How French was medieval England?(historytoday.com)
historytoday.com
How French was medieval England?
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/head-head/how-french-was-medieval-england
234 comments
On the beef thing: French: "biftek" from the English: "beef steak", beef from boef. The borrow words come full circle!
The French used to routinely boil their beef but during a lengthy Parisian siege, the locals noticed that the peoples that they came to call "les rosbifs", roasted their beef (phnaaar!) We were chucking steaks on the barbies long before Australia was even thought of ... or something jingoistic 8)
These essays are a bit of fun, as you say. History and life and language are rather more messy than many would like. At one point the article witters on about France and Wessex. Both terms were valid "back then" and are still valid now but they are sodding complicated ideas and neither mean the same now as they used to.
Even the notion of English (and French - obviously) is pretty tricky. Nowadays, in the UK alone we have a largely homogenised language, with some localisations ... on the surface. For example: jitty - allyway, bairn - child, skritch - cry. Then we have the collisions between the Brythonic languages (Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cumbric, Cornish and the rest) and English. So a Devonshire bird like my mum spoke what sounded like complete twaddle to a modern (!) lad like myself, when she was a child.
You (@gumby) might know the difference between twaddle and twiddle but I am sure I've lost a few readers right there.
My point is that language, nationality and the like are rather more fluid than people generally think.
Was hal!
The French used to routinely boil their beef but during a lengthy Parisian siege, the locals noticed that the peoples that they came to call "les rosbifs", roasted their beef (phnaaar!) We were chucking steaks on the barbies long before Australia was even thought of ... or something jingoistic 8)
These essays are a bit of fun, as you say. History and life and language are rather more messy than many would like. At one point the article witters on about France and Wessex. Both terms were valid "back then" and are still valid now but they are sodding complicated ideas and neither mean the same now as they used to.
Even the notion of English (and French - obviously) is pretty tricky. Nowadays, in the UK alone we have a largely homogenised language, with some localisations ... on the surface. For example: jitty - allyway, bairn - child, skritch - cry. Then we have the collisions between the Brythonic languages (Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cumbric, Cornish and the rest) and English. So a Devonshire bird like my mum spoke what sounded like complete twaddle to a modern (!) lad like myself, when she was a child.
You (@gumby) might know the difference between twaddle and twiddle but I am sure I've lost a few readers right there.
My point is that language, nationality and the like are rather more fluid than people generally think.
Was hal!
> Then we have the collisions between the Brythonic languages (Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cumbric, Cornish and the rest) and English
Small correction: neither Irish nor the two languages people might refer to as Scottish are Brythonic languages.
Drinkhail! ;-)
Small correction: neither Irish nor the two languages people might refer to as Scottish are Brythonic languages.
Drinkhail! ;-)
Noted. I'm just a linguistic civilian 8)
>biftek
Seen that word, with that spelling, IIRC, in Iranian restaurant menus in India.
Seen that word, with that spelling, IIRC, in Iranian restaurant menus in India.
I remember biftek in Turkey also? Bistek appears to be "beef steak" in the Philippines?
“Bistec a la X” for many types of X is part of the Spanish-speaking world, including the Philippines. The spelling with a “k” is a loan word into Tagalog.
Bistec a la X” for many types of X is part of the Spanish-speaking world
Right, even for X = pork. But lately, it's fading in favour of "filete" (slice) of X, at least in Spain.
Right, even for X = pork. But lately, it's fading in favour of "filete" (slice) of X, at least in Spain.
“Bistecca” in Italian.
And what does the X stand for in that?
Anything. Bistec a la Mexicana is “Mexican-style steak.” Replace with any nationality or style or whatever.
It's also similar in Russian and Ukrainian: "beefshteks"
This was definitely a tradecraft code word when two dudes passed a briefcase between each other in a cold park one day in Moscow.
Heavy, heavy pronunciation going on to near comical effect.
Heavy, heavy pronunciation going on to near comical effect.
Psst! Tovarisch! Next meeting at 11:00 p.m. Tuesday under the bridge just after Gorky Prospekt! Wear a grey checked coat, with a copy of Pravda under your arm. Da?
Oops, too many spy novels plus a bad sense of humour ... ;)
Oops, too many spy novels plus a bad sense of humour ... ;)
Or maybe, too many bad spy novels :)
Yep - Bistek is beef steak in PH. and Bifstek in India is likely due to colonialism. Its amazing that Chicken Makhani was actually invented in the UK.
Yes. Not been to Turkey, but I read about cuisines, for fun, including on Wikipedia and food blogs. And IIRC, steak is called biftek in Turkey.
I think there used to be a kebab place in Glasgow called bifteki.
It generally signalled the end of a night when you headed there.
It generally signalled the end of a night when you headed there.
That spelling is not the generally used one in French (or other languages) : it's spelled bifteck
(See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bifteck)
(See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bifteck)
Yes, but I've seen it the way I wrote it above, in restaurants in real life, that's why I wrote it the way I did. :)
Also, see the Czech, Macedonian, and other entries under the Descendants section at your own link above. Many of them spell it the way I did.
Also, see the Czech, Macedonian, and other entries under the Descendants section at your own link above. Many of them spell it the way I did.
Romanian doesn't use K so it's "biftec" in menus and recipes :)
you're thinking of Bistek, also in indonesia
I have the etymology bug. Interestingly as I have been on meditative trail rides recently, I have been thinking about a desire to compile the etymology of the corpus of words used in tech.
And was wondering if there might be an easy way to build a a tech geneology/etemology tree.
And was wondering if there might be an easy way to build a a tech geneology/etemology tree.
>"Why, how call you those grunting brutes running about on their four legs?" demanded Wamba.
"Swine, fool, swine," said the herd, "every fool knows that."
"And swine is good Saxon," said the Jester; "but how call you the sow when she is flayed, and drawn, and quartered, and hung up by the heels, like a traitor?"
"Pork," answered the swine-herd.
"I am very glad every fool knows that too," said Wamba, "and pork, I think, is good Norman-French; and so when the brute lives, and is in the charge of a Saxon slave, she goes by her Saxon name; but becomes a Norman, and is called pork, when she is carried to the Castle-hall to feast among the nobles; what dost thou think of this, friend Gurth, ha?"
"It is but too true doctrine, friend Wamba, however it got into thy fool's pate."
"Nay, I can tell you more," said Wamba, in the same tone; "there is old Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet, while he is under the charge of serfs and bondsmen such as thou, but becomes Beef, a fiery French gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to consume him. Mynheer Calf, too, becomes Monsieur de Veau in the like manner; he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name when he becomes matter of enjoyment."
"By St Dunstan," answered Gurth, "thou speakest but sad truths; little is left to us but the air we breathe, and that appears to have been reserved with much hesitation, solely for the purpose of enabling us to endure the tasks they lay upon our shoulders. The finest and the fattest is for their board; the loveliest is for their couch; the best and bravest supply their foreign masters with soldiers, and whiten distant lands with their bones, leaving few here who have either will or the power to protect the unfortunate Saxon.
"Swine, fool, swine," said the herd, "every fool knows that."
"And swine is good Saxon," said the Jester; "but how call you the sow when she is flayed, and drawn, and quartered, and hung up by the heels, like a traitor?"
"Pork," answered the swine-herd.
"I am very glad every fool knows that too," said Wamba, "and pork, I think, is good Norman-French; and so when the brute lives, and is in the charge of a Saxon slave, she goes by her Saxon name; but becomes a Norman, and is called pork, when she is carried to the Castle-hall to feast among the nobles; what dost thou think of this, friend Gurth, ha?"
"It is but too true doctrine, friend Wamba, however it got into thy fool's pate."
"Nay, I can tell you more," said Wamba, in the same tone; "there is old Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet, while he is under the charge of serfs and bondsmen such as thou, but becomes Beef, a fiery French gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to consume him. Mynheer Calf, too, becomes Monsieur de Veau in the like manner; he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name when he becomes matter of enjoyment."
"By St Dunstan," answered Gurth, "thou speakest but sad truths; little is left to us but the air we breathe, and that appears to have been reserved with much hesitation, solely for the purpose of enabling us to endure the tasks they lay upon our shoulders. The finest and the fattest is for their board; the loveliest is for their couch; the best and bravest supply their foreign masters with soldiers, and whiten distant lands with their bones, leaving few here who have either will or the power to protect the unfortunate Saxon.
- from Ivanhoe by Sir Walter ScottI heard the same anecdote about the upper classes adopting French after 1066 but the farmers still calling the thing by its animal name. Trust the Germans to just continue smashing nouns together, Schweinefleisch, Rindfleisch and my American wife's favorite: "Hackfleisch" (hacked flesh). Too bad Germany didn't get invaded by the French until Napoleon.
English "smashes words together" too - English is full of compounds (e.g. shopkeeper), it's just a much slower process, often goes via a long intermediate period of hyphenation, and the implied difference in meaning is a bit smaller.
The "smashing" together of words is much less interesting to most of us who use languages that does so than it seems to be to others - it does little more than placing the words adjacent to each other does in English, with the exception that it disambiguated.
E.g. "hakke" on it's own is the verb to hack in Norwegian, but as part of a compound it will mean something that has been hacked, or is hacking (e.g. hakkespett = woodpecker - and there's another English compound)
Funnily, Norwegian (and Danish) has imported the French boef - Norwegian as "biff" - while we still use the Germanic ku for cow - but we also "smash" words together, so hakkebiff = hakkebøf (Danish) = boef haché.
But "hakke biff" would imply the act of chopping it. And so we compound to remove the ambiguity.
We also have flesk, from the same origin as fleisch and flesh, but in Norwegian it specifically means pork flesh, so hakkeflesk, while it's not a term I can remember having heard, would be understandable but refer to pork because the meaning of combining the words is fairly generic.
The "smashing" together of words is much less interesting to most of us who use languages that does so than it seems to be to others - it does little more than placing the words adjacent to each other does in English, with the exception that it disambiguated.
E.g. "hakke" on it's own is the verb to hack in Norwegian, but as part of a compound it will mean something that has been hacked, or is hacking (e.g. hakkespett = woodpecker - and there's another English compound)
Funnily, Norwegian (and Danish) has imported the French boef - Norwegian as "biff" - while we still use the Germanic ku for cow - but we also "smash" words together, so hakkebiff = hakkebøf (Danish) = boef haché.
But "hakke biff" would imply the act of chopping it. And so we compound to remove the ambiguity.
We also have flesk, from the same origin as fleisch and flesh, but in Norwegian it specifically means pork flesh, so hakkeflesk, while it's not a term I can remember having heard, would be understandable but refer to pork because the meaning of combining the words is fairly generic.
The main difference is really that English writes compounds with a space in between whereas German doesn't. There's no way to express compounds like "pedestrian crossing" or "windshield wiper" with a space in German. When a compound gets frequent enough in English people will stop writing the space (like "windshield") whereas in German the space was never there to begin with.
English also constructs compound words out of Greek or Latin roots. For example “television” is a technology for seeing things that are happening far away (i.e. in a broadcasting studio); the German word is “Fernsehen”, which would be cognate to “Far-sight”, which is what “television” means. And sometimes we even have an Anglo-Saxon compound word alongside an etymologically equivalent compound word with classical roots, such as “manslaughter” and “homicide”.
We don’t do that with all compounds though. It’s really more a cultural thing. At a certain point a pair becomes so common place that it becomes one word. Beehive, for example, isn’t semantically different from bee hive but the pairing was common enough the space got dropped.
I would typically use “crosswalk” in preference to “pedestrian crossing”. The two terms are slightly different, but functionally equivalent. Is there something similar in German?
Crosswalk is American English. In the UK they are always pedestrian crossings.
But you don’t see things like “Straßenbahnhaltestelle” in English where you have four words mashed together. I’d translate that something like “streetcar stop,” but literally it’s “street car stopping place.” Streetcarstop while reasonable would not be accepted English by native speakers. Tramstop on the other hand is (at least places where people say tram). So while we mash it’s noticeably more limited.
But what’s the difference grammatically if there’s a space or not? Let’s take “streetcar stop”, although there is a space there, what function is “streetcar” performing other than being a noun? It’s not an adjective, you can’t say “that stop is streetcar”, that doesn’t sound right, you’d have to say “that stop is /for/ streetcars”.
So I would argue that “streetcar stop” still parses as a complete compound noun grammatically. This is just a matter of orthography in my opinion. German may more readily “freeze” compound nouns and put them into writing as a single unit, but both English and German are full of long ad hoc compound nouns.
So I would argue that “streetcar stop” still parses as a complete compound noun grammatically. This is just a matter of orthography in my opinion. German may more readily “freeze” compound nouns and put them into writing as a single unit, but both English and German are full of long ad hoc compound nouns.
The difference is for the German compound word you only have to remember the endings for the last part. You don’t need to worry about adjective declension. So yes it’s a real grammatical difference and not just whitespace differences.
I think the difference is that in English you can create new nouns by simply lining up existing nouns (with spaces in between). Over time these words may or may not grow together.
In German, you would have to create a single word from the start (possibly using a hyphen for disambiguation) and in some cases pluralise individual words so they can be joined together.
But you are right that in both cases the result is just a single noun, which contrasts with agglutinative languages such as Turkish where the entire grammar of a sentence can sometimes be packed into a single, potentially very long, word.
In German, you would have to create a single word from the start (possibly using a hyphen for disambiguation) and in some cases pluralise individual words so they can be joined together.
But you are right that in both cases the result is just a single noun, which contrasts with agglutinative languages such as Turkish where the entire grammar of a sentence can sometimes be packed into a single, potentially very long, word.
We (my first language is Norwegian, German is my 3rd, so I'm speaking mostly from my experience with Norwegian) tend to see it as far less of an act of "creating a word" than English-speakers tend to when confronted with our languages, though.
English speakers are often amazed at how we "have words for everything", which makes it seem like it's been some conscious act of establishing a new world on purpose. Of course sometimes that is the case, but that process happens in English too.
But exactly because of what you say, directing that amazement at us just combining words is pretty much the same as if we expressed amazement at how English has sequences of words for everything.
It just looks different to English-speakers for whom the merging of multiple words into a combination they've not seen before is not a frequent occurrence.
English speakers are often amazed at how we "have words for everything", which makes it seem like it's been some conscious act of establishing a new world on purpose. Of course sometimes that is the case, but that process happens in English too.
But exactly because of what you say, directing that amazement at us just combining words is pretty much the same as if we expressed amazement at how English has sequences of words for everything.
It just looks different to English-speakers for whom the merging of multiple words into a combination they've not seen before is not a frequent occurrence.
A lot of this is historical accidents of when shorter alternatives for different parts have or have not been imported, though, and whether there's a culture for going "enough" and shortening things or importing terms. Germans seem to be far more tolerant of holding on to long compounds than most.
Norwegian has "trikk" for tram/streetcar and "stopp" for "stop", and so we have "trikkestopp" for tram stop (but see below). Trikk was a case of "sporvogn" - "track wagon" - being too long.
Meanwhile, while "streetcarstop" is not in use in English "streetcar stop" is some places. E.g.[1].
"Streetcar stopping place" of course would definitely be a step too far in English, but so would it be in e.g. Norwegian that otherwise mostly shares the German approach to combining words (to the point where newspapers regularly have articles about how the language is going to hell because people fail to combine words when they should) but where we'd go "hang on" and omit parts or otherwise rephrase to find a short alternative.
However, we do have "stoppeplass" for "stopping place", though more often used for somewhere to stop a car for a longer period, and "holdeplass" for "holding place" which implies a more temporary stopp, and so we can and sometimes do also use trikkeholdeplass - "tram holding place" [2], but these longer forms tends to gradually be replaced by shorter ones over time, as Norwegian has a tradition for contractions (to the eternal frustration of foreigners learning Norwegian, because spoken Norwegian tends to drop syllables and whole words with wild abandon) and replacing long terms.
[1] https://www.buildkcstreetcar.com/project-news/stages-of-a-st...
[2] We can, and also sometimes do (but a quick search of the Norwegian national library shows it's quite rare, with peaks of tens of uses in print some decades), use "sporvognholdeplass". If you were to say that people would probably wonder what century you are visiting from (even though the full term was no more common before), but it'd be understandable.
Norwegian has "trikk" for tram/streetcar and "stopp" for "stop", and so we have "trikkestopp" for tram stop (but see below). Trikk was a case of "sporvogn" - "track wagon" - being too long.
Meanwhile, while "streetcarstop" is not in use in English "streetcar stop" is some places. E.g.[1].
"Streetcar stopping place" of course would definitely be a step too far in English, but so would it be in e.g. Norwegian that otherwise mostly shares the German approach to combining words (to the point where newspapers regularly have articles about how the language is going to hell because people fail to combine words when they should) but where we'd go "hang on" and omit parts or otherwise rephrase to find a short alternative.
However, we do have "stoppeplass" for "stopping place", though more often used for somewhere to stop a car for a longer period, and "holdeplass" for "holding place" which implies a more temporary stopp, and so we can and sometimes do also use trikkeholdeplass - "tram holding place" [2], but these longer forms tends to gradually be replaced by shorter ones over time, as Norwegian has a tradition for contractions (to the eternal frustration of foreigners learning Norwegian, because spoken Norwegian tends to drop syllables and whole words with wild abandon) and replacing long terms.
[1] https://www.buildkcstreetcar.com/project-news/stages-of-a-st...
[2] We can, and also sometimes do (but a quick search of the Norwegian national library shows it's quite rare, with peaks of tens of uses in print some decades), use "sporvognholdeplass". If you were to say that people would probably wonder what century you are visiting from (even though the full term was no more common before), but it'd be understandable.
> to the point where newspapers regularly have articles about how the language is going to hell because people fail to combine words when they should
In Sweden there was for a few years a webpage dedicated to the fight against incorrectly writing words apart, famously producing red stickers that were then used as hypens where appropriate: http://www.skrivihop.nu/exempel/bilder/fika_sugen.jpg
They got wildly popular but shut down after just three years because they felt they ended up attracting a lot of asshole followers that outright harassed people in their name.
In Sweden there was for a few years a webpage dedicated to the fight against incorrectly writing words apart, famously producing red stickers that were then used as hypens where appropriate: http://www.skrivihop.nu/exempel/bilder/fika_sugen.jpg
They got wildly popular but shut down after just three years because they felt they ended up attracting a lot of asshole followers that outright harassed people in their name.
It sounds the same when you speak it it’s just a cultural convention whether you use a space or hyphen or nothing at all.
As a native English speaker, even "tramstop" or "busstop" sounds wrong to me.
As a native Norwegian speaker, I had to look it up to see whether a space was expected or not, as it seems entirely illogical for me to have a space there as they're so closely connected.
The distinction between "fully merged" compounds, hyphenated ones, and ones with spaces is yet another one of those endlessly annoying quirks of English.
The distinction between "fully merged" compounds, hyphenated ones, and ones with spaces is yet another one of those endlessly annoying quirks of English.
> The distinction between "fully merged" compounds, hyphenated ones, and ones with spaces is yet another one of those endlessly annoying quirks of English
Being cognizant of these really helps develop empathy with ESL learners.
Being cognizant of these really helps develop empathy with ESL learners.
"Too bad Germany didn't get invaded by the French until Napoleon."
Read up on the Holy Roman Empire. Germany, France etc are quite complicated concepts.
Read up on the Holy Roman Empire. Germany, France etc are quite complicated concepts.
To add some context here - the concept of a unified "Germany" has only existed four times in history. First under Charlemagne in the 800s, then under Otto von Bismarck in 1871, then under Adolf Hitler until the fall of the Third Reich in 1945 (assuming one considers annexation of the Sudetenland and the Anschluss to fully encompass Germanic people), and finally the modern state of Germany since 1990.
The partial absence of Austria and the German-speaking cantons of Switzerland, Italy, Belgium and perhaps France in all possible variations of these “concepts” means that a United Germany has never been truly achieved I suppose. Probably a good thing for those folks own cultural and dialect identity…
Language is just one element of identity anyway. Also, the concept of "United Country X" is a XIX century invention, largely based on now-discredited racist ideologies. We should aim for something better.
I can think of at least one situation where this idea of a "united country" is still being forcefully pushed today...
Seems arbitrary. Why Bismarck's Kaiser but none of those between Charlemagne and Napoleon? How German was the realm of Charlemagne when it reached further across the Pyrenees than it reached across the Elbe?
Charlemagne, of course, being king of the Franks and emperor of the Romans. Things back then do not match neatly to modern concepts such as a French or a German nation-state.
Weren't France and Germany essentially the same country during Charlemagne?
Correct. The current regional concept of "Germany" proper probably started with the Treaty of Verdun, when the lands of Francia were divided amongst three of Charlemagne's grandsons. The inheritor of Francia Orientalis was in fact also known as "Louis the German".
Don't think anyone was considering themselves French or German yet. There were smaller subdivisions we forgot about (or I forgot about, I'm no historian). They just happened to be all under Charlemagne's rule.
Yes, they were. Actually the core of both countries was one and the Franks did not care much about our modern borders. Western Francia became eventually France, while Eastern Francia became Franconia (roughly, the borders were always blurry and shifted a lot over time).
Of course, the Franks came from further East and never replaced the populations they invaded, so even there and then both cultures and peoples were always mixed.
Of course, the Franks came from further East and never replaced the populations they invaded, so even there and then both cultures and peoples were always mixed.
And not even all of those included all german speaking populations, i.e. a large part of Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein and all those regions/cities that were partly german, modern day Transylvania for example
It's not so much that the upper classes adopted French after 1066, it's that the upper class was replaced by people that spoke Norman French.
If you examine the richest landed gentry in England today a very sizeable number still bare the family names of those that fought for William at the Battle of Hastings.
If you examine the richest landed gentry in England today a very sizeable number still bare the family names of those that fought for William at the Battle of Hastings.
One of the best Christopher Hitchend quotes is about English/German compatibility:
> Der Brand (The Fire), by the historian Jörg Friedrich, accuses Winston Churchill of a conscious policy of airborne terrorism against civilians … The word “brand” in English, of course, carries a distinctly different vernacular meaning.
> Der Brand (The Fire), by the historian Jörg Friedrich, accuses Winston Churchill of a conscious policy of airborne terrorism against civilians … The word “brand” in English, of course, carries a distinctly different vernacular meaning.
Hitchens*
> upper classes adopting French after 1066
The upper classes were French after 1066 (Harold had definitively repelled the Danes for the last time just three weeks before Hastings).
The upper classes were French after 1066 (Harold had definitively repelled the Danes for the last time just three weeks before Hastings).
French does that too so I think an invasion would not have helped.
in English, we refer to smashed-together word(s) as "portmanteau", a French word that is a portmanteau itself
The sort of compound words which we're discussing appear by a process of synthesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language
See also: agglutination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutination
A portmanteau is different, where parts of several words are blended, rather than retaining the substance of each word in a compound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend_word
And let's not forget xkcd's coinage of the malamanteau:
https://xkcd.com/739/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language
See also: agglutination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutination
A portmanteau is different, where parts of several words are blended, rather than retaining the substance of each word in a compound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend_word
And let's not forget xkcd's coinage of the malamanteau:
https://xkcd.com/739/
[deleted]
French is pretty similar isnt it?
Pig/pork = cochon / porc
cow/beef = vache / boeuf
chicken/chicken = poulet/poulet
fish/fish = poisson/poisson
Pig/pork = cochon / porc
cow/beef = vache / boeuf
chicken/chicken = poulet/poulet
fish/fish = poisson/poisson
vache is gendered boeuf :D
We'd say "vache" when it comes to milk or the female, but all "vache" are "boeuf".
Boeuf is used when the gender does not mean much (like for meat).
We'd say "vache" when it comes to milk or the female, but all "vache" are "boeuf".
Boeuf is used when the gender does not mean much (like for meat).
More precisely, a "Boeuf" is a castrated bull which could explain the English meaning of the word..
Steer in English
We use Bullock in the UK.
I have always used 'bullock' to refer to a juvenile bull, but my dictionary lists that sense of the word under 'archaic'. It wouldn't be the first time that I've discovered I'm speaking Middle English!
Very often the juveniles have had the snip so I wonder if that’s the inflection point.
Bollocks, do we!
he meant the slang term "Boeuf" -- basically an accusation of being a feminine male.
boeuf is also gendered, it's just that "non-gendered" in French means defaulting to male. The same way that Scarlett Johansson is an actress, but Scarlet and Chris Evans are actors. You would never say that Scarlett alone is an actor.
There’s not really the same distinction between “live animal” and “food”, no!
Cochon and porc are both used for the live animal, and both used for the food as well (cochon is a bit less used for food, but still common enough).
Boeuf and vache aren’t really synonymous as another commenter pointed out
Cochon and porc are both used for the live animal, and both used for the food as well (cochon is a bit less used for food, but still common enough).
Boeuf and vache aren’t really synonymous as another commenter pointed out
What about steer and heifer, which I've read of in English and Western novels?
Their origin, I mean. I can google, but it's more fun to hear what others have to say. And argue, and put them down and up - or try to :)
Attitude frowned on by HN, I know, only they don't (seem to) know they are doing it themselves, via the voting mechanism, i.e. upvotes and downvotes.
Also, it's interesting that there are so many words for horses in English and Western (cowboy slang, I just made up the word :)
Their origin, I mean. I can google, but it's more fun to hear what others have to say. And argue, and put them down and up - or try to :)
Attitude frowned on by HN, I know, only they don't (seem to) know they are doing it themselves, via the voting mechanism, i.e. upvotes and downvotes.
Also, it's interesting that there are so many words for horses in English and Western (cowboy slang, I just made up the word :)
Steer means something something more like Bull in modern German I think - it doesn't have the connotations of a castrated animal as in English.
[deleted]
The same example is mentioned in The Adventure of English, a series presented by Melvyn Bragg.
I learnt the word beeves while reading the Doctrine (the PHP ORM) codebase. I assume it was in case someone had an entity called beef... So the collection would be beeves :) I wonder if anyone ever used Doctrine and had an entity called beef.
Oh I’ll say beefs when referring to cows as a joke. TIL it’s an actual word!
Old English had cognates of all three words: feahr (porc), swin and picga.
small correction : it's boeuf ^^ also, fun fact "taper un boeuf" doesn't mean "hitting a beef" but musicians jamming together ^^
> In both French and German the same word is used for the animal in the field and on the plate.
Ehh, in German we talk about Rindfleisch, which comes from a Kuh.
Ehh, in German we talk about Rindfleisch, which comes from a Kuh.
Rindfleisch comes from a Rind (which may be a Kuh, Bulle, or Ochse).
While not same, both are germanic words
If you have an interest in English and the evolution of the language you must check out the YouTuber Simon Roper.
There's no finer student of the subject than him and I appreciate that he starts every video with "I am not [a] formally qualified linguist," yet he has a deeper understanding than most.
Some of my favorite videos:
- Celtic Influence on English [0]
- Progressing Some Words from Proto-Germanic to English [1]
- A London Accent from the 14th to the 21st Centuries [2]
- A Northern US Accent from the 18th to the 21st Centuries [3]
- Old English and Middle English; why are they so different? [4]
---
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcCx43I2Vio
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F72jkM9An5Y
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lXv3Tt4x20
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXaXnQv6knQ
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWI_dFxbzyg
There's no finer student of the subject than him and I appreciate that he starts every video with "I am not [a] formally qualified linguist," yet he has a deeper understanding than most.
Some of my favorite videos:
- Celtic Influence on English [0]
- Progressing Some Words from Proto-Germanic to English [1]
- A London Accent from the 14th to the 21st Centuries [2]
- A Northern US Accent from the 18th to the 21st Centuries [3]
- Old English and Middle English; why are they so different? [4]
---
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcCx43I2Vio
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F72jkM9An5Y
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lXv3Tt4x20
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXaXnQv6knQ
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWI_dFxbzyg
Of course, if you are into podcasts, there is the fantastic “The History of English” podcast by Kevin Stroud.
He has been taking an historical journey through the development of English from proto-Indo-European and is currently up to the Elizabethan period and 172 episodes so far. There are also lots of side trips to specific topics to mix things up. Very enjoyable listen.
He has been taking an historical journey through the development of English from proto-Indo-European and is currently up to the Elizabethan period and 172 episodes so far. There are also lots of side trips to specific topics to mix things up. Very enjoyable listen.
Simon Roper is great. I was amused how I could understand the 'English' by the late 14th century pronunciation, but understood less when I was in Dublin in the 21st century when native hiberno-English speakers conversed together.
There's also The Story of English on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FtSUPAM-uA&list=PL6D54D1C7D...
> One of Charlemagne’s last descendants to be king of West Francia – the predecessor kingdom to France – grew up in the court of his uncle, King Æthelstan of Wessex in the tenth century.
Just to put things in perspective, Franks were a Germanic people and were much more culturally affine to the Anglo-Saxons.
Charlemagne didn't speak "French" so it's no surprise Louis IV didn't either.
The Latin substrate in the territory of modern France was so strong that it gradually took over the Germanic ruling class over centuries. Old French evolved during this time before the norman conquest.
Just to put things in perspective, Franks were a Germanic people and were much more culturally affine to the Anglo-Saxons.
Charlemagne didn't speak "French" so it's no surprise Louis IV didn't either.
The Latin substrate in the territory of modern France was so strong that it gradually took over the Germanic ruling class over centuries. Old French evolved during this time before the norman conquest.
And the original "lingua franca" wasn't French! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Lingua_Franca
Because the people of the Mediterranean were as imprecise as westerners are when referring to other people. They called "franks" any people in the west that didn't speak Greek. In the same way as many today call arabs any people that are Muslim even if thet are Turks or Iranians
> Latin substrate in the territory of modern France was so strong that it gradually took over the Germanic ruling class over centuries
Good place to point out that those Germanic speakers had a major impact on French, and to this day it is by far the most heavily influenced by Germanic, of all the languages descended from Latin.
For example: attaquer (attack). craquer (crack), affreux (fright), hautesse (height), saisir (seize), taper (tap), trier (tear). (I've given English cognates in parentheses, not translations -- "taper" means more like "to slap".)
In fact, Germanic borrowings are around 10 - 20% of French vocabulary.
Some words in English have actually cycled between the Germanic and Romance branches multiple times because of this. For example, Old French had a verb, something like "warder". Probably borrowed from Frankish. English borrowed "warden" from Norman French. Later, sound change in French shifted /w/ to a /gw/ sound, so warder -> guarder. English borrowed the word again, giving us "guardian". In this particular case, English also kept the original fully Germanic form - "warder" (noun).
Good place to point out that those Germanic speakers had a major impact on French, and to this day it is by far the most heavily influenced by Germanic, of all the languages descended from Latin.
For example: attaquer (attack). craquer (crack), affreux (fright), hautesse (height), saisir (seize), taper (tap), trier (tear). (I've given English cognates in parentheses, not translations -- "taper" means more like "to slap".)
In fact, Germanic borrowings are around 10 - 20% of French vocabulary.
Some words in English have actually cycled between the Germanic and Romance branches multiple times because of this. For example, Old French had a verb, something like "warder". Probably borrowed from Frankish. English borrowed "warden" from Norman French. Later, sound change in French shifted /w/ to a /gw/ sound, so warder -> guarder. English borrowed the word again, giving us "guardian". In this particular case, English also kept the original fully Germanic form - "warder" (noun).
s/hautesse/hauteur
> Franks were a Germanic people and were much more culturally affine to the Anglo-Saxons.
It very much depends on what you mean by Franks. As with everything in History, terms themselves have a history that must be understood. Clovis-era Franks were a Germanic people. Later in the Merovingian era not so clearly, as Germanity wasn't a defining characteristic of the Franks as a people and Germanic origins were seemingly forgotten. The push East under the later Merovingians and early Carolingians likely produced more Germanic-speaking Franks than there were before.
As for Charlemagne, while he couldn't indeed speak a language that didn't exist yet (French), considering the area his family was based around as well as his constraints and style of government, it would be surprising if he wasn't bilingual in Gallo-Romance and High German. Bilingualism is heavily implied throughout the Carolingian era in a lot of the written source, and explicit by the end.
It very much depends on what you mean by Franks. As with everything in History, terms themselves have a history that must be understood. Clovis-era Franks were a Germanic people. Later in the Merovingian era not so clearly, as Germanity wasn't a defining characteristic of the Franks as a people and Germanic origins were seemingly forgotten. The push East under the later Merovingians and early Carolingians likely produced more Germanic-speaking Franks than there were before.
As for Charlemagne, while he couldn't indeed speak a language that didn't exist yet (French), considering the area his family was based around as well as his constraints and style of government, it would be surprising if he wasn't bilingual in Gallo-Romance and High German. Bilingualism is heavily implied throughout the Carolingian era in a lot of the written source, and explicit by the end.
High German didn't exist yet, though. The High German sound shift hadn't happened yet.
At that time all the West Germanic dialects would have been closer to what we call "Low" Germanic now; Dutch, Low Saxon, Frisian, etc. Harder consonants where German now has softer ones.
And I imagine it was probably easier for them to muddle through mutually understanding each other back then.
But yes, in addition to Gallo-Romance, he probably spoke something similar to Old Low Franconian, which eventually became Dutch.
At that time all the West Germanic dialects would have been closer to what we call "Low" Germanic now; Dutch, Low Saxon, Frisian, etc. Harder consonants where German now has softer ones.
And I imagine it was probably easier for them to muddle through mutually understanding each other back then.
But yes, in addition to Gallo-Romance, he probably spoke something similar to Old Low Franconian, which eventually became Dutch.
[deleted]
The Frankish nobility would have been a minority in a land which was majority Romance speaking (Gaulish having unfortunately died out out by then). And at a certain point they were very interested in emulating and continuing the lineage of the western Roman empire, explicitly taking up late Roman styles and practices. Adopting Latin and Gallo-Romance speech would be just part of this.
Happened with the Goths in Spain as well.
It's interesting to compare to Anglo-Saxon England where this did not happen and the native Brittonic speech as well as late Romano-British Latin was wiped out.
Happened with the Goths in Spain as well.
It's interesting to compare to Anglo-Saxon England where this did not happen and the native Brittonic speech as well as late Romano-British Latin was wiped out.
The one that endlessly peeves me is that English broadcasters (e.g. BBC, The Economist) will bend over backwards to pronounce French words yet for Spanish words they trample all over them. The frequency with which they mispronounce "junta" is maddening.
This is because French is/was the defacto choice for foreign language option in secondary schools throughout the UK, at least up until the 2000s. French was after all the language of diplomacy and quite a bit more useful in European business last century than Spanish was.
Spanish is now catching up and will likely over take in the next couple of years. Latest number of GCSE exam entrants were about 125K for French, 115K for Spanish and 35K for German.
Spanish is now catching up and will likely over take in the next couple of years. Latest number of GCSE exam entrants were about 125K for French, 115K for Spanish and 35K for German.
Many words have been anglicized and so 'junta' wouldn't mean anything to English speakers with a Spanish j. But with a hard j, it has exactly the same meaning to us as it does to you. English is an excellent thief but not respectful of the origins. Even the giant % of the English language that is French, we pronounce in our own way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Frenc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Frenc...
Are you in the UK? In the US it would sound very off to hear “junta” with a hard “j”.
That doesn’t mean that English speakers try to fully reproduce how a Spanish speaker would pronounce the word and I think that is appropriate. If you are speaking one language to completely switch pronunciation for one word just breaks the flow of speech. Some compromise can be found.
That doesn’t mean that English speakers try to fully reproduce how a Spanish speaker would pronounce the word and I think that is appropriate. If you are speaking one language to completely switch pronunciation for one word just breaks the flow of speech. Some compromise can be found.
Californian. I’ve only ever heard it pronounced by non-Spanish speakers with a hard j.
That is basically the colonial mindset, one could argue :)
when billions retrain their mother tongue to learn English and accents, it would be a minimal respect to try to learn the origin.
For when, GWB invaded Iraq he didn't even ever have the decency to learn to pronounce the country's name - and neither does the populace still.
when billions retrain their mother tongue to learn English and accents, it would be a minimal respect to try to learn the origin.
For when, GWB invaded Iraq he didn't even ever have the decency to learn to pronounce the country's name - and neither does the populace still.
I think "junta" has had anglicised equivalents for pretty much as long as it's been a word in Spanish
Whereas many French derived words are either ostentatiously still-French like foodstuffs or would sound ridiculous with an attempted Anglo pronunciation, eg cafe. We don't exactly fall over to make marmalade or aviation sound French
Plus we're terrible at pronouncing the 'j' sound even when it's part of a Spanish person's name
Whereas many French derived words are either ostentatiously still-French like foodstuffs or would sound ridiculous with an attempted Anglo pronunciation, eg cafe. We don't exactly fall over to make marmalade or aviation sound French
Plus we're terrible at pronouncing the 'j' sound even when it's part of a Spanish person's name
In America, the reverse is true. Most French words are butchered, most Spanish words are at least pronounced properly (sometimes with an accent).
I suspect it has something to do with proximity to native speakers of the language, as France (effectively) borders the UK and Mexico borders the US.
I suspect it has something to do with proximity to native speakers of the language, as France (effectively) borders the UK and Mexico borders the US.
> In America, the reverse is true. Most French words are butchered
And inconsistently so!
I've had jury duty several times, and nobody can agree on how to pronounce voir dire. Some courts say "vwahr deer" which is a decent approximation of the French pronunciation, and others say "vore dyer". And while I haven't heard it myself, I wouldn't be surprised if some people pronounce voir as "voyeur".
And inconsistently so!
I've had jury duty several times, and nobody can agree on how to pronounce voir dire. Some courts say "vwahr deer" which is a decent approximation of the French pronunciation, and others say "vore dyer". And while I haven't heard it myself, I wouldn't be surprised if some people pronounce voir as "voyeur".
French person here, I have no idea what "voir dire" means. It's literally "see say".
It's Anglo-Norman[0], and means "to tell the truth" ("voir" being cognates with modern French "vrai", not "voir")
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language
It's a court procedure where you ask questions to an expert witness to verify they know what they're talking about
Interesting that you mention that use. I've spent thousands of hours in court and never heard the term applied to expert witnesses, perhaps because their background is often stipulated.
The use the public would be most familiar with is the interrogation of the jury pool, by both parties, to make sure they are suitable (e.g. suitably biased) jurors before trial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire
The use the public would be most familiar with is the interrogation of the jury pool, by both parties, to make sure they are suitable (e.g. suitably biased) jurors before trial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire
Voir dire has a technical meaning among lawyers in the English-speaking countries.
[deleted]
Did the various pronunciations cause any problems? If I’m honest, it doesn’t sound like a big deal to me.
And yet The US pronounces "herb" correctly (as "erb") while the UK, pronounces it like the name Herb, with an H.
And the British still insist on using article "an" before aspirated H-words as if they're all pretending to be posh cockneys.
You've lost me a bit on this.
Are you saying people who don't pronounce their aches should use "a" and not "an"? Because that would sound weird trying to pronouce two vowels like that.
We have two main ways of saying words like "hotel". I (with a rather non-descript vaguely southern accent) pronounce the H in hotel, and so say "a hotel". Many people from London and the south east (especially Essex and the parts of the home counties that has a large influx of North Londoners) will generally drop their leading "H" and say "an 'otel".
There is a third accent which is a minority, the rather extreme upper class accent where they also drop a lot of their leading Hs, and therefore use "an". That's not "posh cockney", that's just "posh", a lot of them have always spoken like that. Even among the posh I'd rank that accent as relatively rare these days.
Id does all lead to the occasional argument among slightly dull people about whether you should write "an hotel" or "a hotel".
Are you saying people who don't pronounce their aches should use "a" and not "an"? Because that would sound weird trying to pronouce two vowels like that.
We have two main ways of saying words like "hotel". I (with a rather non-descript vaguely southern accent) pronounce the H in hotel, and so say "a hotel". Many people from London and the south east (especially Essex and the parts of the home counties that has a large influx of North Londoners) will generally drop their leading "H" and say "an 'otel".
There is a third accent which is a minority, the rather extreme upper class accent where they also drop a lot of their leading Hs, and therefore use "an". That's not "posh cockney", that's just "posh", a lot of them have always spoken like that. Even among the posh I'd rank that accent as relatively rare these days.
Id does all lead to the occasional argument among slightly dull people about whether you should write "an hotel" or "a hotel".
US English calls herbs “erbs”, regardless of whether or not one is an aitch-speaker or not. Whereas “historic” is largely pronounced with the aitch, but you will find hypercorrectors who say “an historic” without dropping the aitch.
But some American dialects (midwest?) have dropped the use of "the" with a long 'e' before words beginning with a vowel.(ie: thee apple)
It sounds bizarre to me to use the short 'e'.
Some Americans whom I've met (I think Midwest ones, but not sure), also pronounce the word "often" as oft-en (but without any pause). I don't know how the British pronounce it. In India (having learnt somewhat British English), we pronounce it as "ofen", sort of rhyming with oxen.
And of course there is the famous "shedule" vs "skedule" pronunciation for schedule.
And of course there is the famous "shedule" vs "skedule" pronunciation for schedule.
As a Britisher in the USA, the use of a/an for H-words over here is super confusing to me.
And I've never been able to figure out what the correct way to say "homage" is.
And I've never been able to figure out what the correct way to say "homage" is.
> most Spanish words are at least pronounced properly (sometimes with an accent)
And that accent is almost never Spanish. It’s either Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican. My Spanish accent is very much Chicano, because I grew up in such a neighborhood in Southern California. Castilian Spanish sounds effete to me, and of course I sound uneducated to someone from Madrid.
Also, these pronunciations are far more common in the coastal states than flyover country.
And that accent is almost never Spanish. It’s either Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican. My Spanish accent is very much Chicano, because I grew up in such a neighborhood in Southern California. Castilian Spanish sounds effete to me, and of course I sound uneducated to someone from Madrid.
Also, these pronunciations are far more common in the coastal states than flyover country.
>from Madrid
90% of the speech outside of the big towns/cities, the Castilles and maybe Cantabria will sound uneducated or 'hick' to a Madrileño. Specially Aragon, Murcia, Extremadura and the infamous Andalusia where even the Risitas guy can be extremely hard to understand to natives outside Andalusia.
90% of the speech outside of the big towns/cities, the Castilles and maybe Cantabria will sound uneducated or 'hick' to a Madrileño. Specially Aragon, Murcia, Extremadura and the infamous Andalusia where even the Risitas guy can be extremely hard to understand to natives outside Andalusia.
Fascinating! Thank you for the correction.
I think trying to get British people to pronounce Spanish words correctly may be a quixotic effort :)
I don't know why people complain of this. Spaniards don't particularly pronounce English words in a very English manner either. They Spaniardize lots of English words: Football, Goal, Twitter, Pub, CD-ROM. Who cares!
The whole discussion is not very useful. There are sounds in Spanish that don’t exist in English and things that are just weird. And it’s the same the other way around. Not to mention, the same word can sound different with different Spanish accents, so which one should be used? There is nothing wrong with people adapting words from other languages or pronouncing them their way.
Besides, it’s cute when they try, but it’s not like most English people can pronounce French, either.
Besides, it’s cute when they try, but it’s not like most English people can pronounce French, either.
Trying to use my European learnt Spanish in the USA always gets laughs from the Latine population, when they can finally figure out what I'm saying.
>different.
Almost any. In Spain:
za, ce, ci, zo, zu -> tha,the, thi... as in "think".
In America they'll use the /s/ sound, but because the Internet usage both spellings are understood fine since "El Chavo del Ocho" times in Spain, Mexican/Venezuelan soap operas and, similarly, with todays' 'La Casa de Papel' from Spain overseas.
Almost any. In Spain:
za, ce, ci, zo, zu -> tha,the, thi... as in "think".
In America they'll use the /s/ sound, but because the Internet usage both spellings are understood fine since "El Chavo del Ocho" times in Spain, Mexican/Venezuelan soap operas and, similarly, with todays' 'La Casa de Papel' from Spain overseas.
Possibly not, though I was (mainly) musing about the style guides for publications distributed worldwide.
Fútbol and 'football' sound very close. Goal/Gol /gohl/ , I think not much. We spell 'twitter' with an American accent. At least we correctly say 'pub'.
Jimi Hendrix!
"Gin tonic"!
I was actually on an Explore trip through Spain & Portugal, where everyone was English but me.
In a bar I would order "bocadillo con jamon y queso" and they'd say, "Oh, you speak Spanish!"
In a bar I would order "bocadillo con jamon y queso" and they'd say, "Oh, you speak Spanish!"
The English side of Cypress is a trip... You're more likely to find an English pub than Cypriot (or Turkish!) food
Do you mean the sovereign base areas? Those are pretty much UK territory.
Limassol, Pissouri, Paphos, basically the whole southwestern coast
Nice :)
You would go absolutely postal over our pronunciation of Icelandic volcano names 8)
I do accept that junta should be pronounced "hunta" (in English). Spanish is easily an important enough language that most people that use a Roman style alphabet should be able to fix up pronunciation of those words/letters to suit the language in play.
I often notice that BBC news starts off with an awful pronunciation for a place, concept or whatever that might be considered obscure and then it gets better later on, once someone has noticed and the message has been passed through to the news reader.
I think that the last time our news readers had to deal with the pronunciation of junta was in the 1980s and Argentina. It's 2024 now and I hope we treat Spanish with the respect it is due.
I do accept that junta should be pronounced "hunta" (in English). Spanish is easily an important enough language that most people that use a Roman style alphabet should be able to fix up pronunciation of those words/letters to suit the language in play.
I often notice that BBC news starts off with an awful pronunciation for a place, concept or whatever that might be considered obscure and then it gets better later on, once someone has noticed and the message has been passed through to the news reader.
I think that the last time our news readers had to deal with the pronunciation of junta was in the 1980s and Argentina. It's 2024 now and I hope we treat Spanish with the respect it is due.
I suppose this is because in the UK there is still this whiff of upper class and culture if you can speak French. The new King Charles was the first monarch to give a speech in the French parliament (afaik), and he did it in French, for instance.
Spanish? Nah, we sunk the Armada and took Gibraltar, that's about it... and let's not forget the Argies.
Spanish? Nah, we sunk the Armada and took Gibraltar, that's about it... and let's not forget the Argies.
There is still an expectation that even mildly posh British people know how to pronounce French words at least approximately correctly.
Speaking French was historically a strong class marker. The phrase "pas devant les domestiques" which as sufficiently commonly used to be contracted to just "pas devant" is a good example (you would not use it if the domestics would understand it).
I was born in a country (Sri Lanka) where speaking English is a class marker. Not simply whether you can or can not speak it (lots of people can speak it to some extent) but how well you speak it, your accent, and whether you are a native speaker (in that it is the language you use to talk to your family and friends) or not.
Speaking French was historically a strong class marker. The phrase "pas devant les domestiques" which as sufficiently commonly used to be contracted to just "pas devant" is a good example (you would not use it if the domestics would understand it).
I was born in a country (Sri Lanka) where speaking English is a class marker. Not simply whether you can or can not speak it (lots of people can speak it to some extent) but how well you speak it, your accent, and whether you are a native speaker (in that it is the language you use to talk to your family and friends) or not.
>Spanish? Nah, we sunk the Armada and took Gibraltar, that's about it.
And shared a king: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain
And shared a king: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain
Not a highlight in English history as it was a rather bloody time.
If you want to feel better about British willingness to butcher French too (ignoring the huge chunk of older loanwords from French - e.g. most -ion words and -ment words, maby other large groups), look up the English village of Beaulieu (named by French monks, so it's the French "beau lieu"), and how the English pronounce it.
It was maddening to me when visiting the place.
But as Alexandre Dumas reputedly said, English is just badly pronounced French (ok, so that is an exaggeration; and I cant be bothered to check if that statement is apocryphal or not)
It was maddening to me when visiting the place.
But as Alexandre Dumas reputedly said, English is just badly pronounced French (ok, so that is an exaggeration; and I cant be bothered to check if that statement is apocryphal or not)
It's not as butchered as you think. Some of it is simply older (Norman-)French pronunciation fossilized in English. It's similar to how you can find Middle Chinese across Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese or Proto-Germanic in Finnish.
Norman French is still used in the House of Commons sometimes:
https://youtu.be/xBcR-s8QtoQ?si=hm8sHgRZUQ_A5dNy&t=6
https://youtu.be/xBcR-s8QtoQ?si=hm8sHgRZUQ_A5dNy&t=6
That would make French just badly pronounced Latin. And that Latin was just a puffed up corruption of Proto-Indo-European. Of course, language history is just turtles all the way down. All languages change as we speak them.
> English is just badly pronounced French
At least it got me (barely) passing marks in French lessons at my German school: to write French, I would set up the sentence in my head in English, shake it around violently until all the words not sufficiently French-sounding where replaced with roughly synonymous words that did and then improvised accents and conjugation. Unfortunately that cheat is terribly useless in real life.
At least it got me (barely) passing marks in French lessons at my German school: to write French, I would set up the sentence in my head in English, shake it around violently until all the words not sufficiently French-sounding where replaced with roughly synonymous words that did and then improvised accents and conjugation. Unfortunately that cheat is terribly useless in real life.
Go to youtube and see how NewFoundLand in Canada is pronounced. People just want a single word.
It cracks me up that the Foundland wasn't good enough (some place in the UK), so off they went to find New!
It cracks me up that the Foundland wasn't good enough (some place in the UK), so off they went to find New!
> bend over backwards
That is literally a valid movement of the tongue to produce a retroflex [ɭ].
In contrast, Spanish phonology lacks retroflex entirely.
That is literally a valid movement of the tongue to produce a retroflex [ɭ].
In contrast, Spanish phonology lacks retroflex entirely.
In the USA it is a national sport to trample on French origin words.. look at the Motor City "Detroit" !
I don’t think most people including those from the area would even associate the name with French, so there isn’t the same intentionality. It’s the same with indigenous language-origin or Spanish-origin place names in the US/Canada, our place names in general that are often centuries old and conceptually separate from their origins, and feels quite distinct from intentionally trying to emulate a foreign language pronunciation for one language but butchering words in another language (not that that’s unique to the UK).
I didn't know Detroit had French Origin.
Spanish slang from the 90s in my country imported Detroit and Spanish-ized the pronunciation as ditroy.
Since it has the same consonants as detrás, Spanish for behind, it can be used a a synonym for behind and also as an euphemism for the behind part of the body.
Spanish slang from the 90s in my country imported Detroit and Spanish-ized the pronunciation as ditroy.
Since it has the same consonants as detrás, Spanish for behind, it can be used a a synonym for behind and also as an euphemism for the behind part of the body.
It's a lesser known fact but Chicago also has French origins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chicago
> I didn't know Detroit had French Origin.
It means "strait".
It means "strait".
Yes but for an unknown reason Des Moines was not completely butchered
The classic English-language (not just British) example is the name of Chile's former dictator. "Pinochet" should be pronounced with a hard 't' at the end, as is the case in Spanish, and not the French silent 't'.
But Pinochet is a French family name why would the French mispronounced it?
Surnames should be pronounced the way the person who has it pronounces it.
My family do nor pronounce our Dutch surname "correctly" - but its centuries since the ancestor we got the name from left the Netherlands. We use an archaic spelling too.
My family do nor pronounce our Dutch surname "correctly" - but its centuries since the ancestor we got the name from left the Netherlands. We use an archaic spelling too.
For some reason this has made me wonder what the most circuitous route for a loan word has been.
Imagine if “junta” had taken a trip up through Central Europe and then to the Scandinavians, then down, so we could pronounce it “yunta.”
Imagine if “junta” had taken a trip up through Central Europe and then to the Scandinavians, then down, so we could pronounce it “yunta.”
I might put forth assegaai (a type of throwing spear)...?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assegaai
Berber -> Arabic -> Spanish -> Dutch -> English
each link makes sense if you consider (in order) Caliph Al-Walid, Ferdinand and Isabella, Charles V (or Charles the Bold?), and William III
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assegaai
Berber -> Arabic -> Spanish -> Dutch -> English
each link makes sense if you consider (in order) Caliph Al-Walid, Ferdinand and Isabella, Charles V (or Charles the Bold?), and William III
Honest, I have literally never heard anyone ever say "junta" with a hard /j/ sound. Is this really a thing?
Definitely a thing in the UK, it's how the Oxford English Dictionary says it's pronounced (noting that it's different in the US).
I have heard too many people say "jally pea no", but the most frequent pronunciation of jalepeño is with a hard j
I have heard too many people say "jally pea no", but the most frequent pronunciation of jalepeño is with a hard j
It's adapted into my language as junta with hard /j/ so yes, it's a thing
Don‘t worry the French are not better as the word is junte in French with a [ʒ] sound
There is no equivalent to the Spanish /j/ in French. Besides, the -e ending instead of the Spanish -a should tell you that it has been adapted and is used as a loanword, a French word of Spanish origin, not a Spanish word.
Spanish itself is full of loanwords, particularly from Arabic, which are not pronounced like in Arabic either (which Arabic, anyway?)
There is no better or worse, there are just words that travel across languages.
Spanish itself is full of loanwords, particularly from Arabic, which are not pronounced like in Arabic either (which Arabic, anyway?)
There is no better or worse, there are just words that travel across languages.
It was a joke! And in French we tend to either keep or not the original pronunciation. A funny one is mojito where the j is always replace by a French r.
[deleted]
yes, this is a real thing
[deleted]
Ignorance is a sport in England
I'm more upset at how few 'educated' English speakers can pronounce archaic English. I'm so sick of hearing about the Anglo-Saxon poem "Bay O'Wolf".
I'm really enjoying The History of English Podcast which covers this. It's about the English language along with all the history along the way.
Do they try to use appropriate pronunciation?
Appropriate for what? The podcast covers soooo much and attempts to catalog all influences from proto-indo-European onward, with a focus on shared word origins and phonetic changes over time. So some of the pronunciation is speculative reconstruction.
That's what I meant: pronunciation (as best as can be reconstructed) of a word being discussed in a historical context.
Yup, the host goes into that. It covers from the Indo-Europeans up to Shakespeare (where the podcast is at currently). To get an idea of the show's perspective, the host is something of an amateur linguist and historian. So it's the historical and linguistic reasons that English is the way it is.
All time great podcast, IMO.
All time great podcast, IMO.
I'm currently reading "Queens of the Crusades" by Allison Weir, about the lives of England's Medieval queens, starting from Eleanor of Aquitaine. From the book, the model I have to understand the context of French culture in Medieval England is to think of it as yet another principality within the much larger French cultural umbrella of continental Europe. Eleanor spoke not "French", but Lengadòc or Occitan. She learned Norman French later in life. Her daughter-in-law, Berengaria of Navarre, spoke Castilian like her Castilian mother, and the rest of the Navarrese nobility, along with some Occitan. Later queens came from from the duchy of Provence. Through marriage, they were also duchesses of Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, Gascony - regions that, like England, had cultural and linguistic similarities with the Kingdom of France, but their own independent political history. Some were held nominally as vassals of the French court, some not.
That sounds interesting, I think I need to put that on my reading list.
It's hard for people now to think about history outside of the context of the relatively ordered national boarders that exist today. Most of the modern countries of Europe didn't exist in the medievil period, and many are less than a couple of hundred years old. I think it would surprise a lot of people if you told them that "Italy" as a country, is younger than the USA, or that "Spain" was a pretty young country when Columbus sailed the Atlantic.
And as you say, even ones like France, that had a "top king" so to speak, were really loose associations of dukedoms and minor kingdoms.
It's hard for people now to think about history outside of the context of the relatively ordered national boarders that exist today. Most of the modern countries of Europe didn't exist in the medievil period, and many are less than a couple of hundred years old. I think it would surprise a lot of people if you told them that "Italy" as a country, is younger than the USA, or that "Spain" was a pretty young country when Columbus sailed the Atlantic.
And as you say, even ones like France, that had a "top king" so to speak, were really loose associations of dukedoms and minor kingdoms.
I can recommend “Vanished Kingdoms” on the subject of pre-modern Europe:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanished_Kingdoms
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanished_Kingdoms
> Previously predominant links to Scandinavia were replaced by ones with France
William the Conqueror actually was a distant but direct descendant of Rollo [1], a viking who invaded Normandy. The influence of Scandinavian language was quite strong, as many names come from scandinavian [2]. So the French William brought to England was probably still a bit scandinavian.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo [2] (French only) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toponymie_normande#Toponymie_n...
William the Conqueror actually was a distant but direct descendant of Rollo [1], a viking who invaded Normandy. The influence of Scandinavian language was quite strong, as many names come from scandinavian [2]. So the French William brought to England was probably still a bit scandinavian.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo [2] (French only) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toponymie_normande#Toponymie_n...
French left its mark on the legal system and the tradition lives on in America. Several phrases use both the French and English word:
* cease and desist
* aiding and abetting
* assault and battery
* cease and desist
* aiding and abetting
* assault and battery
What a coincidence that I'm reading your comment on the day I learned about the origin of 'culprit' https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culprit
> From Anglo-Norman cul. prit, contraction of culpable: prest (d'averrer nostre bille) 'guilty: ready (to prove our case)', words used by prosecutor in opening a trial, mistaken in English for an address to the defendant.
> From Anglo-Norman cul. prit, contraction of culpable: prest (d'averrer nostre bille) 'guilty: ready (to prove our case)', words used by prosecutor in opening a trial, mistaken in English for an address to the defendant.
Wait wait wait...a few days ago some American scientist dared to say that adding a small pinch of salt to a cup of hot tea will help with bitterness in the tea. England almost split a spleen! Now we hear of the word subsumed?
What the hell does subsumed even mean?!? (just kidding, I know it means adding up something under water.)
What the hell does subsumed even mean?!? (just kidding, I know it means adding up something under water.)
The pinch of salt also really helps improve bad coffee. Something about the chemistry of the salt ions interacting with taste receptors makes really bitter or sour coffee taste somewhat drinkable
Of course James Hoffman did a video on it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PUWQQ-joKE]
Of course James Hoffman did a video on it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PUWQQ-joKE]
It was a time in history which had such an insanely wide gap between the elite and the common folk, and when there was zero to little literacy among the common folk, and basically no written history of them...
Yes, the aristocracy was profoundly Norman French & French influenced. But I'm willing to bet the vast majority of actual humans were speaking English -- with various levels of influence from Danish/Old Norse -- and completely unable to process French words of any kind and encountering it about 0 times in their daily lives.
Even today the level of "class" and "sophistication" of an English language user is unconsciously tied to how many Latin & French origin words they toss into their speech and writing.
Yes, the aristocracy was profoundly Norman French & French influenced. But I'm willing to bet the vast majority of actual humans were speaking English -- with various levels of influence from Danish/Old Norse -- and completely unable to process French words of any kind and encountering it about 0 times in their daily lives.
Even today the level of "class" and "sophistication" of an English language user is unconsciously tied to how many Latin & French origin words they toss into their speech and writing.
The book The Shortest History of England by James Hawes opened my eyes to how French and Danish (Viking) England used to be… repeatedly over time.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45420401
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45420401
users may find this related article and comments interesting: (from 4 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37607851 "French was the official language of England from 1066 till 1362 (frenchleeds.co.uk)"
Reminds me of a scene from the Vikings TV show where Rollo tries to learn French.
https://youtu.be/i5ZdBsbj8K0
I was a savage but now I am a man of great wealth and civility
https://youtu.be/i5ZdBsbj8K0
I was a savage but now I am a man of great wealth and civility
while one can have a laugh about some French words in English, the most common and essential words are pretty much all Norse -- such as tree, root, boat, grass, bloom, man, egg, house, husband, hand, heart, skin, skull, cake, cow, lift, seat, from, hound, warm, blend, back, foot, cast, hate, water, bark, ford, etc.
Even within the Germanic words there are multiple origins. For example "shirt" and "skirt", "shatter" and "scatter", one from Anglo-Saxon and the other from Norse.
"shirt" and "skirt" both come from the Old Norse "skyrta", as is the case for the two corresponding words in the modern Nordic languages
Mushroom <-- Mousseron (a type of Mushroom/"Champignon")
I notice that the great universities and scholars of the English-speaking world have created a Dictionary of Old English (in progress at U. of Toronto), Middle English Dictionary (completed, at U. Michigan), and the grand historical dictionary of early modern and modern English, the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford U.).
https://doe.artsci.utoronto.ca/ - free with registration
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dicti... - free
https://oed.com - ~$100/yr
Somehow, one major era of English language history has been overlooked, one that "contributed so much vocabulary to medieval English that, alongside Latin, it remains the largest source of non-English words", and so prevelant that "Early printing of French books outweighed that of English in England.". Chronologically slotted between Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon) and Middle English, it is of course Anglo-French (or Anglo-Norman).
One of the article authors says out loud the great implicit fear of the English(-speakers), and then comforts them:
"Did this make the English partly French? Only if you project back the 19th century’s nationalising image of French and English as the mutually exclusive properties of two nation-states."
Thank goodness. Someone remove this abomination from the front page! (/s)
https://doe.artsci.utoronto.ca/ - free with registration
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dicti... - free
https://oed.com - ~$100/yr
Somehow, one major era of English language history has been overlooked, one that "contributed so much vocabulary to medieval English that, alongside Latin, it remains the largest source of non-English words", and so prevelant that "Early printing of French books outweighed that of English in England.". Chronologically slotted between Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon) and Middle English, it is of course Anglo-French (or Anglo-Norman).
One of the article authors says out loud the great implicit fear of the English(-speakers), and then comforts them:
"Did this make the English partly French? Only if you project back the 19th century’s nationalising image of French and English as the mutually exclusive properties of two nation-states."
Thank goodness. Someone remove this abomination from the front page! (/s)
> The Norman Conquest brought French kings
I stopped at the first sentence. It's historically illiterate to say the Normans were 'French', in particular William I. If that were the case, then Edward the Confessor was just as 'French' as the Normans who replaced the house of Wessex.
The etymology of the word Norman tells you all you need to know.
I stopped at the first sentence. It's historically illiterate to say the Normans were 'French', in particular William I. If that were the case, then Edward the Confessor was just as 'French' as the Normans who replaced the house of Wessex.
The etymology of the word Norman tells you all you need to know.
It is somewhat unwise to stop reading at the subtitle.
Subtitles are often chosen by editors, not authors, and may not reflect the author's competence.
Plus, the subtitle only requires one correction to become entirely true: instead of "French", it should say "French-speaking". Because by the time of the Conquest, the switch of the Normans' vernacular from Old Norse to Old French was long complete. By some four to five generations or so.
Subtitles are often chosen by editors, not authors, and may not reflect the author's competence.
Plus, the subtitle only requires one correction to become entirely true: instead of "French", it should say "French-speaking". Because by the time of the Conquest, the switch of the Normans' vernacular from Old Norse to Old French was long complete. By some four to five generations or so.
> instead of "French", it should say "French-speaking"
Mostly true, but the Norman language isn't 100% the same as French, and the differences affected the development of the English language. For example, if England had been conquered by true French speakers, the words "war" and "cat" would have been something like "guar" and "chat" instead.
In fact, there are a few doublets where we borrowed both the Norman and French versions of a word into English. A good example of this is "warranty" and "guarantee"; the former is Norman, and the latter is French. Another is "cattle" and "chattel"; again, the former is Norman, and the latter is French.
Mostly true, but the Norman language isn't 100% the same as French, and the differences affected the development of the English language. For example, if England had been conquered by true French speakers, the words "war" and "cat" would have been something like "guar" and "chat" instead.
In fact, there are a few doublets where we borrowed both the Norman and French versions of a word into English. A good example of this is "warranty" and "guarantee"; the former is Norman, and the latter is French. Another is "cattle" and "chattel"; again, the former is Norman, and the latter is French.
Yes, but we are talking about the situation 1000 years ago, when languages weren't standardized and, as a result, much more fuzzy. Today you can say where, say, German ends and Dutch begins; but it used to be a continuum. Same with French.
Even Medieval Latin spoken by the learned people was a bit different from Classical Latin of Cicero, and that was a language which was taken care of by educated, literate people. Vernaculars of the day ... well, tended to be different from region to region, because there was no one with enough influence and authority to codify them.
Looking at that situation, I am fine with classifying 11-th century Norman as "basically French". Mutual intelligibility was certainly fairly high. William the Conqueror would need no interpreter when talking to some Parisian merchant. There were some Norse leftovers present, but such was the situation everywhere.
Even Medieval Latin spoken by the learned people was a bit different from Classical Latin of Cicero, and that was a language which was taken care of by educated, literate people. Vernaculars of the day ... well, tended to be different from region to region, because there was no one with enough influence and authority to codify them.
Looking at that situation, I am fine with classifying 11-th century Norman as "basically French". Mutual intelligibility was certainly fairly high. William the Conqueror would need no interpreter when talking to some Parisian merchant. There were some Norse leftovers present, but such was the situation everywhere.
> For example, if England had been conquered by true French speakers, the words "war" and "cat" would have been something like "guar" and "chat" instead.
Even today there are dialects in France where people say "cat" (with a silent t) instead of "chat", and nobody would call them "not French", or not French-speaking, for that.
Even today there are dialects in France where people say "cat" (with a silent t) instead of "chat", and nobody would call them "not French", or not French-speaking, for that.
> by true French speakers
Was that really a thing in the middle ages? Every region had its own dialect and people living in the half of the territory of modern France didn't even speak any form of "French". e.g. Occitan is as Italian or Spanish as it is French.
Was that really a thing in the middle ages? Every region had its own dialect and people living in the half of the territory of modern France didn't even speak any form of "French". e.g. Occitan is as Italian or Spanish as it is French.
Weren't the Normans more culturally French than anything else at that point? William the Conqueror did speak it as his first language.
Normans were definitely French speaking, though their cultural pecularities made them a specific unit. For example, they were considered very warlike, and even Norman clergy was inclined to carry weapons and engage in combat, which wasn't typical elsewhere.
If we consider 911 to be the year when Normandy was founded, it took just two centuries for Norman power to expand from Normandy to England, South Italy and Palestine, which is quite a remarkable feat. In contrast, power of the Capetian kings remained limited to the region around Paris. Which is a testament to the aforementioned warlikeness of the Normans.
If we consider 911 to be the year when Normandy was founded, it took just two centuries for Norman power to expand from Normandy to England, South Italy and Palestine, which is quite a remarkable feat. In contrast, power of the Capetian kings remained limited to the region around Paris. Which is a testament to the aforementioned warlikeness of the Normans.
You are being downvoted in part because if you’d kept reading you’d find that info is all in the article.
The Normans were ethnically Vikings from Norway (i.e. North-men). In 911 the Franks made a treaty giving them Normandy so they would stop raiding and ally with France. After a while they resumed their raiding habits, invaded England and also Sicily and southern Italy. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Norman-people
There's a lot of cause and effeect assumptions in the article.
French has long been the lingua franca of the top tier of the international upper class, due to history changing outcomes of the Frankish dynasties. In fact, the French language's status, as such, is indirectly where we get the term lingua franca. Modern English Royalty, for example, may not always be fluent in French (many are) but they are more likely to have second language instruction in French than in other languages. Knowledge of certain French words and phrases is essential to English language literacy. There isn't another language for which the same can be said in the context of the English language. The invading Normans were as likely to be fluent in English, Dutch, and/or German and they were in French. The medieval conflicts between the Norman-English and French Kings are best characterized as a conflict between different Houses of the Franks.
French has long been the lingua franca of the top tier of the international upper class, due to history changing outcomes of the Frankish dynasties. In fact, the French language's status, as such, is indirectly where we get the term lingua franca. Modern English Royalty, for example, may not always be fluent in French (many are) but they are more likely to have second language instruction in French than in other languages. Knowledge of certain French words and phrases is essential to English language literacy. There isn't another language for which the same can be said in the context of the English language. The invading Normans were as likely to be fluent in English, Dutch, and/or German and they were in French. The medieval conflicts between the Norman-English and French Kings are best characterized as a conflict between different Houses of the Franks.
No, the Frankish monarchs did not speak French, nor did "lingua franca" ever refer to French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankish_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Lingua_Franca
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankish_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Lingua_Franca
Virtually all Western European Monarchs spoke French, traditionally and after the formation of France.
To clarify: your assertion is that the Frankish Monarchs, after whom France is named, and specifically the Frankish Carolingians, etc, and the Frankish Normans didn't speak French?
I said "indirectly". Meaning, that Frankish power in Western Europe, mythologically rooted in their claimed link to Rome, is the root of both the term lingua Franca as well as the status of the French language as the shared language of Royalty. The French language is the lingua Franca of the Western European Upper class, especially in a historical context. This isn't up for debate.
To clarify: your assertion is that the Frankish Monarchs, after whom France is named, and specifically the Frankish Carolingians, etc, and the Frankish Normans didn't speak French?
I said "indirectly". Meaning, that Frankish power in Western Europe, mythologically rooted in their claimed link to Rome, is the root of both the term lingua Franca as well as the status of the French language as the shared language of Royalty. The French language is the lingua Franca of the Western European Upper class, especially in a historical context. This isn't up for debate.
Charlemagne spoke Frankish, a Germanic language. The Normans who came later did speak something related to modern French.
The term "lingua Franca" means "language of the Franks" and the term Frank was used at the time to refer to all Western Europeans. It never referred to the French language in particular.
The term "lingua Franca" means "language of the Franks" and the term Frank was used at the time to refer to all Western Europeans. It never referred to the French language in particular.
> Charlemagne spoke Frankish, a Germanic language
The only proven linguistic characteristic of Charlemagne is that he wasn't very good with Classical Latin.
The only proven linguistic characteristic of Charlemagne is that he wasn't very good with Classical Latin.
The example that I think most native English speakers learn at some point is the reason for the distinction in food words: we eat pork (porc) and beef (boef) but they are the flesh of the pig/swine (Schwein) or cow (Kuh). This reflects the elite's use of French (thus using French words for food on the table) while the English servants used their Germanic vocabulary for the animals they worked with.
In both French and German the same word is used for the animal in the field and on the plate.
And then there are innumerable hybrids (anglicized french words). With regards to food and husbandry, one my of favorites is "beeves" ("cattle" -- "beefs"): while I have never heard the word spoken aloud I have seen it in novels even as late as the early 60s.