ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Unliable

paco2004 — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:56:16 GMT

Hello Mav

You can understand to what extent the present day English is a mixture of Old English (OE) and Old Norse (ON) by;
'We' is OE ('we') but 'they' is ON ('their')
'Brother' is OE ('brothar') but 'sister' is ON ('syster').
'Land' is OE ('land') but 'sky' is ON ('sky')
'Other' is OE ('other') but 'same' is ON ('sami')
'Strong' is OE ('strang') but 'weak' is ON ('veik')
'Good' is OE ('god') but 'wrong' is ON ('wrang')
'Give' is OE ('gefan') but 'take' is ON ('taka').
'Buy' is OE ('bycgan') but 'sale' is ON ('sala').
'Lose' is either OE ('losian')/ON ('losa') but 'get' is ON ('geta')
'Sink' is OE ('sincan') but 'raise' is ON('raisa')
'Put' is probably an ON dialect (putta : push gently)
etc, etc...

paco

Re: Unliable

maverick88 — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:40:58 GMT

Hey thanks Paco, it was very interesting.

Re: Unliable

CalifJim — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:59:40 GMT

I defer to you all on Swedish. I learned it years ago - just leafing through a book in a book store - and it's obviously interfering with what little German I know!

Re: Unliable

paco2004 — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:03:59 GMT

Julielai

Dou itashi mashite. Var sÃ¥ god (Was so good.=You are welcome!)

paco

Re: Unliable

julielai — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:30:18 GMT

doomo arigato, paco-san! (Thank you)

Re: Unliable

paco2004 — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:23:51 GMT

Hello CJ

Where did you learn it?

I'd write rather like "Det var god".

Frankly, I forgot almost all of the Swedish words which I had learned just for survival when young.

paco

Re: Unliable

CalifJim — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:21:37 GMT

Yes. In fact it's the only Swedish I know! I was planning to use it after a good meal some day, but to my surprise it applied here. ("That was good", of course.)

Re: Unliable

julielai — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:18:29 GMT

Is that Swedish?

Re: Unliable

CalifJim — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:03:20 GMT

Det war gÃ¼d, Paco!

Re: Unliable

paco2004 — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:16:56 GMT

Hello Mav

My understanding about the historical development of the English language is like this:

English basically belongs to Teutonic languages along with German, Dutch, and Scandinavian languages. The oldest form of English (Old English/Anglo-Saxon) had been quite similar to present day German. The Old English had a complicated grammar system like noun cases such as present day German has. But during 9-11 centuries many Scandinavians came to Britain as invaders and got inter-married with the native Anglo-Saxons. The language (Old Norse) the invading Scandinavians spoke had also a complicated grammar system somehow different from Old English. The children born between Old Norse speaking fathers and Old English speaking mothers got puzzled at a question; which language should they speak, father's language or mother's language? Their choice was the easiest way: mix the two languages and simplify the grammar, just like making a kind of pidgin language. This pidginized mixture of Old English and Old Norse developed into Middle English in 10-14 centuries, the time when England was ruled by French nobles who were utterly unconcerned about what language the people of lower classes were speaking. I think the main frame of present day English has its origin in this Middle English, The English vocabulary has been increased by borrowing the words from French and Latin. But most of the words English speakers are using in everyday speech are either Old English or Old Norse in origin.

If you learn Swedish (one of the present day form of Old Norse), you will be surprised at the close similarities between English and Swedish in vocabulary, above all in grammar. To my ears English and Swedish are like two regional dialects of one language.

paco

Re: Unliable

maverick88 — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:55:07 GMT

Hey Paco

Very interesting point. However, unfortunately, neither one appears in Webster. I cannot think of any other synonym but of 'not liable' which seems to be used pretty commonly. Do you have any suggestions maybe?

And which culture influenced English more, Latin or German? As far as I know it's the German culture; this way the domination of 'unliabe' over 'illiable' is logical.

Thanks

Re: Unliable

paco2004 — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:52:48 GMT

Hello Mav

An entry is given to 'unliable' in OED. The latest quotation is 1710's but it doesn't state the word is obsolete one.
The idea is unliable to any uncivil construction [1664, H. More]
The things are not so unliable to disorder and abuse.[1710, Norris]
There was another word 'illiable' that was synonymous to 'unliable'. Since 'liable' is a word of Latin origin, to me, 'il+liable' sounds more natural than 'un+liable' ('un' is a Germanic suffix). Nevertheless, 'illiable' is now dead while 'unliable' is alive. Don't you think it's an interestiong phenomenon?

paco

Unliable

maverick88 — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:54:20 GMT

Does the word 'unliable' exist as such?
Because some dictionaries do define it and Webster doesn't...