boo

Discuss word origins and meanings.

boo

Post by spiritus » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:01 am

Sandy,

Let's ignore the fact that Erik is correct; has all his ducks in order; and knows with no small degree of confidence that his historicism is in accordance, 'line and verse' with the official version.

Let's also agree to ignore his sometimes curt, dogmatic and insensitive delivery of the facts. Though, to my thinking, its his attempts to control these tendencies that make him so charming and damned endearing.

As injurious to your sensibilities as his unadorned admonishments may be; you gotta love the guy. Sandy, if it helps any; Erik is not selective in his treatment of others. He is capable of being endearingly irritating to everyone; regardless of nationality; religion; race; or religion. I consider him one of the reasons which makes a daily dose of WW good for what ails you.

P.S. Erik, comment on this post only if you really wish to state something I don't know. "G"
Post actions:
Signature: Che Baraka

boo

Post by Erik_Kowal » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:30 am

OK, I'll try and ignore the fact that I am correct. *G*
Post actions:
Signature: -- Looking up a word? Try OneLook's metadictionary (--> definitions) and reverse dictionary (--> terms based on your definitions)8-- Contribute favourite diary entries, quotations and more here8 -- Find new postings easily with Active Topics8-- Want to research a word? Get essential tips from experienced researcher Ken Greenwald

boo

Post by spiritus » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:56 am

Erik, you're not playing fair. I know that you are correct. The rules dictate that you can only respond to my ignorance.
Post actions:
Signature: Che Baraka

boo

Post by Erik_Kowal » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:57 am

But you seem to know everything about me.
Post actions:
Signature: -- Looking up a word? Try OneLook's metadictionary (--> definitions) and reverse dictionary (--> terms based on your definitions)8-- Contribute favourite diary entries, quotations and more here8 -- Find new postings easily with Active Topics8-- Want to research a word? Get essential tips from experienced researcher Ken Greenwald

boo

Post by spiritus » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:01 am

Much better. Thank you.
Post actions:
Signature: Che Baraka

boo

Post by sandx » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:29 pm

David Crystal,who has written 40 books on language, states in his encyclopedia that `This 150 years,was the dark age in the history of the language` and that` judging by the documents which have survived,it seems that French was the language of government,law,administration,literature and the Church`
Andrew Dalby in his work on the subject states that`When Middle English is again recorded,it has become a different language,heavily influenced by Norman French (for the first century of the conquest)and by Parisian French (from the mid 12 century onwards). In old English there were several ways of forming the plural of nouns, now it is -s,the same as in medieval French` `The language is full of French loan words and still is.`

Most experts on the period agree,that had the conquest lasted longer `anglo-saxon`,like Celtic 500 years before,could possibly have disappeared totally.

Mr Kowal seems very generous with `a piece of his mind`. I suggest ,he save some for himself.
Post actions:

boo

Post by Erik_Kowal » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:52 pm

Sandy, you are clearly not a person to allow yourself to be confused by the facts when you make your mind up about something. I applaud your courage.

When does the straw harvest take place in your neck of the woods?
Post actions:
Signature: -- Looking up a word? Try OneLook's metadictionary (--> definitions) and reverse dictionary (--> terms based on your definitions)8-- Contribute favourite diary entries, quotations and more here8 -- Find new postings easily with Active Topics8-- Want to research a word? Get essential tips from experienced researcher Ken Greenwald

boo

Post by Phil White » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:53 pm

Sandy,

With all due respect, it seems that your citations from David Crystal and Andrew Dalby are fully in harmony with what both Erik and I wrote, namely that French was the dominant written language for a considerable period due to its primacy in administration and law (I would disagree with respect to its primacy in the Church), and that when written documents in English began to reappear in any quantity, the language had been heavily influenced by French, particularly in terms of the lexicon (and there most especially in the particular areas cited). Neither of us would disagree, and indeed said so explicitly.

This is all, however, far from saying that "In the middle ages 80% (app) of the language spoken in England was French" or "The Germanic languages that English is based on all but died out in this period."

The conquest period did not last longer, and the rather quirky language that evolved, with all its warts and influences, is the rather magnificent one we have.

I don't claim to be an expert in historical linguistics, as my professional interests have changed over the years, but Old High German, Middle High German, Anglo-Saxon and Middle English, coupled with the history of the German language did make up almost half of my degree course. It's not a subject I'm unfamiliar with.
Post actions:
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

boo

Post by pingpong fan » Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:28 am

[quote]Originally posted by Shelley
Spiritus, the hokey-pokey is undoubtedly what it's all about. But, what the bleep do I know?
I forgot the topic -- oh yeah, "BOO"!
Am a very late arrival on this subject and googled "boo"- one definition is "pot" not mentioned so far. Frank
Post actions:

End of topic.
Post Reply