>Germans
>are more prone to use their own words, while they also remain
>ignorant of what foreign words mean
Germany produces books of foreign words that are used in German. I once
tried to explain (in German) to some Germans why this is an absurd idea for
English. I don't think they were able to grasp - or perhaps I was unable
to express - why the very concept of "foreign words" does not exist in
English.
Of course it's because of the very high percentage of common words in
English not built on native stems. All words are English. But that makes
me ask what linguistic processes distinguish foreign from native words in
English. How about:
(a) Dvandva compounds are not possible for Anglo-Saxon words. (We can say
Judaeo-Christian, historico-economic etc, but not dog-o-cat)
(b) The use of verbs in a nominal sense is restricted to Anglo-Saxon words
(e.g. have a piss, but not *have a urinate)
Are these right? And can anyone think of any more?
Peter