Why do you insist on Americanism when the English language has rules?

English, is the language of England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and the various countries that have been affected and/or settled by the English, including Ireland 🇮🇪,Scotland, Wales, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Australia 🇦🇺, New Zealand 🇳🇿, Canada 🇨🇦, the United States 🇺🇸 and countless territories around the world 🌍 and English is the lingua Franca for the rest of the world, especially places like various African nations including South Africa 🇿🇦, Botswana 🇧🇼, Nigeria 🇳🇬, Ghana 🇬🇭, Uganda 🇺🇬, India 🇮🇳, Pakistan 🇵🇰 and even Papua New Guinea 🇵🇬, all have been aware of how English is spoken!

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SandWitch · 26-30, F

I should point out to you Smidke, that "English" is not the language of England as your post states to the contrary.

English was actually a West Germanic language in the Indo-European language family, which stretches from the east Atlantic coast to as far as India.

The namesake of the English language is the language of the Angles peoples and the Saxon peoples, both of whom were ancient Germanic peoples who lived in and around north-west Germany near Denmark.

The part of Germany where they lived was therefore called the Angles region and the Saxon region, both of which formed the northern quadrant of west Germany.

The English language was then brought to the yet un-settled Island of Britain during the mid-5th to 7th Century AD by Anglo-Saxon migrants from west Germany who ventured west as explorers and then settled in what's now known as the UK.

The word "England", hence the word "English" originated from the old English word "Engla-Land" which literally means "the land of the Angles" where "Englisc" was spoken. "Englisc" then became written as "English".

The reason the English language arrived on the shores of the USA is because the people who first migrated to North America were fleeing the King of England and therefore already spoke English as their first language .

Along with those who were fleeing England were migrants from Holland, Denmark and Germany who also spoke English but only as a second language and who used the same dialect of English as those who were fleeing the King of England. This is because a common dialect of English was common throughout northern Europe to as far as India.

English therefore, is not the language of England, but in fact is the ancient language of north-west Germany which then became a mandatory second language that is still taught as such in schools today all throughout northern Europe, including all Scandinavian countries.

The difference in the way that the English language of ancient Germany is spoken in the USA compared to anywhere else in the world, came about as an intentional mocking that was directed at the King of England as those newly arrived migrants from England to the new land they called 'America', formed their independence from England.

That is why 'Independence Day' is still celebrated in the USA on the 4th of July each year to commemorate the USA's separation from England and it's total independence from the dictates of King of England during the 1700's.

The English language is therefore Germany's ancient language, not England's.

1-25 of 39

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@SandWitch "English?" is actually a blend of Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and endless other languages which has developed over millennia. I guess you could say it came from Proto-Indo-European, but in its modern form it is a blend of multiple sources and it continues to grow and expand.

MethDozer · M

@SandWitch [quote]. The English language was then brought to the yet un-settled Island of Britain [/quote] Britain most certainly was settled before the Angles and Saxons invaded. The Brittons being the most notable as that is why it's called.... Wait for it.... Britain. It was far from unsettled when they arrived. The Angles and Saxons weren't settlers, they were invaders.

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@MethDozer Same thing, really.

MethDozer · M

@ChipmunkErnie No it isn't
She states Britain was uninhabited. It certainly was inhabited. The Angles and Saxons were brought there by the Romans to fight the native Pics and Brittons.

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@MethDozer Whatever you want to call it -- everyone came from somewhere else if you go back far enough, at least until you get to proto-humans in Africa. Everything else is just political phraseology.

MethDozer · M

@ChipmunkErnie She states Britain was uninhabited. It certainly was inhabited. The Angles and Saxons were brought there by the Romans to fight the native Pics and Brittons.

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@MethDozer Imissed that. Of course it was inhabited. Probably by waves of different peoples. Heck, what with the old Doggerland, people could just walk from the European Continent to Britain until around 6,000 BC.

SandWitch · 26-30, F

@MethDozer
[quote]She states Britain was uninhabited. It certainly was inhabited.[/quote]

Wrong MethDozer, I never said Britain was uninhabited. YOU did!

SandWitch · 26-30, F

@ChipmunkErnie
[quote]I missed that. Of course it was inhabited. [/quote]

You never missed anything, Ernie! I never said Britain was uninhabited!

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@SandWitch All this research into who said what is just SO intimidating -- I think I'll just have a cookie and forget the whole thing. ;)

MethDozer · M

@SandWitch [quote]. The English language was then brought to the yet un-settled Island of Britain during the mid-5th to 7th Century AD by Anglo-Saxon migrants from west Germany who ventured west as explorers and then settled in what's now known as the [/quote]

Sorry, "unsettled". Samething. Britain was indeed sett led before the Angles and Saxons.

SandWitch · 26-30, F

@MethDozer

Sorry MethDozer, the terms "un-inhabited" and "un-settled" DO NOT mean the same thing my dear, even in the USA.

Let me take a moment to educate you on ancient world affairs.

The term "unsettled" means a place or area that is either not yet developed or built upon, or is a term used to describe a situation or issue or conflict within a region such as war, that is not yet resolved or decided. A region at war is categorized as an "un-settled" territory.

The term "uninhabited" means a place or area that is devoid of human or animal life that is not suitable for living or wildlife habitation, such as the Chernobyl region.

You can hardly argue that the terms "unsettled" and "uninhabited" mean the same thing, MethDozer! You simply didn't know the difference and as usual, you have refused to acknowledge your own lack of knowing.

Britain was indeed NOT settled before the Angles and Saxons arrived from Germany because that whole region of Britain had been in conflict involving the Romans from even before the 4th Century AD, considering the Angles and Saxons never began their westward migration to Britain until the mid-5th to 7th Century AD, which is how the English language arrived in Britain in the first place!

It was because of conflict involving the Romans from as early as the 4th Century AD that Britain became unsettled and stayed that way for at least the next 300 years!

Any previously 'settled' region that finds itself at war becomes classified as 'un-settled' because of the very nature of war itself and the unsettling dynamic that war imposes on any settlement that was previously a region at peace.

This is exactly what I stated in my quote you provided, which you quoted me as saying "The English language was then brought to the yet un-settled Island of Britain during the mid-5th to 7th Century AD by Anglo-Saxon migrants from west Germany".

It was "yet un-settled" because the Romans as well as other factions were still fighting there when the Angles and Saxons showed up between 5 and 7 AD and that whole region never did return to peace until well-after the 12 Century AD!

What you didn't know MethDozer, was that there was long-standing conflict going on in Britain for over 100 years before the Angles and Saxons ever showed up which as I said involved the Romans, which turned a benign, fun-loving and otherwise peaceful ancient settlement on the Island of Britain into an un-settled region of abject conflict because of the factions whom remained at war with each other for hundreds of years to follow.

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@SandWitch I think the pre-Roman peoples of the British Isles would take issue with you calling their civilization/society "unsettled".

SandWitch · 26-30, F

@ChipmunkErnie
That's because those pre-Roman people of the British Isles WERE in fact "settled" before the Romans showed up!

That was my whole point of my last post. When a region is in a state of peace by definition, it is called "settled". When a war then develops in that region, that region is then classified as being "un-settled" even in today's standards, as per my original post on this matter.

Where both you and MethDozer are confused within your understanding is in thinking that 'un-settled' means 'not inhabited'. Un-settled and un-inhabited mean two entirely different and unrelated things.

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@SandWitch I can't speak for MethDozer, but I have NO problem understanding that "unsettled" and "uninhabited" mean two different things. You., however, seem to like to run together two different definitions of "un-settled", one meaning an area with no human settlements and the other meaning an area filled with people who are in some kind of social upheaval.

SandWitch · 26-30, F

@ChipmunkErnie
[quote]You., however, seem to like to run together two different definitions of "un-settled", one meaning an area with no human settlements and the other meaning an area filled with people who are in some kind of social upheaval.[/quote]

No I don't Ernie! What evidence do you have that I like to run together two different definitions when I've clearly stated what those definitions mean and then used those exact definitions to describe what I'm talking about?

I never once said that Britain had no human settlement. I said that Britain was un-settled because the region was a war since prior to the 4th Century AD.

You obviously didn't understand my last post where I described the definition of "unsettled" versus "uninhabited" and what changes a region from a "settled" region to a region that is "unsettled".

I think where the problem lies is in your understanding of the definition of "unsettled" versus "uninhabited", meaning you have probably always used the word "unsettled" in it's incorrect context which is why you now believe that it is me who doesn't understand it's definition.

MethDozer · M

@SandWitch No you're playing semantics.

When someone says a land is uninhabited they mean of people, not all wildlife. An unsettled land is a land without any native people. You're just playing this cherry picked definition game of semantics used to justify colonialism and pay it to history. Britain was settled prior to Angles and Saxons by several previous tribes and peoples. They were invaders and hired goons