From: Rick McCallister
Message: 61362
Date: 2008-11-04
> From: G&P <G.and.P@...>I see his comment as pointing out that English is not an ethnic marker in the sense as it is between Flemings and Walloons. British and American ethnic groups don't set themselves apart on the basis of language. Even among US Hispanics, the 2nd generation is much more proficient in English. British Celts overwhelmingly speak English, as do the Irish.
> Subject: RE: [tied] Re: Scandinavia and the Germanic tribes such as Goths, Vandals, Angli and Saxones.
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 6:43 AM
> > English . a language in which the overwhelming majority
> >of dictionary entries have foreign etymologies.
>
> Two responses (I hope they are relevant to the wider
> discussion)
>
> (a) I don't think a description of a language should be
> determined by the
> origin of its vocabulary. English is clearly a language
> influenced from
> several major sources. But those influences have affected
> the basic
> language only slightly, and more in learned circles than in
> the ways people
> really speak (e.g. you have to be taught not to split an
> infinitive - real
> English does it naturally; or again, real English says
> "me and Jim went to
> town"). Without evidence, I'm guessing
> vocabulary is the same: in
> educated circles, or on learned topics, a larger percentage
> of the
> vocabulary will be non-Germanic.
>
> (b) Actually, English people are remarkably unaware of
> foreign origins of
> words; the words are so thoroughly naturalised. Compare
> this with German,
> where you can get books of "foreign words" - the
> non-Germanic words scream
> at you in a German text. In English they don't - they
> are adopted and
> absorbed without question, and no longer foreign. I doubt
> if any English
> speaker thinks of "pyjamas" or
> "shampoo" or "information" as foreign
> words.
>
> So I cannot agree there is an identity crisis in English.
>
> Peter