Norse influence in the English Language

[ASCLEPIADES]

And while we are waiting for Doc, here is a brief description of Old English (before the XII Century AD) noun morphology (Verbs are entirely another story):

 

Old English nouns were declined

[docoflove1974]

What interests me more - and maybe Doc can come in here - is the fact of English losing its inflectiions - if any existed in the first place! I do not know how inflected a language old Nprse was, but German, certainly, to this day retains its inflections (at least in four cases). French, however, does not - and we all know that the Normans had a huge part to play both culturally and linguistically. French, Italian, Spanish et. al are not inflected today. What I would want to ask the Doc is - was old French (i.e. that which the Normans spoke) inflected? If not, was their grammatical influence on the English language perhaps more important than we admit?

 

Sorry for the delay...as I told The Augusta via PM, I didn't have any links at work, only at home...and I was waiting for this thread to be created (thanks, PP!).

 

So, just for refernence, this link is for the Doomsday book, which is from the late 11th century England...that's the language we're talking about when we refer to the time of the Norman Conquest...and really the crux of the question, in my mind. This link is to the University of Texas Indo-European Linguistics Research Center's page, and mirrors much of what Asclepiades has stated. How inflected was the langauge at that time, and what were the other influences, if any?

 

Old French: this link (which, I admit, is not only from the University of Texas, but co-written by one of my dissertation directors, Prof. Brigitte Bauer) has a very thorough but accessible outline of Old French, both as a language and as a 'culture'. Morpho-syntactically and syntactically, Old French was highly inflected: 1) noun phrases: nominative and oblique/object cases, masculine and feminine genders, singular and plural; 2) verb phrases: much more analytical than synthetic Latin (aka more order and one-to-one correlation with inflection and use), use of most all of the verbal categories of Latin. What is considered "Old French" is rich in literature and textual documentation from the 9th through the 13th century (starting with the 14th century we get into either Middle or Renaissance French), so definitely the Norman Conquest and the subsequent generations are part of 'Old French'.

 

Old Norse: Another great link to the UT Indo-European Linguistics Research Center on Old Norse, which was roughly spoken from 500-1000 CE (after that we have Old Icelandic and the Old Scandinavian languages); the page has a great background on Old Norse and several links to sources. Again, the language of the Vikings was highly inflected, much like Icelandic is now. There was a shift or simplification of declensions in the late 14th century (Bennediktsson, Hreinn. "OIcel. oxe, uxe: Morphology and Phonology." NOWELE 1986:49) but this is well after the Viking raids and impact in the British Isles. Regardless, there is even more inflection in Old Norse than in Old English--more declension classes, a stronger tripartite gender system (which is still vital in Icelandic), and a full-blown tense and aspect system. To say the least, it was highly inflected.

 

So, to sum up: Old English, Old Norse, and Old (Norman) French at the time of the Viking raids and Norman Conquest were all highly-inflected languages. French has lost some inflection, phonologically more than morphologically; English has almost completely lost most inflection. But I would caution against anyone saying that Old French and Old Norse had something to do with that loss of inflection in the history of English; there are so many phonological changes to English--mostly internal changes, but perhaps there are external pressures--that are more popularly thought to have lead to the changes.

 

There are some great links to texts of various periods of English, and one can note not only the lack of inflection but the change of spelling--this notes the changes of phonology.

--History of the English Language (HEL-L) Dan Mosser's site

--Another HEL-L out of the University of Toronto

--*GULP* Wikipedia!? Yes! They have an accurate version of the Lord's Prayer over various versions of English.

 

Sorry for writing a book!

[ASCLEPIADES]

Sorry for writing a book!

 

Are you kidding?

 

You should try this more often.

 

Gratiam habeo, Doc!

[docoflove1974]

I love the Spanish phrase best: No hay de que, which is kinda like saying "Fuggedabawdit!" The dissertation at times comes in handy!

[sonic]

If they are not part of the original culture, they are external pressure. Even if they assimilate, as the Vikings did, they're still not part of the original culture. That's the linguistic perspective. The same is true of the Spaniards who 'colonized' (perhaps 'took over' is a better term) of the Naples kingdom in the late Medieval period; Spanish and (Sicilian/Neopolitan) Italian are sister languages, yet the Spaniards are an external pressure, since they are not Sicilians/Neopolitans.

 

Unfortunately, whem one works within a specific perspective, then aspects of that perspective can be open to criticism. Although I accept that the linguistic perspective is that 'if they are not part of the original culture, they are external pressure', can this lead to a bias where the 'newcomer' is viewed permanently as an outsider, rather than as an equal part of a 'culture'? (This is not a criticism, but an honest question!!)

 

It is possible/likely (I haven't made my mind up yet!! ) that the English and Vikings in Northern England became a single culture with a unified language. Furthermore, check the dimensions of the Danelaw and realise that it included London, albeit for a short time. Non-historians of the era commonly assume that 'The North' begins somewhere near Scotland, whereas the Danelaw was much further South. (I remember an advert placed in a wargames magazine where a figure manufacture was opening a shop for its' customers "oop Norf". The shop was in Birmingham, which is nearer to London than the Scottish border!! )

 

But the creation of a pidgin or lingua franca does not impact necessarily the original languages of the parties involved. The French spoken in Haiti, for example, is still 'standard' French; no doubt that French is the base language of Haitian Creole, and that is reflected in the various sociolects of the creole, but does not affect the French language. Same is true in Argentina, where a 'creole' (it's status is argued frequently) called Latifundo is spoken in the Porte

[docoflove1974]

Unfortunately, whem one works within a specific perspective, then aspects of that perspective can be open to criticism. Although I accept that the linguistic perspective is that 'if they are not part of the original culture, they are external pressure', can this lead to a bias where the 'newcomer' is viewed permanently as an outsider, rather than as an equal part of a 'culture'? (This is not a criticism, but an honest question!!)

 

In the linguistic realm, that's exactly what the perspective is. This says nothing about the culture of the different groups at that time, only that, when dealing with different languages, there's always the one you're working with, and 'outside'/external influences. And that's it. There's no subjectivity when it comes to linguistics: it's pretty much black or white (or so they say).

 

I must admit that I am sceptical of historical deductions based upon modern comparisons: just because in the instances you quote there is no impact on the aboriginal language, it does not prove that the same is true in ancient history!

 

A good point, but I would counter that we have accurate records of this impact of these areas...for anywhere from 150-300 years, and more in some cases. Remember, this is linguistic data that I deal with, not so much the sociological/cultural data. While a historical linguist does understand the sociological/historical/ethno-cultural data of a given time frame, we use it to paint a fuller picture of what we see in the linguistic data, but is not a true factor in a linguistic analysis. For example, we know the history of the Vikings, the Normans, and the Anglo-Saxon/English peoples and understand the cultural intricacies, but it only helps us to understand what happened with the language...but the data in the text is usually straightforward and tells the story about the language, which is what we're interested in.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici!

Talking about Old Norse / Old English relationship, here comes a nice extract from en. wikipedia:

 

 

Old English and Old Norse were closely related languages, and it is therefore not surprising that many words in old Norse look familiar to English speakers, e.g. armr (arm), f

[Praebitorae]

We should not forget that the Saeson where well aquanted with the Norse and both had a language

that stammed from one Germanic root.

Trade between England and the Scandinavian kingdoms was more dence then with France the Francian Empire I should say.

 

Languages are fluent like water the chance from generation to generation .

I am born Welsh and from time to time we visit family there and I have seen remarkable changes in the Welsh language for example to diminishing of English in Welsh.

Next to the Welshisation foathered by the nationalits there generaly is a renewed intrest in the "auld Language " there.

 

I think discussions about languages are important the are a positive aspekt in the proces of acsepting each other.

[caldrail]

Languages evolve, words are shared, new words invented. Yet there seems to be a modern movement to preserve languages in some form of static integrity. This comes largely from national pride. Hence we have the french officially 'banning' the use of anglicised words in common use. Welsh is a case in point. Its an old celt-derived tongue but to what extent can you preserve it in a modern world when changes in technology and society move faster? Is the imposition of a fixed lexicon an safeguarded heritage, or a barrier to progress?

[The Augusta]

Languages evolve, words are shared, new words invented. Yet there seems to be a modern movement to preserve languages in some form of static integrity. This comes largely from national pride. Hence we have the french officially 'banning' the use of anglicised words in common use. Welsh is a case in point. Its an old celt-derived tongue but to what extent can you preserve it in a modern world when changes in technology and society move faster? Is the imposition of a fixed lexicon an safeguarded heritage, or a barrier to progress?

 

Hear, hear! As far as the preservation of Welsh is concerned, to the rest of the UK it is a mere annoyance. It may very well matter to those adherents in (mainly North? - Calders, correct me if I'm wrong) Wales, but as this particularly outmoded language is no longer used universally beyond the borders, I fail to see the point. OK, it's a heritage, but isn't the point of language to communicate? As Caldrail points out, language infiltrates, words are shared etc. and this is how the world moves on. I honestly cannot see how the preservation of the Welsh language within a tiny Principality is helping to forward language and linguistics in any way. Doc may disagree, of course, and I would welcome her comments on such a thing.

[docoflove1974]

Well, there are a couple of ways to look at it. For every cultural and ethnic group, there are certain aspects of life which are 'identifiers'--not only within the group but from outside as well: religion, ceremonies and festivities, manner of dress...and the big one, language, both in dialect form and in language form. It's why there are many movements, and have been for some time, to preserve and resurrect languages of a given group: Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton (which is dying out, but being held onto steadfastly)...the Catalan and Basque peoples of Iberia and southern France...the various American Indian languages from the Arctic Circle down to Tierra del Fuego...even the revival of Hebrew some generations before. Sometimes this work is done by outsiders--linguists or anthropologists who wish to preserve aspects of the group for future generations; other times it's done by the group themselves. The thought is this: if we continue our language, we continue to assert ourselves as a viable group, one which is worthy of respect and praise...it is our heritage, and therefore is important to us. I see nothing wrong with that...then again, I'm a linguist who wishes to learn the dialects of my great-grandparents, since the various Italian 'dialetti' are dying fast.

 

Then there's the other way to look at things: the world is global, not individual. While we should respect each other's customs, religion, etc...but progress is what is important, and progress means that we all speak in such a way as to be understood (whatever language that may be in). Usually it's the 'dominant/ruling' group which has this position. Then again, they tend to control the money, the politics...so they want whatever is in their best interest. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing: think of the Romans and their language policy, which was if you want to do business and participate in government, you have to learn, speak and write in Latin. One language ensures that there is constant communication...which is so necessary for good business (which leads to good feelings in government...remember, people always go with their pocketbooks...).

 

So, which is correct? Neither...or both. In my humble and honest opinion, I see nothing wrong with studying and maintaining languages...then again, I'm biased in this realm. However, I wish this for historical reasons...it is through some of these 'languages of the conquered' (sorry, but it's the truth) that we get alternate views of history, different view points, and different manners of looking at a culture or group of people. Off the top of my head, without the maintaining of Basque and Catal

Edited November 26, 2007 by docoflove1974

[sonic]

(Sorry for not responding earlier - whenever I've tried to log on to the site for the past month, I've been told it doesn't exist until today! It's going to take me a long time to catch up!!)

 

 

I've got to agree with Doc here: especially with regard to Welsh. The Welsh people have a culture and a history within their own lands far longer than we English newcomers. Also, they had many outstanding ideas long before the 'advanced' English even considered them. For example, when their history and laws are analysed it's found that their laws with regard to women were more advanced in 1100 than the English laws of 1900!! Women could divorce their husbands (unkown in England) and were treated with a lot more respect. It may be true that language is there to communicate with others, but the sad thing is that most English and Americans appear to believe that this means we should all learn English!!

 

Welsh children are now being forced at school to learn two languages - English and Welsh. English children only have to learn their own. Is this the way to encourage communication?

 

I've just reread this post and it sounds a lot more 'aggressive' than was meant!! As I said earlier, I'm playing catch-up and so don't have time to think of 'nicer' ways of putting things!

[Andrew Dalby]

(Sorry for not responding earlier - whenever I've tried to log on to the site for the past month, I've been told it doesn't exist until today! It's going to take me a long time to catch up!!)

 

 

I've got to agree with Doc here: especially with regard to Welsh. The Welsh people have a culture and a history within their own lands far longer than we English newcomers. Also, they had many outstanding ideas long before the 'advanced' English even considered them. For example, when their history and laws are analysed it's found that their laws with regard to women were more advanced in 1100 than the English laws of 1900!! Women could divorce their husbands (unkown in England) and were treated with a lot more respect. It may be true that language is there to communicate with others, but the sad thing is that most English and Americans appear to believe that this means we should all learn English!!

 

Welsh children are now being forced at school to learn two languages - English and Welsh. English children only have to learn their own. Is this the way to encourage communication?

 

I've just reread this post and it sounds a lot more 'aggressive' than was meant!! As I said earlier, I'm playing catch-up and so don't have time to think of 'nicer' ways of putting things!

 

I have to chip in on this as well. First to take up Sonic's point: "Welsh children are now being forced at school to learn two languages - English and Welsh." Well, maybe to some it feels like force. But they are the lucky ones, if they end their schooldays "owning" two languages instead of one. The world needs more bilingual people, not fewer. Children in English-speaking countries tend to be the really unlucky ones: nobody takes seriously the idea of them learning extra languages, so they reach adulthood not only less able to communicate, but also less able to comprehend how different languages can be structured and how there can be different ways of viewing and classifying human experience.

 

And that's the beginning of my comment on the Augusta's point, as well. Augusta, what you said about Welsh is what British educationalists were saying about Welsh (and Irish, and Scottish Gaelic) in the mid nineteenth century. Their views led to a whole century during which teachers thought it was right to punish and humiliate children -- serious child abuse, we would call it now -- for daring to speak their own languages in the school classroom or playground. Same in the US with children speaking Native American languages; same in Australia, and until even more recently. I know you're not recommending such treatment, but the idea -- "that language, that culture, is nearly over now. Let's just forget it, and regret it, and move on" -- is part of the same complex of attitudes. And those are not the attitudes that we human beings need for our future.

 

Sorry to rant! But this is one of the issues I feel really strongly about, I must admit. I've written about it too: this is the subject of my book "Language In Danger".

[Kosmo]

Language it's politics. Because language it's the sign of national identity and this the core of politics.

For example serbo-croatian was adopted by serbian and croats in 1840 despite being the language spoken in Bosnia and different from what was spoken in Srbia and Croatia. Later a croatian grammar book that stressed the differences with serbian was the focus of political struggles for many years.

[docoflove1974]

Their views led to a whole century during which teachers thought it was right to punish and humiliate children -- serious child abuse, we would call it now -- for daring to speak their own languages in the school classroom or playground. Same in the US with children speaking Native American languages; same in Australia, and until even more recently. I know you're not recommending such treatment, but the idea -- "that language, that culture, is nearly over now. Let's just forget it, and regret it, and move on" -- is part of the same complex of attitudes. And those are not the attitudes that we human beings need for our future.

 

Not just the Native American children. Any child who came from a non-English-speaking family was punished for speaking anything but English, even a single word. My grandmother used to tell stories of being smacked on the hands with a yard stick every time she uttered an Italian word, and the same with the Hispanic (mostly Mexican) kids of the day. She was born in 1913, but I think the same held true in the parochial schools when my mom was a kid (the 1950s and 1960s).