Bruce Mitchell (1) (1920–2010)

There is a lot of nonsense out there that English somehow evolved from Latin.



So a quick history lesson.

1st century: Romans came to Britannia and subjugated Celts:

-> Romans left minimal impact on the language and left at end of 4th century CE.

4th-5th century, Roman Empire collapses:

-> Latin becomes exclusive language of priesthood. Commoners stop using it and it dies.

6th century: Saxons invade and exterminated the Celts (Except for Wales/Cornwall):

-> Language of Brittania becomes Saxon

8th century: Vikings started raiding and eventually invade:

-> Major influence of Norse words on English language

11th century Normans (Viking/French tribe) invade:

Upper classes use French until the 15th century, then revert to English. Impact on the language is less than Vikings.

17th Century +: Britain becomes major trading empire:

-> Influence on the language from all corners of the earth - Amerindian, European, African, Indian, and East Asia.

Learning Old English is fine if you like that kind of thing. But there is no justification for learning it over say - ancient Norse. It is a dead language. Let it be so for the majority. Of course, Norman French had a greater major impact on the English language as we know it today, far greater I would argue than influence of Norse words on English. Contrast Chaucer with Beowulf. I can read and more or less understand Chaucer littered with words of French origin but the Anglo Saxon English of Beowulf? Not a chance.… (más)