A classmate of mine in high school French class became much more interested in the language when I told him that French descended from Latin slang. (I'd put that statement with more caveats today, but it seemed to work on him!)
I have long been fascinated by the Reality Show of a Language Called English. The phlegmatic and dolorous Deutsch wedded to the shrill, manic Latin. The Anglos invaded Roman Britain after it was jilted by the fall of Empire; then the Danish-Angles suppressed by Scandinavian French. The language has been in therapy all along, we are the Children.
I took Latin at secondary school because I was struggling with the listening and speaking part of French lessons, and German would have needed more of that, but actually it really helped me do better in French. I’ve found it invaluable for reading signs in museums right across southern Europe since - I usually can work out at least some of what is being shown in a display.
These early borrowings all predate writing, so the words never had an exotic spelling. That definitely plays a big role in masking their roots, along with the passage of time.
Borrowings in recent centuries seem to nearly always preserve a word’s exotic spelling, so recent foreign loan words really stick out.
These spellings are routinely mispronounced by speakers applying English phonetic rules. Alumni is pronounced to rhyme with “eye” rather than “knee.” Bon appetit in English often has an audible t at the end, unlike in French. Rodeo is pronounced as if it rhymes with “polio.” English speakers seem to really resist changing exotic spellings, but are happy to butcher the pronunciation.
In fact, I can’t think of any recent loan words that are semi-faithful phonetic borrowings, rather than borrowed with their original spelling intact and mispronounced by speakers who read the words as if they are English.
In the 17th and 18th Centuries in America, English-speaking settlers borrowed animal names and place names from native Americans and spelled them as in English - in words like raccoon, Massachusetts, etc. Probably because these had no written form.
Right! Since writing (in the Latin alphabet) came to English with Christianity much later than most of these loanwords were borrowed, these were all taken from the spoken language.
As a result we can learn lots about Latin pronunciation from these loanwords. For example, we can learn that Latin 'v' was pronounced in early times as a 'w' — hence "vallum" was borrowed as "wall."
But later Latin loans borrow 'v' as 'f', for example "versus" 'verse' => OE "fers," indicating that, by then, the pronunciation of Latin 'v' had changed to something more like modern English 'v' (a sound OE speakers wrote with 'f').
Really interesting, thanks. I wonder if this is why the F in the word “of” has a V sound (though I realize the sound change could have evolved after the spelling was fixed ).
Yes, exactly. Originally, 'of' and 'off' were the same word spelled 'of' in Old English, which could be used as a preposition (meaning 'of') or an adverb (meaning 'off'). In Old English, the pronunciation of the letter 'f' with the 'v' sound occurred between vowels, which is mainly where the preposition version of 'of' showed up. As a result, we ended up spelling the two uses differently, even though they were once the same word!
Cheap is interesting because, as I understand it, there's a related word chap, as in "he's a good chap". Chap derives from chapman which is a cognate of the German Kaufmann which is merchant
Right! A chapman is a merchant, "person of commerce", from Old English ċēap 'commerce, bargain' (the same word which eventually gives us "cheap") + mann 'person'. Kaufmann is the German equivalent. The fact that German has Kauf (also from caupo) shows us that the word was borrowed during a period before the ancestors of English and German split off from one another, or perhaps when the split was only just starting.
Likewise with 'kettle': 'Kessel' in German, the 'tt' to 'ss' being the result of the High German consonant shift. Which may also be the reason the 'p' of 'caupo' became the 'f' of 'kaufen', but I'm not sure of that.
Extremely interesting! Your Roman warrior sounds familiar, like our Caesar Wilsonius or Caesar Boscus or Caesar Trumpius. We always underestimate our enemies, and they use our stupidity to advantage.
In terms of men lost, yes, but Teutoburg Forest wasn't just a lost battle, but a complete stop to Roman expansion into Germania that they never really picked up again. Humongous bad defeat in that respect.
Same can be said for Parthia, in a much richer and more populous era. They wanted to repeat Alexander's for generations; Surena stopped all that, and avenged Persia in the process
Very interesting. I knew about 'wall' but didn't realise there were so many words borrowed to latin so early.
Beside, from a French perspective, it would be easy to think that many latin words came to Britannia when it was part of the empire. Hence before the Saxons. But it seems it is not the case.
But we were speaking and writing perfectly well before the catastrophe. It was only much later that the returning Amorite/Roman survivors inverted everything to conceal history for the purposes of empire and global dominance.
I accidentally learned Spanish. Five years of Latin left me with the realization that Spanish is ( sorry) Lengua latina degradada.
A classmate of mine in high school French class became much more interested in the language when I told him that French descended from Latin slang. (I'd put that statement with more caveats today, but it seemed to work on him!)
I have long been fascinated by the Reality Show of a Language Called English. The phlegmatic and dolorous Deutsch wedded to the shrill, manic Latin. The Anglos invaded Roman Britain after it was jilted by the fall of Empire; then the Danish-Angles suppressed by Scandinavian French. The language has been in therapy all along, we are the Children.
I took Latin at secondary school because I was struggling with the listening and speaking part of French lessons, and German would have needed more of that, but actually it really helped me do better in French. I’ve found it invaluable for reading signs in museums right across southern Europe since - I usually can work out at least some of what is being shown in a display.
These early borrowings all predate writing, so the words never had an exotic spelling. That definitely plays a big role in masking their roots, along with the passage of time.
Borrowings in recent centuries seem to nearly always preserve a word’s exotic spelling, so recent foreign loan words really stick out.
These spellings are routinely mispronounced by speakers applying English phonetic rules. Alumni is pronounced to rhyme with “eye” rather than “knee.” Bon appetit in English often has an audible t at the end, unlike in French. Rodeo is pronounced as if it rhymes with “polio.” English speakers seem to really resist changing exotic spellings, but are happy to butcher the pronunciation.
In fact, I can’t think of any recent loan words that are semi-faithful phonetic borrowings, rather than borrowed with their original spelling intact and mispronounced by speakers who read the words as if they are English.
In the 17th and 18th Centuries in America, English-speaking settlers borrowed animal names and place names from native Americans and spelled them as in English - in words like raccoon, Massachusetts, etc. Probably because these had no written form.
Right! Since writing (in the Latin alphabet) came to English with Christianity much later than most of these loanwords were borrowed, these were all taken from the spoken language.
As a result we can learn lots about Latin pronunciation from these loanwords. For example, we can learn that Latin 'v' was pronounced in early times as a 'w' — hence "vallum" was borrowed as "wall."
But later Latin loans borrow 'v' as 'f', for example "versus" 'verse' => OE "fers," indicating that, by then, the pronunciation of Latin 'v' had changed to something more like modern English 'v' (a sound OE speakers wrote with 'f').
"modern English 'v' (a sound OE speakers wrote with 'f') "
and which Welsh still does. F is pronouced V, FF is pronounced F
Really interesting, thanks. I wonder if this is why the F in the word “of” has a V sound (though I realize the sound change could have evolved after the spelling was fixed ).
Yes, exactly. Originally, 'of' and 'off' were the same word spelled 'of' in Old English, which could be used as a preposition (meaning 'of') or an adverb (meaning 'off'). In Old English, the pronunciation of the letter 'f' with the 'v' sound occurred between vowels, which is mainly where the preposition version of 'of' showed up. As a result, we ended up spelling the two uses differently, even though they were once the same word!
Sticking to the exotic spelling is definitely not always the case in French.
We have 'gazole' and 'bifteck' around here 😉
I so love everything you write, especially the stories you start with to make the past seem like the present.
Thank you, Anne!
Cheap is interesting because, as I understand it, there's a related word chap, as in "he's a good chap". Chap derives from chapman which is a cognate of the German Kaufmann which is merchant
Right! A chapman is a merchant, "person of commerce", from Old English ċēap 'commerce, bargain' (the same word which eventually gives us "cheap") + mann 'person'. Kaufmann is the German equivalent. The fact that German has Kauf (also from caupo) shows us that the word was borrowed during a period before the ancestors of English and German split off from one another, or perhaps when the split was only just starting.
Likewise with 'kettle': 'Kessel' in German, the 'tt' to 'ss' being the result of the High German consonant shift. Which may also be the reason the 'p' of 'caupo' became the 'f' of 'kaufen', but I'm not sure of that.
How is caupo pronounced?
Like cowpoke
Extremely interesting! Your Roman warrior sounds familiar, like our Caesar Wilsonius or Caesar Boscus or Caesar Trumpius. We always underestimate our enemies, and they use our stupidity to advantage.
Of course, any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental ;)
Great article, really interesting stuff.
I especially enjoyed that last quote, as it explains a lot about certain politicians!
Thanks, Kathlyn!
Not so straightforward. There's the Anglo-Saxon skeleton.
Then there's direct taking from both Latin and Greek.
At first Latin may seem to be ahead when given Latin-via-Romance.
But then there's Greek-via-Latin, which must be accounted to its proper origin, from the Hellenes!
Common misconception. Teutoburg Forest was in fact no bigger than the *third* worst defeat for a Roman army. They lost some 20,000 men.
Larger still was the Parthian victory of Surena over Crassus at Carrhae, where some 40,000 were defeated.
And then of course, there's Hannibal at Cannae (80,000 defeated)
In terms of men lost, yes, but Teutoburg Forest wasn't just a lost battle, but a complete stop to Roman expansion into Germania that they never really picked up again. Humongous bad defeat in that respect.
Same can be said for Parthia, in a much richer and more populous era. They wanted to repeat Alexander's for generations; Surena stopped all that, and avenged Persia in the process
Alexander's terror campaign*
Loved this! Thank you for writing it - and writing it so well.
Very interesting. I knew about 'wall' but didn't realise there were so many words borrowed to latin so early.
Beside, from a French perspective, it would be easy to think that many latin words came to Britannia when it was part of the empire. Hence before the Saxons. But it seems it is not the case.
Not so straightforward. There's the Anglo-Saxon skeleton.
Then there's direct taking from both Latin and Greek. So Latin may seem to lead when given Latin-via-Romance.
Finally, there there's Greek-via-Latin, which must be accounted to its proper origin, from the Hellenes!
But we were speaking and writing perfectly well before the catastrophe. It was only much later that the returning Amorite/Roman survivors inverted everything to conceal history for the purposes of empire and global dominance.