Re: English and the wordheap

Konrad -

Thank you for the demonstration - or, should I say -
forth-showing. It would be my hope that you not choose
to express yourself in this manner at all times since
it is my tendency, in this case, to get a little dizzy
(more dizzy than usual). The sentiments you have
promulgated - I mean - made known will require, for me,
additional thought.

Raymond

-----Original Message-----
From: konrad_oddsson
To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/22/2003 5:07 AM
Subject: [norse_course] Re: English and the wordheap

Heill Raymond.

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Lewis, Raymond J."
<lewisrj@...> wrote:

> Konrad -
>
> Not that you've won a convert or anything - but I can't help

but get curious about the some of the ideas inherent within your
latest posting:

Thou hast much to be curious about.

> Many learned and bright English poets had no training in the

proper use of the subjunctive in English. This lack of proper
training is still evident today. Some modern poets and writers have
even gone so far as too deny or reject the subjunctive in English.

I know this to be true from having taught and read English for many
years, both old and new.

> The fact that so many writers of Modern English reject inherited

grammar and real English words in favor of loan-words is a clear
sign that most speakers and writers of Modern English are no longer
Germanic in a any cultural or philosophical sense.

That is to say, they do not believe it to be their duty as native
speakers to keep what is left of the Germanic core in English. My
belief is not that all native speakers of English share in this
duty, but only that those who do wish to have the right to do so,
and to use English as a Germanic tongue if they so choose.

On the other hand, there are still those who

> refuse to use Modern English as a literary language in any other

way than as a Germanic language.

I happen to have a lot of friends who are writers, many of whom use
English in so far as it is their mother tongue. More often than not,
those of my friends who write English choose to write after an older
manner rather than a newer one. I steady their right to do so, even
when the many and newer textbooks would uphold another manner. Thus,
while not a writer of English myself, though once a teacher thereof,
I opt to drink old wine with those of like mind.

> The third statement:
> The fact that so many writers of Modern English reject
> inherited grammar and real English words in favor of loan-words is
> a clear sign that most speakers and writers of Modern English are
> no longer Germanic in a any cultural or philosophical sense.

Yes, as those whose hearts are beladen of love for the tongue and
tried ways of the olden English do willingly bare this burden.

> rests within a causal relationship to the first:
> Many learned and bright English poets had no training
> in the proper use of the subjunctive in English.

This seemeth me to be such as I have said.

> Meaning that one requires training in proper use of the

subjunctive because Modern English is no longer Germanic. This
would be true of the use of any foreign construction.

I do not tell this a thing from abroad, but an English one.

> You speak as one nostalgic - although - this is not exactly a

criticism. Perhaps, I'm asking that you might make a bit more clear
your position regarding English as a Germanic cultural institution.
For instance, why is it so important to you that the English
language be Germanic as opposed to being more closely allied with
the Romance branch of the world's languages?

It is of no matter to me how most folk choose to speak or write the
english tongue. On the other hand, I do steady and strengthen those
who to reap their corn of an english acre.

Naturally, the English

> language resembles, by analogy, a compost pile but, if you do any
> gardening, you'll recognize this as something creative within

itself. Still, I don't wish to argue since I really don't think I,
at this time, understand your position.

I will whet and wield such tongue as men and wights speak alike. To
this end I bait strings in stead of words. Yet, me liketh wordcraft
and wordmen.

Glad farings,
Konrad.

> Raymond
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: konrad_oddsson
> To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 9/21/2003 12:41 AM
> Subject: [norse_course] Re: <-eth> ending in English
>
> Heilir góðir nemendr.
>
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Haukur Thorgeirsson
> <haukurth@...> wrote:
> > > The examples here are not dirct equivalents in English of the
> Norse change in endings. The older English ending <-(e)th> is 3rd
> per. Present indicative not subjunctive, whereas Norse <fari> is
> present subjunctive, isn't it?
>
> Yes, the 3rd pers. pres. sg. -eth ending is indicative. I have

read

> most of the English Romantics and am aware that the -eth ending

has

> been used in literature with a subjunctive meaning, but such usage
> is incorrect. Many learned and bright English poets had no

training

> in the proper use of the subjuctive in English. This lack of

proper

> training is still evident today. Some modern poets and writers

have

> even gone so far as too deny or reject the subjunctive in English.
> However, those writers whose culture and thinking are truly

Germanic

> are seldom guilty of this mistake in writing. The fact that so

many

> writers of Modern English reject inherited grammar and real

English

> words in favor of loanwords is a clear sign that most speakers and
> writers of Modern English are no longer Germanic in a any cultural
> or philosophical sense. On the other hand, there are still those

who

> refuse to use Modern English as a literary language in any other

way

> than as a Germanic language.
>
> Regarding the subjunctive in daily speech, here is an

understandable

> and clear example of right usage:
>
> Indicative: I WAS tired. ON Ek var þreyttr.
> Subjuctive: WERE I tired, then.... ON Væri ek þreyttr, þá....
>
> > >> He insisteth that she go.
> > >> *He insisteth that she goeth.
>
> Right.
>
> > > You can say in English:
> > >
> > > "He insists that she go" (subjunctive)
> > > "He insists that she goes" (indicative)
> > >
> > > Both equally right and quite common.
>
> Common is one thing, right is another. The right option above is

the

> first one, as the verb 'insist' suggests a subjuctive meaning. The
> verbal ending -s in 'she goes' in indicative, not subjuctive. It

> simply a common modern substitute for -eth and never subjunctive.
>
>
> > Agreed. I understand the first is more formal.
>
> The first line is correct, the second an example of bad usage.
>
> > Early literary Modern English sometimes helps us
> > with Old Norse where colloquial 21st century
> > Modern English doesn't.
>
> See my remarks above Modern English as a Germanic language.
>
> > In the first NC lesson, for example, I took some
> > phrases from the KJV of the Bible. "I am he who liveth." etc.
>
> Biblical language is something of a universal standard for

Germanic

> tongues as a whole, representing good usage. However, the new

trend

> of translating the Bible into ever simpler modern speech has meant
> that this standard is no longer universal in Germanic tongues. The
> reason for this trend is the desire on the part of many

missionaries

> to win cheap and easy converts without the baggage of upholding

the

> English tongue as a Germanic cultural institution. In view of

this,

> it should hardly be surprising that so few Engish attend church

> than once a year, if at all.
>
> > If I ever get to the point of writing a NC lesson
> > introducing the subjunctive I'll certainly start with
> > some subjunctive examples from English.
>
> This would undoubtedly be helpful to speakers of Modern English.
>
> > Anway, the point here was that only the first of the two
> > following sentences are correct Icelandic.
> >
> > Hann vill at hon fari.
> > *Hann vill at hon ferr.
>
> Likewise and literally in English: 'He will that she fare', but

not

> 'He will that she fareth'.
>
> Regards,
> Konrad.
>
> > Kveðja,
> > Haukur