The English language is messed up!

[kennywtelejazz]

 

 

 

Kenny

[RobertWS]

Why is kernel spelled colonel?

 

[craigb]

Why could "ghoti" sound the same as "fish?"

(Use the "gh" from "enough," the "o" from "women" and the "ti" from "nation.")

[Wibbles]

3 hours ago, RobertWS said:

Why is kernel spelled colonel?

 

I know you didn't want an answer, so here you go: 

11 hours ago, SteveStrummerUK said:

As per your examples, a lot of things happen to share the same words, but the derivation/source of that particular word may be completely different.

 

8 hours ago, Wibbles said:

Also the pronunciation and meaning of words change over the years.

Colonel - meaning the military rank - derives from the mid-16th-century French word coronelle, meaning commander of a regiment, or column, of soldiers. By the mid-17th century, the spelling and French pronunciation had changed to colonnel. The English spelling also changed, and the pronunciation was shortened to two syllables.

Kernel derives from the Middle English kernel, kirnel, kürnel, from Old English cyrnel, from Proto-Germanic *kurnilaz, diminutive of *kurną (“seed, grain, corn”).

[craigb]

Thank you Mr. late 19th century first element plural of the reduplication wibble-wobble. ?

[marcL]

First of all IMO we have to distinguish between "language" and "writing". The Germanic/Keltic languages (English, German, Dutch, Scandinavian languages)
already existed before their writing began in the Middle Ages (before they only wrote Latin)!

Also we have to keep in mind that the concept was phonetic spelling/transcription at this time, i.e. there were no rules for individual words, but how each phoneme has to be written (very easy straight forward concept). The rules were somehow different in the individual contries/regions, but very strict!

I know a little bit 6 of the European languages and I realized that only Swedish and Italien have really preserved the old concept. This is a huge advantage for people learning to write those 2 languages, because it is simple, you can learn it in 1 year without a lot of effort and you are able to write words that you even don't know the meaning of!

On the other hand English is the writing that has departed most from the original concept as far as I know (a mix between different phonetic systems). I guess (but don't know) that English writing was very similar to the one of the other Germanic/Keltic languages, because the Germanic/Keltic languages were very similar 1000 years ago (that 's a fact). The writing in Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands was almost the same! People could easily understand each other across country/region borders.

It's a pity that the English writing got so chaotic as it is nowadays! ☹️

And excuse the writing/language mistakes that I surely made above!!! ?

Edited May 26, 2020 by marled

[Wibbles]

I'm confused by the term "Germanic/Keltic".

Germanic and Celtic languages are on very different branches of the Indo-European language family tree.

[Wibbles]

Who knew that the Coffee House had so many cunning linguists? 

[Wibbles]

27 minutes ago, marled said:

First of all IMO we have to distinguish between "language" and "writing". The Germanic/Keltic languages (English, German, Dutch, Scandinavian languages)
already existed before their writing began in the Middle Ages (before they only wrote Latin)!

Old English (and many other Germanic languages) were originally written using a runic system. It was from about the 8th century that this was replaced with a version of the latin alphabet.

[RobertWS]

I'm really sorry I asked.

 

[Wibbles]

What did you expect was going to happen? 

[RobertWS]

War, disease, famine....but this is beyond the pale!

 

I'm glad I didn't point out how the word 'foreign', with it's stupid silent g, caused me to not get a perfect score on a spelling test in the 2nd grade.

[JohnG]

On 5/25/2020 at 12:22 AM, craigb said:

No, I didn't write it, but I did spend WAY to long correcting about 90% of the grammar errors!  Maybe the author was going to tackle that at another time...

<grammar police>

"... WAY too long ...

There, FTFY.

</grammar police>

Tsk, tsk, tsk! ? ? ?

[InstrEd]

Now I'm too afraid to post with the "Grammar Police"   watching me ?

 

 

[InstrEd]

I know my grammar is subpar. 

Fellow forum members will just have to suffer with my grammar ?

[antler]

On 5/25/2020 at 4:21 PM, craigb said:

I still think water polo is extremely cruel for the horses...

Water Polo - the water with the hole

[antler]

19 hours ago, craigb said:

Kids now think "bad" is good and "sick" is awesome...  *Sigh...* ?

Hmm... in a few years, deathbed may mean the pinnacle of something

[marcL]

10 hours ago, Wibbles said:

I'm confused by the term "Germanic/Keltic".

Germanic and Celtic languages are on very different branches of the Indo-European language family tree.

I knew that such an objection would come! ?

I am/was always very interested in the ancient world in Europe and wondered about the Germanic and Celtic history. I did a lot of self-study after school about this subject (books, internet). The more I was digging into the question "what is the difference of the Germanic and the Celtic tribes" I have come to the conclusion that there is essentially no difference. There were NO tribes that called themself Germanic or Celtic! Although there is a lot of dispute about this subject in science. But even the separatists cannot assign all tribes clearly to one group!

Originally the grouping in Germanic and Celtic tribes was developed by the Romans, by Julius Caesar. The tribes that were conquered and integrated into the Roman Empire were called Celtic and the ones that were still enemies in the north of the Empire were called Germanic. That is the only logical answer that I have found in all the history documents about them. You can also find a lot of places in documents where they confirm that all those tribes could easily talk with each other at that time and documents of the vocabularies show that their languages were almost the same (very similar to Swedish and Norway, because those 2 languages have not changed a lot over the time; e.g. in the Swiss language you can find astonishing equality examples to Swedish).

But the 1st and 2nd world war were another reason for peoples to insist on the old Roman "difference" of those tribes. Till today there are a lot of people on the islands that don't want to accept the real history. By the way the Normans had come originally from Scandinavia (Germanic territory) to France before they populated parts of Great Britain (especially Scotland) and they brought names like "Johnson".

But I know that there is no absolut truth concerning history. There are a lot of assumptions and there is no real consensus about many subjects. There are devided opinions! But there is also a lot of willful blurring caused by politics. ? But now I stop to bore the forum people. I have shown enough that I am a freak! ?

[marcL]

11 hours ago, Wibbles said:

Old English (and many other Germanic languages) were originally written using a runic system. It was from about the 8th century that this was replaced with a version of the latin alphabet.

Yes, you are right! But there was not written a lot with the runic system (here in Sweden you can find some dozens of rune stones). Clergy and nobility wrote mostly in latin in the early Middle Ages.

[ensconced]

4 hours ago, InstrEd said:

I know my grammar is subpar. 

Fellow forum members will just have to suffer with my grammar ?

By the looks of it, indeed they will.