes causing case endings to be lost, and its remnants still show through in some places which you wouldn't necessarily expect if it had been a pidgin/creole. You also wouldn't expect the remnants of V2 word order. Ultimately creoles are very unique features caused by particularly unusual circumstances brought on by colonialism, and even though yes, the French influence was significant in English, I think it's hard to compare the two without running into fundamental differences in how they came about.
I like Scott's writing but this isn't especially accurate or insightful, English isn't a "dialect, compounded betwixt the French and the Anglo-Saxon", or for that matter a creole in any meaningful sense. It's an entirely germanic language with a bunch of Romance loan words, English morphology is entirely germanic and its core vocabulary overwhelmingly so too.
@@enricobianchi4499 I believe English must have undergone the same situation similar to Afrikaans i.e. the inhabitants of Britain whose native vernaculars ( Gaelic Welsh, Gaelic Scotish , Gaelic Irish... , Anglo-Saxon , Norman French , Scandinavian ( Norse , danish ) differed so much among themselves in terms of gramatical genders in their own native tongues that they decided to drop the Grammatical genders, as well as verbal conjugation so that they would able to communicate with less trouble in the somewhat constructed Lingua Franca i.e. English among themselves .
@@allyburnett7189 I mention just a few influences of French in English grammar : plural formed by "s" instead of " en " in other Germanic languages ( Children , Brethren, Men, Women , are remanentes of that pre-Norman era ) , forming passive voice with the verb to be + past participle similar to Romance languages instead of Germanic which use distinct auxiliary verbs : Werden , Worden + past participle , English tends to use preferably more Romance language Prefixes ( Dis-, In/ im , en , sub-, pre-...) instead of Germanic prefixes to construct words.
English / Danish Come over to my house and get a handful of eggs. Kom over til mit hus og få en håndfuld æg. Shall we eat a beef and drink a good ale? Skal vi æde en bøf og drikke en god øl? My son has a green jacket and a blue hat. Min søn har en grøn jakke og en blå hat. Apes have long arms and are hairy. Aber har lange arme og er håret. Can we sail to Greenland in my boat? Kan vi sejle til Grønland i min båd? Have a really good day Have en rigtig god dag
I don't think English will change as vastly in the future due to the fact that old records of it will reenforce it's prior use. Then again, listening to the English used in old movies--just a full lifetime ago, seems ancestral in some senses (more refined to be honest, but ancestral nonetheless)
Don't think that many pronunciations will change that much or change completely, but how they are strung together will definitely change. I had to lecture my grandmother (a former language teacher) about the meaning of not including a descriptor when talking about something as intensely mediocre.
@@No-mq5lw The meaning of; opting out of adding an adjective in order to add to its mediocre-ness? So instead of saying the cabin was a plain, ordinary cabin, you'd just say "it was, a cabin."
I really like the content but unfortunately the background music makes it extremely difficult for me to concentrate on what's being said. I would appreciate an option to turn that off (it would be easy to to listen to music while watching the video, but taking the music out when it's embedded in the video is tricky!).
Admittedly for the first 5-6 minutes there is maybe a bit too much music but the narration is still very clear and audible, and after those few minutes the music becomes a quieter background soundscape that fits the theme. You might be hypersensitive to certain sounds, or you might have some concentration issues, since you found it "extremely difficult" to concentrate.
Both Germanic and Romance languages have rather indispensable features which modern English lacks such as genuine gerund suffixed by -nd, -ndo , bear in mind that " -ing " in modern English is not a genuine gerund but in other Germanic languages a suffix to make abstract nouns from infinitives ( -ing in Dutch , -ung in German ) therefore in modern English -ing forms can be used as infinitives as well , the formation of past tense questions and negatives in modern English " Did + present tense of the verbs " sounds entirely incompatible with both Germanic and Romance languages ( as well as in all other languages of the world !) , Present perfect in ME : have has + past participle is different from Germanic languages and French ( which is influenced by Frankisch ) differentiating between dynamic verbs be + pastparticiple and static verbs Have + p.p. which still exist in few cases " is gone " , the formation of passive voice with a distinct auxiliary verb " werden + p.p. " is lacking in modern English instead of which uses be + p.p. ( perhaps therefore the present perfect cannot be structured by be+p.p. any longer ) , lack of verb conjugation has made English extremely rigid depending heavily on the syntax and any change in its syntax will lead to mis-conceptions or absurdities ... , now compare it to Romance languages or to some extent German that are rather flexible in their syntax, lack of genuine infinitives ( suffix" -en "in Germanic languages except few archaic verbs in modern English ) makes Modern English syntax liable to doubts and ambiguities ( verb + to +verb ? or verb + verb+ing ? infinitive = imperative? !) , ...
I don't think they're that indispensible when billions of people speak English every day without them, and without complaining. Chinese languages also have no case, tense, gender, number, nor even articles, and I also haven't ever seen anyone complain. Funny that.
I don’t believe language will change as much as it did in the past because of standardisation and global communication. We can speak to other English speakers around the world and we all speak the same standardised language, except a few slight differences in spelling, pronunciation and vocabulary. The trend in the last few centuries has been more and more standardisation and homogenisation of language and I don’t see why that would change, especially with instant inter global communication.
So this PIE is a purely hypothetical, "reconstructed" (with imagination) language and yet we know all of this? I think it'd be more accurate to say we could derive this as the most likely, as PIE is more than likely a party of languages, of dialects. Excellent video!
Yes of course, the same way we know anything historical! There's some cool videos by a RUclipsr by the name of Simon Roper on how we know what we know about constructed languages and the sorts of practical things that can be done (and have been done!) to perform said reconstructions, along with going into depth about how much we know for almost-certain and how much is more conjecture or guesswork or a range of possibilities, if you're curious.
@@NickMak-m2cBut it's not imagination. Imagination would mean the reconstructions are arbitrary because someone just imagined they be reconstructed that way as if there was no evidence nor example of the explanation to the reconstruction.
Based on a medley of false ideological assumptions. First, languages do not evolve from single ancestor languages, presumably due to random mutations or whatever the thinking is. That's simply not what we see happening in the real world. New languages emerge wherever diverse groups seek a common tongue. Thus language evolution is principally sexual - they have mother and father tongues, constantly recombine elements from other languages and have a multitude of different ancestors. Second, languages tell you nothing about the speakers. People adopt whatever language opens the most doors of opportunity at the time, thus there is no correlation between genes and tongues and no single ancestral population. I could go on... but I'll just mention the fact that English arrived in Britain through Edinburgh - our leading Baltic port - and did not become common across "England" until the 10th century (which was a different generation having recombined with French and Latin by then). So it has nothing at all to do with a mythical "anglosaxon invasion" in the early Dark Ages.
Great content! Please continue to make more. Greatly appreciated.
The situation which occurred with "thou" and "you" also happened with Middle Dutch "ghi" and "du". Under French influence, "ghi" (the 2nd person plural) became the formal form of "du". The use of "du" would decline until the 16th century in common speech, and is now only present in a few dialects.
The word "Welsch" is also used by Swiss Germans to describe Swiss French.
To think that it shares the same root and similar spelling to my grandmother’s maiden name from a culture from a different part of Europe and my Germanic is interesting. Tbf it was used to describe the Normans.
What an AWESOME video
Great video and very informative. Thank you
The Celts also had their own word meaning 'foreign' derived from the same source as the Germanics. In this case the initial 'w' had become a 'g', gal-. It is the source of placenames like Galloway, Donegal and Galway, as well as some surnames like Gallagher.
This video is insanely good ❤
Amazing vid, thank you for your hard work!
1:28 *Latíné:* (In Latin:)
_Erat réx. Is líberós nón habébat. Is réx fílium volébat._
Walter Scot summarised the formation of English language in his Book Ivanhoe : "In short, French was the language of honour, of chivalry, and even of justice, while the far more manly and expressive Anglo-Saxon was abandoned to the use of rustics and hinds, who knew no other. Still, however, the necessary intercourse between the lords of the soil, and those oppressed inferior beings by whom that soil was cultivated, occasioned the gradual formation of a dialect, compounded betwixt the French and the Anglo-Saxon, in which they could render themselves mutually intelligible to each other; and from this necessity arose by degrees the structure of our present English language, in which the speech of the victors and the vanquished have been so happily blended together; and which has since been so richly improved by importations from the classical languages, and from those spoken by the southern nations of Europe." now one can wonder whether English might be considered as a sort of European "Creole " language ?regarding the fact that it is neither fully Germanic nor fully Romance.
It's as far as I'm aware still a fringe theory but something most linguists don't put much stock in nowadays. The trouble with it is is that while there are certainly plenty of areas you can point to and say "this is Norman French influence" (some, not all, of the French vocab, various sound changes including the voiced and voiceless fricatives becoming distinct phonemes and the weirdness with the letter u, the influence on meaning of the second person pronouns), none of them are really big enough to mark it out as a distinctly different, learned foreign language which is effectively what a creole would be. That is, it is likely there was an unbroken chain of commoners speaking what they recognised as English, it just happens that quite a lot of change happened over a few generations and some of that change (though not all of it!) was down to Norman French influence. You can point to things like the vast simplification of the case system, except that this was happening already due to natural sound changes causing case endings to be lost, and its remnants still show through in some places which you wouldn't necessarily expect if it had been a pidgin/creole. You also wouldn't expect the remnants of V2 word order. Ultimately creoles are very unique features caused by particularly unusual circumstances brought on by colonialism, and even though yes, the French influence was significant in English, I think it's hard to compare the two without running into fundamental differences in how they came about.
This also ignores Norse influence that the loss of cases is sometimes also attributed to
I like Scott's writing but this isn't especially accurate or insightful, English isn't a "dialect, compounded betwixt the French and the Anglo-Saxon", or for that matter a creole in any meaningful sense. It's an entirely germanic language with a bunch of Romance loan words, English morphology is entirely germanic and its core vocabulary overwhelmingly so too.
@@enricobianchi4499 I believe English must have undergone the same situation similar to Afrikaans i.e. the inhabitants of Britain whose native vernaculars ( Gaelic Welsh, Gaelic Scotish , Gaelic Irish... , Anglo-Saxon , Norman French , Scandinavian ( Norse , danish ) differed so much among themselves in terms of gramatical genders in their own native tongues that they decided to drop the Grammatical genders, as well as verbal conjugation so that they would able to communicate with less trouble in the somewhat constructed Lingua Franca i.e. English among themselves .
@@allyburnett7189 I mention just a few influences of French in English grammar : plural formed by "s" instead of " en " in other Germanic languages ( Children , Brethren, Men, Women , are remanentes of that pre-Norman era ) , forming passive voice with the verb to be + past participle similar to Romance languages instead of Germanic which use distinct auxiliary verbs : Werden , Worden + past participle , English tends to use preferably more Romance language Prefixes ( Dis-, In/ im , en , sub-, pre-...) instead of Germanic prefixes to construct words.
English / Danish
Come over to my house and get a handful of eggs.
Kom over til mit hus og få en håndfuld æg.
Shall we eat a beef and drink a good ale?
Skal vi æde en bøf og drikke en god øl?
My son has a green jacket and a blue hat.
Min søn har en grøn jakke og en blå hat.
Apes have long arms and are hairy.
Aber har lange arme og er håret.
Can we sail to Greenland in my boat?
Kan vi sejle til Grønland i min båd?
Have a really good day
Have en rigtig god dag
Whoah 😮
Hello and Thanks from Belarus 🇧🇾
Hi Belarusian friend!
🇺🇲
Great work! Regards from Germany!
4:40 to come back to when i am awake
Didn't Scots derive from northern ME, and not Northumbrian OE?
I don't think English will change as vastly in the future due to the fact that old records of it will reenforce it's prior use.
Then again, listening to the English used in old movies--just a full lifetime ago, seems ancestral in some senses (more refined to be honest, but ancestral nonetheless)
Don't think that many pronunciations will change that much or change completely, but how they are strung together will definitely change.
I had to lecture my grandmother (a former language teacher) about the meaning of not including a descriptor when talking about something as intensely mediocre.
@@No-mq5lw The meaning of; opting out of adding an adjective in order to add to its mediocre-ness?
So instead of saying the cabin was a plain, ordinary cabin, you'd just say "it was, a cabin."
Will there be something similar about the Russian language?
So Ukraine is urheimat?
Yes
Those misleading large homeland maps,
spoil an otherwise good video.
I really like the content but unfortunately the background music makes it extremely difficult for me to concentrate on what's being said. I would appreciate an option to turn that off (it would be easy to to listen to music while watching the video, but taking the music out when it's embedded in the video is tricky!).
Admittedly for the first 5-6 minutes there is maybe a bit too much music but the narration is still very clear and audible, and after those few minutes the music becomes a quieter background soundscape that fits the theme.
You might be hypersensitive to certain sounds, or you might have some concentration issues, since you found it "extremely difficult" to concentrate.
Most videos have music or background noise that is too loud and unnecessary. You’ll realize that the older you get.
There was no personal union of England and Scotland. I presume you're talking about the monarchy....
i think English lost much of its beauty because of french/latin influence for some reason i like old English more :)
Both Germanic and Romance languages have rather indispensable features which modern English lacks such as genuine gerund suffixed by -nd, -ndo , bear in mind that " -ing " in modern English is not a genuine gerund but in other Germanic languages a suffix to make abstract nouns from infinitives ( -ing in Dutch , -ung in German ) therefore in modern English -ing forms can be used as infinitives as well , the formation of past tense questions and negatives in modern English " Did + present tense of the verbs " sounds entirely incompatible with both Germanic and Romance languages ( as well as in all other languages of the world !) , Present perfect in ME : have has + past participle is different from Germanic languages and French ( which is influenced by Frankisch ) differentiating between dynamic verbs be + pastparticiple and static verbs Have + p.p. which still exist in few cases " is gone " , the formation of passive voice with a distinct auxiliary verb " werden + p.p. " is lacking in modern English instead of which uses be + p.p. ( perhaps therefore the present perfect cannot be structured by be+p.p. any longer ) , lack of verb conjugation has made English extremely rigid depending heavily on the syntax and any change in its syntax will lead to mis-conceptions or absurdities ... , now compare it to Romance languages or to some extent German that are rather flexible in their syntax, lack of genuine infinitives ( suffix" -en "in Germanic languages except few archaic verbs in modern English ) makes Modern English syntax liable to doubts and ambiguities ( verb + to +verb ? or verb + verb+ing ? infinitive = imperative? !) , ...
I don't think they're that indispensible when billions of people speak English every day without them, and without complaining.
Chinese languages also have no case, tense, gender, number, nor even articles, and I also haven't ever seen anyone complain. Funny that.
I don’t believe language will change as much as it did in the past because of standardisation and global communication. We can speak to other English speakers around the world and we all speak the same standardised language, except a few slight differences in spelling, pronunciation and vocabulary. The trend in the last few centuries has been more and more standardisation and homogenisation of language and I don’t see why that would change, especially with instant inter global communication.
So this PIE is a purely hypothetical, "reconstructed" (with imagination) language and yet we know all of this? I think it'd be more accurate to say we could derive this as the most likely, as PIE is more than likely a party of languages, of dialects.
Excellent video!
Yes of course, the same way we know anything historical! There's some cool videos by a RUclipsr by the name of Simon Roper on how we know what we know about constructed languages and the sorts of practical things that can be done (and have been done!) to perform said reconstructions, along with going into depth about how much we know for almost-certain and how much is more conjecture or guesswork or a range of possibilities, if you're curious.
Not the imagination but logical approximation
@@oleksandrbyelyenko435 Anything unknown that you summon like that is imagined, whether it's a logical system or not
@@NickMak-m2cBut it's not imagination. Imagination would mean the reconstructions are arbitrary because someone just imagined they be reconstructed that way as if there was no evidence nor example of the explanation to the reconstruction.
Another video including the vasconic/aquitanian area in the celtic one. Stop it already. Vascones and aquitanians were not even indoeuropean ffs.
Based on a medley of false ideological assumptions. First, languages do not evolve from single ancestor languages, presumably due to random mutations or whatever the thinking is. That's simply not what we see happening in the real world. New languages emerge wherever diverse groups seek a common tongue. Thus language evolution is principally sexual - they have mother and father tongues, constantly recombine elements from other languages and have a multitude of different ancestors. Second, languages tell you nothing about the speakers. People adopt whatever language opens the most doors of opportunity at the time, thus there is no correlation between genes and tongues and no single ancestral population. I could go on... but I'll just mention the fact that English arrived in Britain through Edinburgh - our leading Baltic port - and did not become common across "England" until the 10th century (which was a different generation having recombined with French and Latin by then). So it has nothing at all to do with a mythical "anglosaxon invasion" in the early Dark Ages.