I'm so into the history of English. I like seeing how it developed and how pronunciation changed. Here's a video of how Shakespeare's plays may have sounded in original pronunciation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s
I feel like if the young guy in this video narrated Shakespeare's place, they'd be 75% darker. The way that they were talking just seemed like they were about to go to war - even when they were reciting the marriage lines from Romeo and Juliet! That's a really good video, Ryan! Dr. Grasso's gonna flip.
Beowulf, Chaucer and Shakespeare. I find it interesting that these poems and writers are commonly defined as the voice of their time periods and examples of what their respective English was.
My favorite part of the essay was The Lord’s Prayer in Old English. It was really cool trying to decipher it, to try to figure out which word was the word for Heaven and whether “gewurpe” meant “give.” It’s strange that we call that “English” when it is so different from what we speak today, but it also makes sense because what we speak today has evolved from that type of English.
It was interesting learning that in Old English we didn't have near as many borrowed words. It makes me wonder why, beside the different style of pronunciation, that we borrowed so many words. Most come from Latin and French, but what prompted us to instead of evolving our native language from the words it already consisted of to those of a different language?
While studying French, I knew there were cognates and they were easy to recognize, but I didn’t realize just how much of our language is borrowed from them. We take so much from German, French, and Latin that our language is barely our own. America and its language’s history, just as the nation is known as today, is a huge melting pot. I appreciated Robert’s comment on the way English speakers often substitute in French words to sound intelligent or fancy, because French and language does the same thing with the English language (according to a good friend of mine who spent a year in France).
What struck me as I read this article was how much the study of linguistics is the study of history—of wars, of migrations, of religions—though newcomers may see it as a divorced, sterile subject. It’s exciting. I recognized most of the names—Goths, Jutes, Alfred the Great, Northumbria—only obliquely. It made me regret how limited and America-focused our history classes were in high school. But the glimpses that Roberts provided were interesting; I’d like to learn more.
I noticed the same thing you did about this article. There was a lot of history I had never even heard of to be explored with the investigation as to where our modern English comes from.
I learned that Christopher Columbus wasn't the first person to discover America. (He obviously wasn't, because Natives were already living there, but that's besides the point.) I had no idea who had discovered America first after reading this section of the essay, so I did a little research. Apparently, there was a Norwegian man named Erik the Red that had expeditions west. He discovered Greenland, and called it Greenland because he thought it was more appealing. He wasn't able to travel further west, but he told his son Leif Erikson about his expeditions. So Leif finished his father's expeditions and discovered North America (Canada). He discovered it nearly 400 years before Christopher Columbus did! That was just mind blowing to me. I may have been out of the loop, and been the only person that didn't know this, but it was interesting news to me.
It is very eye opening to see how one change in power can shift the languages spoken so much. Because in today’s society we don’t see such massive power shifts that often, it is hard to picture that these different people conquering is why we have the language we have today.
Of all the facts about English, the one I always find funny is how many words have been “borrowed” over time. It’s more like stealing really. We hear a word. We like that word. We take that word. That word is ours now.
It makes sense that a country without a phonemic alphabet would continue to say, and probably spell, the words the same way as they always have, despite the big push toward uniformity. It is hard to change one’s speech pattern and habits like that are hard to break or pick up.
What I get out of this article was that religion play a big role in the written language which Roberts states, “We have no record of the English language until after 600, when the Anglo-Saxons were converted to Christianity and learned the Latin.” It looks like he is implying that only the religious people had an education and had literacy (reading and writing) skills.
I found this whole piece very interesting because I have students that I tutor, first through sixth grade, and they all struggle with grammar rules. A big part of why they all struggle is because they learn certain words and they all follow the rules of the English language and then all of the sudden there are these other words that are exceptions to all the rules and it is confusing. Words that have entered into the English language from other languages like French, German, and others do not follow the rules even though we still use them in our own language.
It was amazing seeing seeing the example of Old English in the Lord's Prayer. I think at one point I came across the word "gedaeghwamlican". I noticed that, in a way, old English consisted of phonetic spellings, and they used "æ" in their spellings instead of just the modern day "a", but I have no idea how the word gedaeghwamlican is a phonetic spelling for anything. I can only assume that it was borrowed from Norse or something like that.
So you've read Roberts's "A Brief History of English."
I'm so into the history of English. I like seeing how it developed and how pronunciation changed. Here's a video of how Shakespeare's plays may have sounded in original pronunciation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s
ReplyDeleteI feel like if the young guy in this video narrated Shakespeare's place, they'd be 75% darker. The way that they were talking just seemed like they were about to go to war - even when they were reciting the marriage lines from Romeo and Juliet! That's a really good video, Ryan! Dr. Grasso's gonna flip.
DeletePlays* -_-
DeleteBeowulf, Chaucer and Shakespeare. I find it interesting that these poems and writers are commonly defined as the voice of their time periods and examples of what their respective English was.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the essay was The Lord’s Prayer in Old English. It was really cool trying to decipher it, to try to figure out which word was the word for Heaven and whether “gewurpe” meant “give.” It’s strange that we call that “English” when it is so different from what we speak today, but it also makes sense because what we speak today has evolved from that type of English.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting learning that in Old English we didn't have near as many borrowed words. It makes me wonder why, beside the different style of pronunciation, that we borrowed so many words. Most come from Latin and French, but what prompted us to instead of evolving our native language from the words it already consisted of to those of a different language?
ReplyDeleteWhile studying French, I knew there were cognates and they were easy to recognize, but I didn’t realize just how much of our language is borrowed from them. We take so much from German, French, and Latin that our language is barely our own. America and its language’s history, just as the nation is known as today, is a huge melting pot. I appreciated Robert’s comment on the way English speakers often substitute in French words to sound intelligent or fancy, because French and language does the same thing with the English language (according to a good friend of mine who spent a year in France).
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as I read this article was how much the study of linguistics is the study of history—of wars, of migrations, of religions—though newcomers may see it as a divorced, sterile subject. It’s exciting. I recognized most of the names—Goths, Jutes, Alfred the Great, Northumbria—only obliquely. It made me regret how limited and America-focused our history classes were in high school. But the glimpses that Roberts provided were interesting; I’d like to learn more.
ReplyDeleteI noticed the same thing you did about this article. There was a lot of history I had never even heard of to be explored with the investigation as to where our modern English comes from.
DeleteI learned that Christopher Columbus wasn't the first person to discover America. (He obviously wasn't, because Natives were already living there, but that's besides the point.) I had no idea who had discovered America first after reading this section of the essay, so I did a little research. Apparently, there was a Norwegian man named Erik the Red that had expeditions west. He discovered Greenland, and called it Greenland because he thought it was more appealing. He wasn't able to travel further west, but he told his son Leif Erikson about his expeditions. So Leif finished his father's expeditions and discovered North America (Canada). He discovered it nearly 400 years before Christopher Columbus did! That was just mind blowing to me. I may have been out of the loop, and been the only person that didn't know this, but it was interesting news to me.
ReplyDeleteIt is very eye opening to see how one change in power can shift the languages spoken so much. Because in today’s society we don’t see such massive power shifts that often, it is hard to picture that these different people conquering is why we have the language we have today.
ReplyDeleteOf all the facts about English, the one I always find funny is how many words have been “borrowed” over time. It’s more like stealing really. We hear a word. We like that word. We take that word. That word is ours now.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that a country without a phonemic alphabet would continue to say, and probably spell, the words the same way as they always have, despite the big push toward uniformity. It is hard to change one’s speech pattern and habits like that are hard to break or pick up.
ReplyDeleteWhat I get out of this article was that religion play a big role in the written language which Roberts states, “We have no record of the English language until after 600, when the Anglo-Saxons were converted to Christianity and learned the Latin.” It looks like he is implying that only the religious people had an education and had literacy (reading and writing) skills.
ReplyDeleteI found this whole piece very interesting because I have students that I tutor, first through sixth grade, and they all struggle with grammar rules. A big part of why they all struggle is because they learn certain words and they all follow the rules of the English language and then all of the sudden there are these other words that are exceptions to all the rules and it is confusing. Words that have entered into the English language from other languages like French, German, and others do not follow the rules even though we still use them in our own language.
ReplyDeleteIt was amazing seeing seeing the example of Old English in the Lord's Prayer. I think at one point I came across the word "gedaeghwamlican". I noticed that, in a way, old English consisted of phonetic spellings, and they used "æ" in their spellings instead of just the modern day "a", but I have no idea how the word gedaeghwamlican is a phonetic spelling for anything. I can only assume that it was borrowed from Norse or something like that.
ReplyDelete