Your attitudes towards “purity” and loan-words

This is our main forum. Here, anything related to languages and linguistics can be discussed.

Moderator: Forum Administrators

thoughtsafar
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-03-28, 17:08
Gender: male
Location: Akron
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your attitudes towards “purity” and loan-words

Postby thoughtsafar » 2010-12-19, 17:52

Talib wrote:But I don't think that's what motivates English purists at heart. Anglish is a word game done for fun; nobody really thinks we can purge English of all its foreign influences. Do they?


Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I don't understand where the whole conflation of discriminatory beliefs with linguistic purism came from that has so enveloped this topic. Yes, there is a fuzzy line between nationalism and ethnocentrism, but taking pride in one's linguistic history need not equate to hatred toward other cultures. Just because some people have a liking for Anglish, or prefer Germanic roots in English, in no way means that they hate people from Romance- or other speaking cultures, or the ilk languages. I'm sure plenty of us who like using Anglish still like plenty of Romance languages; for the most part, it's a matter of personal preference. For me personally, I like Germanic languages, I like etymology, I like archaic and poetic usage; therefore, I like experimenting with Germanic roots of English. However, I also like Italian, Romanian, French, and Spanish, to say the least.

Have I ever seriously written anything in Anglish? No, I play around with it, and look up roots to enhance my available style variations.
Do I think modern English is worse off for having Latinate roots? No, in fact, I feel that a variety of roots and synonyms gives English a great flexibility of nuance.
Do I think Anglish is a feasible reform? No. A necessary one? No.

A personal liking of Germanic languages does not make one a Nazi; there are surely a rare few who believe Germanic roots are more suitable purely on that basis, but I do not think that is anything close to a majority of Anglishers. It's not black and white, there are many reasons one might prefer Germanic roots, many of which are not chauvinistic, unless one is so extreme as to think any personal preference is chauvinism toward every other option. We have numerous threads about which languages we like and which we don't and which are ugly and which are beautiful, can I take everyone's answers in these threads and label them chauvinists or ethnocentrists because they happen to like one language better than another? This can occur within languages as well without any racist connotation (we also have threads about most and least liked words). Is someone racist is they're personally more attracted to features typical of Europeans than those of Africans, even if they don't think either is superior or inferior to the other?
Comfortable: English, German, Dutch
Working on: Italian, Mandarin
On hiatus: Swedish, Spanish, French, Russian
Ancient languages: Latin, Ancient Greek, Old English
Waiting not-so-patiently to start: Welsh, Romanian, Slovene, Zulu

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10661
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Your attitudes towards “purity” and loan-words

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-12-19, 23:24

I don't even particularly truthly care for Anglish and generally mostly don't bother trying to emulate mock-up it (although I try to avoid dodge too much fancy snooty vocabulary wordstock in formal high writing), but I thought it was being wrongly cast. It's nothing like crazy ultapurist experiments like Høgnorsk and cankattamiḻ. It's just a running gag of sorts.

User avatar
hlysnan
Posts: 3112
Joined: 2010-04-04, 6:21
Real Name: J.
Gender: male
Location: Sydney
Country: AU Australia (Australia)

Re: Your attitudes towards “purity” and loan-words

Postby hlysnan » 2010-12-19, 23:43

Talib wrote:I don't even particularly truthly care for Anglish and generally mostly don't bother trying to emulate mock-up it (although I try to avoid dodge too much fancy snooty vocabulary wordstock in formal high writing), but I thought it was being wrongly cast. It's nothing like crazy ultapurist experiments like Høgnorsk and cankattamiḻ. It's just a running gag of sorts.


I think Anglish is far more purist than Høgnorsk. Høgnorsk just replaces Dano-Norwegian where Norwegian equivalents exist, while with Anglish they often make up new words. I think Háfrónska could be an example of an ultrapurist experiment. I haven't heard of cankattamiḻ though.

User avatar
Æxylis
Posts: 3469
Joined: 2007-11-09, 12:06
Real Name: ジョナタン ザ グレート
Location: Salt Lake City
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Your attitudes towards “purity” and loan-words

Postby Æxylis » 2010-12-20, 5:04

did you ever notice that the flag of háfrónska looks like somebody flipping the bird? :lol:
Image
this seems to be the general sentiment towards purists by those who dislike the idea :roll:
and, on the other hand, the sentiment they feel purists are giving towards the languages in question
Если хочешь говорить со мной по скайпу, мой скайп нейм - jaakuuta
If you want to speak with me on Skype, my Skype name is jaakuuta

Saegrund
Posts: 17
Joined: 2010-06-14, 22:01
Gender: male
Location: Chapel Hill
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your attitudes towards “purity” and loan-words

Postby Saegrund » 2010-12-20, 13:35

I love Gothic for its antiquity and importance for IE linguistics and even it has a good number of Latin and Greek borrowings (plus the syntax).

I also find it funny that many people bemoan the Latin and Romance borrowings in English, but rarely mention the Norse conquest and the effects that it had on the morphology and probably the syntax of OE.

Germanic is awesome, but Latin and Greek rule European languages forever. The influence was almost always from Latin and Greek to all the others.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10661
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Your attitudes towards “purity” and loan-words

Postby mōdgethanc » 2010-12-20, 19:13

Yasha wrote:I think Anglish is far more purist than Høgnorsk. Høgnorsk just replaces Dano-Norwegian where Norwegian equivalents exist, while with Anglish they often make up new words.
Anglish doesn't really make up new words. I suppose some Anglishes might use reconstructed Anglo-Saxon words if they had evolved into Modern English.
I think Háfrónska could be an example of an ultrapurist experiment. I haven't heard of cankattamiḻ though.
You know how purist Tamil is, right? It's a variety which tries to emulate classical Tamil as strictly as possible.
I also find it funny that many people bemoan the Latin and Romance borrowings in English, but rarely mention the Norse conquest and the effects that it had on the morphology and probably the syntax of OE.
Ah, but Norse is a Germanic language.

Besides, you can't expect people to use Anglo-Saxon morphology as well. That's just cruel.

johnH

Re: Your attitudes towards “purity” and loan-words

Postby johnH » 2011-02-22, 21:38

I like the word wordstock.

User avatar
Gormur
Posts: 8074
Joined: 2005-05-17, 1:11
Real Name: Gormur
Gender: male
Country: CU Cuba (Cuba)
Contact:

Re:

Postby Gormur » 2020-03-24, 14:23

Kirk wrote:
Babelfish wrote:As a general rule, I'm quite conservative when it comes to languages. I don't like it when grammar is simplified by making common mistakes OK


Whoa there. Language change sometimes entails simplifications in certain areas (and isn't caused by people "allowing" common "mistakes"), yet language change just as often yields changes which are arguably more complicated in any given language.

Also, assuming you're referring to native speakers, there is no such thing as a mistake. Yes, there are formal prescriptivistic norms for the written language which people learn as a part of their education, but that doesn't mean that when their speech diverges from such norms that they're "mistaken." Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be to claim that millions of native speakers of a language are living their whole lives not realizing the whole time they're making "mistakes?"
No because when I hear those mistakes then I have to think about what the person just said, which I don't want to do

That was my whole point in this argument. Creating arguments is pointless, and a common culprit of an argument is foreign influence on the host language. All done :P :hmm:
Eigi gegnir þat at segja at bók nøkkur er hreinferðug eðr ønnur spelluð því at vandliga ok dáliga eru bœkr ritnar ok annat kunnum vér eigi um þœr at dœma


Return to “General Language Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest