Language desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 28

Are there more references to alternate language history beyond this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQhqzRlJCjk&feature=related

On Facebook, I posted the status with improvised "unadulterated/unfrenchified English:" "I love a good alternate history lesson. (Or, mysoul betend an enrichful teachment of the proxyborne yoreyears.)"

How far off did I miss the mark? How would "I love a good alternate history lesson" sound in the Unfrenchified, alternate English shown in said video?

And as the subject asks, where do I find how our English would sound if the French hadn't had won the invasion? (As a bonus, is there an arcane "translator" to this kind of alternate English, so that I can see what ordinary pasted texts would look like in this way?) Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have 'rich' in your sentence, but a quick Google search reveals that the French borrowed it from the Germanic, not the other way around; but believe it or not proxy is from [French http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=proxy&searchmode=none].

In any case it's certain that the pronunciation would be different. Who know when or if the/a Great Vowel Shift might have happened? Have a look at Old English to get an idea of what English looked like before 1066.

Duomillia (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Sprague de Camp's classic short story "The Wheels of If" the locals speak an unfrenchified Anglish. He doesn't always get every single francification, but it's still a good try (and much lengthier than that video). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at Anglo-Saxon linguistic purism and follow up on some of the leads therein. Deor (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the word "I"? That's not from French. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best known example in Science Fiction is Poul Anderson's 1989 piece 'Uncleftish Beholding' which, though originally presented with no explicit justificatory frame, logically predicates an alternative history in which English has developed to the 20th century (since it's a straightforward description of some 20th-century scientific knowledge) without any influence from the Romance languages - including Latin itself - or from Greek.

The complete lack of surrounding explanation accompanying the piece's original publication in Analog magazine added to the amusement of its impact. It wasn't even explained if it was fiction or fact: the magazine published both, and Anderson had previously written factual articles as well as fiction for it; consequently the reader had to recognise the subject matter and work out why it was being thus presented.

Although the work is presumably still in copyright, I daresay web searching would turn up a copy of the text, which is well worth reading for someone with interests in 'alternative language history.' {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.141 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP above mentions, but does not elaborate on: Many 'French' words could just as well be seen to be 'Latin' words. Even without the Norman conquest, it's likely that Latin (Europe's academic and intellectual language for centuries) would be a massive source for new words. As far as I know, England was already a Christian country by the time of the Norman conquest, and as such, the presence of the Catholic church would have ensured the prestige of Latin.

All languages change, as indeed is the premise of your question: 'What would English be without the French words?' i.e. 'How would English have evolved without the French influence?'. The answer to that would depend on how you imagine world history unfolding. Who would be England's foremost trade partners? How would the power dynamics be in this alternate world? Who would influence whom? If Latin is still the prestige language, the romance influence on English grammar and vocabulary might be very similar to what it is today.

Some languages are quite purist, modern Norwegian is more purist than modern English, but not as purist as Icelandic. Another interesting language would be Turkish, where Attatürk chose to reform Ottoman Turkish to modern Turkish by removing a lot of loan words from Arabic and Persian. As a result one of his speeches (written in Ottoman Turkish) is incomprehensible for the modern Turk. V85 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole genre of "Altlangs", with Brithenig being semi-well-known (see also Wenedyk etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curate's egg: 'her' and 'she'

At List of British monarchs by longevity I found this footnote:

Should she be alive on ... 18 October 2034, at the age of 108, she would surpass Sobhuza II of Swaziland as the longest documented reigning monarch (male or female) in world history, unless the reign of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (King Rama IX) of Thailand surpasses 82 years, 254 days. He ascended 5 years, 242 days before her, and is one year 228 days younger than she.

The last sentence looks wrong to me, mixing 'her' and 'she'. I'd prefer 'her' in both places, being the natural word to use in both constructions, and this also satisfies parallel construction.

I could also (grudgingly) accept 'she' in both places, meaning:

He ascended 5 years, 242 days before she did, and is one year 228 days younger than she is.

But we have a curate's egg at the moment. Can this possibly be correct? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK as is to me. Her is the object of the preposition before and thus in the objective case, and "younger than she [is]" is also acceptable usage. The constructions aren't really parallel, so the syntax need not be. Deor (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically it's OK, but I would say that than + accusative is a relatively little used form in modern (spoken) English, so for the modern reader, and given the structure of the sentence, I would've written than her rather than than she. V85 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to say ... than + nominative is a relatively little used form ...? What you're suggesting (and I agree) is that we use than + accusative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "than she/than she is/than her" could just be left off. We also need an "On" before 18 October 2034. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's there @ "Should she be alive on". The text I quoted is the last of a number of bulleted points that all refer back to that introductory phrase. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that if it had been written out as per my above hypothetical example: He ascended 5 years, 242 days before she did, and is one year 228 days younger than she is, I wouldn't have had the slightest issue with it. But leaving out either of the 'did' and the 'is' and just having those dangling 'she's makes it unnatural, forced and stuffy to my ears, even if it is technically correct. The aim of written language is to flow, and not have readers questioning word choices in mid-read, which would interrupt the seamless imparting of meaning from the writer's mind to the reader's mind.

'Her' in both places would achieve this optimally, being concise, correct and natural.
'She did' and 'she is' also does the job, with only a slight loss of conciseness.
I've already explained why I don't like bare 'she's in this sentence.
The worst of all possible worlds is mixing 'her' and she', as we have currently. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you asked a question, waited for some replies, and finally posted your opinion, which underlay your question in the first place. ~~Looks like soapboxing to me.~~ FWIW I find the original text unexceptionable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How extraordinarily - and surprisingly - rude that remark was, Colin. I said "I've just realised that ...", meaning that this was a later thought, not something that had occurred to me when I posted my original question. There was no soapboxing involved; I was simply updating my thoughts. I read something in an article, felt uneasy about it, and came here for some advice before deciding whether to edit it or not. Because sometimes expressions that I find a little odd might be perfectly OK in other idiolects, and I don't profess to know all of them. And sometimes these things require some to-and-froing before one settles on a final position. All positively expressed points of view are welcome.

Btw, you put your criticism of me in normal size font, but your actual response to the question in small type, something that's reserved for off-topic comments. What does that say about your priorities as a ref desk answerer? How terribly sad to end the year with such an exchange, but there was no way I was going to let you get away with that outrageous and unjustified comment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I apologise, and have struck the comment about soapboxing. I saw you ask "is it correct?" and later assert that it was "the worst of all possible worlds", an opinion with which I happen to disagree: I would find "her"/"her" natural in speech, but "her"/"she" preferable in writing. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick retraction, Colin. Disagreeing is par for the course on the ref desks, not something to get defensive about. When I came here for some opinions/advice/comments/feedback, I certainly did not expect them all to agree with my original position. And most haven't. My initial impulse when I read the text in question was to immediately edit it to the way I would have preferred to see it. But now, I probably won't, thanks to the invaluable advice of my esteemed colleagues, yourself included. (Unless I come across it in a year's time and no longer have any memory of the foregoing; or much else.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]