Talk: History of the English language

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

For those of you who speak French as well as English, I know the Web address of a great article on the history of the English language:

Histoire de la langue anglaise

It contains a lot of good information on the anglo-normand or franco-normand dialect. Mathieugp 20:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"French was the language of the aristocracy, while English remained the language of the common people" - French was the language of the Norman aristocracy after 1066, but after the late 12th century they began to lose it as a mother tongue (which was now English). This didn't mean that French died out however, the nobility still used French, but had to learn it as a second language.

"had nature not intervened, English may not have survived as a separate language. However, in the 14th century the Black Death killed so many of those in positions of power that many English speakers from the working classes rose to fill such positions, so displacing many of the French speakers." - this may have been an important factor, though it must be remembered that the "French speakers" being displaced also had English as their first language and the use of the French language in places such as parliament and other places of power was artificially maintained by people whose mother tongue was actually English.

which awkward fact undermines the quoted claim. This source does not strike me as entirely reliable.

The section on the history of the term 'Anglo-Saxon' appears irrelevant to the history of English itself, and contains anti-monarchical bias which, like all bias, is inappropriate here, as well as reading like a conspiracy theory. George I was the great grandson of James I, and the legitimate heir, according to British law. Implying the current royal family are somehow unEnglish because a couple of their ancestors lived in Germany is a favourite tactic of anti-monarchists, not NPOV. Also, while using the term 'Anglo-Saxon' may have been politically convenient (though since it was hardly a topic of great popular interest I'm inclined to doubt even that) but that doesn't prove the name was used because it was politically convenient. For that claim, much stronger proof would be need. Carandol 19:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Modern English?

I find the example for Modern English a little bit too old. There are still grammatical differences in the sample and from the type of English spoken today. Does anyone else feel that we should update this as well?

I agree that it should be updated. It also shouldn't be a government document, in my opinion, because those tend to be much more formal and use a lot of otherwise archaic language. The trouble, though, is finding a good example of modern-day English that's also public domain. -Branddobbe 08:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

What's the legality of quoting books? I'm pretty sure you can take something like 5 lines (assuming you provide the source, of course) without running afoul of the law. If it isn't, maybe we can take something from one of Wikipedia's featured articles? Jonathan Grynspan 01:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no problem quoting short extracts from books. I'd recommend citing the reference though, but this is more academic rigour and courtesy than any real need. jguk 07:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Written English

Does anyone have a good knowledge of early examples of written English? I am aware of a medallion dated c 480 AD but this used runes for the inscription. Are the legal codes of Ine and Alfred the earliest known examples of written English using the Roman alphabet? Can anyone help??