Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reading English from 1000 AD

lewiscampbell.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#41

Post by mauvehaus »

madcaptenor wrote: post #18
chistev wrote: post #14

I think it was earlier this week, or maybe last week, that someone on one of the frontpage posts recommended "The History of English Podcast". I haven't finished the first episode yet, but it's already seeming promising and I know I'm going to continue with it. In that first episode (which is basically an introduction), the host explains that the history of the English language can be divided into three periods: Old…

I've seen this recommended a few times here, and I've listened since the beginning. I'd recommend it. But it would be hard to catch up after nearly 14 years and 187 episodes (probably averaging an hour?) - I wonder if there's a shorter history of English somewhere.

> I've seen this recommended a few times here, and I've listened since the beginning.

That, uh, might be my fault. I’m the one who recommended it earlier this week. And I tend to recommend it any time anything related to English pops up.

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#43

Post by thaumasiotes »

Sharlin wrote: post #7
rob74 wrote: post #3

As a native German speaker, I can at least say that knowing both German and English doesn't really help in understanding the text. Not even the most "dumbed down" version - ok, he's apparently saying something about his wife, but no idea what exactly. And when I read " shyne (Modern English "sheen" but German cognate is closer) ", I was even more confused. "Sheen" is the property of an object that is shiny, which in…

Another Modern English cognate even closer to shyne than "sheen" is "shine" (and obviously the German "schein"). The words for "beautiful", "fair", "bright", "shining", "well-reputed", "righteous" have a long history of being related: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schinen#Middle_English (to shine, to appear) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skyr#Middle_English (clear-coloured, pale, light, luminous, radiant) https://e…

> The words for "beautiful", "fair", "bright", "shining", "well-reputed", "righteous" have a long history of being related

Compare modern Mandarin 漂亮 ["beautiful", in most of the English senses of the word] and 亮 ["shine"].

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#44

Post by thaumasiotes »

us-merul wrote: post #11

For a while, I mistakenly thought that “Germanic” meant related to German specifically. Old English makes more sense if you’re aware of Frisian, Dutch, and other non-Scandinavian Germanic languages, since that’s the area it originated from. German and Spanish make this distinction explicit (Deutsch/Germanisch and Alemán/Germánica).

> For a while, I mistakenly thought that “Germanic” meant related to German specifically.

...it does. That's why the form of the word is "Germanic". That's what it means.

There are different levels at which you can be related to something. In this case the contrast is between Indo-European languages related to German and Indo-European languages not related to German (except through the shared ancestor called proto-Indo-European).

> German and Spanish make this distinction explicit (Deutsch/Germanisch and Alemán/Germánica).

I suspect the reason for that is that the first of each of those pairs is the native word and the second is borrowed from the English linguistic terminology.

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#45

Post by thaumasiotes »

chistev wrote: post #14

I think it was earlier this week, or maybe last week, that someone on one of the frontpage posts recommended "The History of English Podcast". I haven't finished the first episode yet, but it's already seeming promising and I know I'm going to continue with it. In that first episode (which is basically an introduction), the host explains that the history of the English language can be divided into three periods: Old…

> Because Shakespeare’s plays are actually classified as New English!

This... isn't normal terminology. From everything I've ever read, Shakespeare would be called "Early Modern English".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English

There isn't a term "New English". There's "Modern English".

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#46

Post by FarmerPotato »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #44
us-merul wrote: post #11

For a while, I mistakenly thought that “Germanic” meant related to German specifically. Old English makes more sense if you’re aware of Frisian, Dutch, and other non-Scandinavian Germanic languages, since that’s the area it originated from. German and Spanish make this distinction explicit (Deutsch/Germanisch and Alemán/Germánica).

> For a while, I mistakenly thought that “Germanic” meant related to German specifically. ...it does. That's why the form of the word is "Germanic". That's what it means. There are different levels at which you can be related to something. In this case the contrast is between Indo-European languages related to German and Indo-European languages not related to German (except through the shared ancestor called proto-In…

>the second is borrowed from the English linguistic terminology.

Borrowed from Latin Germānicus, from Germāni.

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#47

Post by chistev »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
chistev wrote: post #14

I think it was earlier this week, or maybe last week, that someone on one of the frontpage posts recommended "The History of English Podcast". I haven't finished the first episode yet, but it's already seeming promising and I know I'm going to continue with it. In that first episode (which is basically an introduction), the host explains that the history of the English language can be divided into three periods: Old…

> Because Shakespeare’s plays are actually classified as New English! This... isn't normal terminology. From everything I've ever read, Shakespeare would be called "Early Modern English". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English There isn't a term "New English". There's "Modern English".

You are right. Thanks.

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#48

Post by inkyoto »

FarmerPotato wrote: post #30
rob74 wrote: post #3

As a native German speaker, I can at least say that knowing both German and English doesn't really help in understanding the text. Not even the most "dumbed down" version - ok, he's apparently saying something about his wife, but no idea what exactly. And when I read " shyne (Modern English "sheen" but German cognate is closer) ", I was even more confused. "Sheen" is the property of an object that is shiny, which in…

I, too, find it confusing. The "German cognate is closer" is not helpful! I think the ö is significant. It could correspond to English ē, but not ei, -ine. Under sʜᴇᴇɴ, Partridge [1] states that OE scēne, scȳne are related to G schön, from PIE *skauniz "Ultimately, to E sʜᴏᴡ." I think we have two compartments here: 1. ö/ē words - schön, E shown, shewn. Under Partridge [1] sʜᴇᴇɴ 2. ei words - G schein and E shine. OE…

> The "German cognate is closer" is not helpful!

It is not helpful because comparing English from 1000 AD with Modern High German is the wrong premise to start off with.

The correct and more interesting comparison would be with Old High German from around the same time although it did not indicate the umlaut in the spelling at the time (which would happen 400-500 years later) – even though the i-umlaut had already developed.

So «schön» was «scōni» (or «sconi») in OHG. Also, ö and ü developed from /o/ and /u/, so juxtaposing them with English ē is likely incorrect.

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#49

Post by thaumasiotes »

FarmerPotato wrote: post #46
thaumasiotes wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a while, I mistakenly thought that “Germanic” meant related to German specifically. ...it does. That's why the form of the word is "Germanic". That's what it means. There are different levels at which you can be related to something. In this case the contrast is between Indo-European languages related to German and Indo-European languages not related to German (except through the shared ancestor called proto-In…

>the second is borrowed from the English linguistic terminology. Borrowed from Latin Germānicus, from Germāni.

Think a little harder. You can trace the word back that far. Is that how it got into German or Spanish?

Re: Reading English from 1000 AD

#50

Post by Sharlin »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #43
Sharlin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another Modern English cognate even closer to shyne than "sheen" is "shine" (and obviously the German "schein"). The words for "beautiful", "fair", "bright", "shining", "well-reputed", "righteous" have a long history of being related: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schinen#Middle_English (to shine, to appear) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skyr#Middle_English (clear-coloured, pale, light, luminous, radiant) https://e…

> The words for "beautiful", "fair", "bright", "shining", "well-reputed", "righteous" have a long history of being related Compare modern Mandarin 漂亮 ["beautiful", in most of the English senses of the word] and 亮 ["shine"].

Also, I just realized that Finnish loistava can mean either "excellent" or "shining", "radiant". Of course English also has, for instance, the phrase "shining example".
Post reply on HN