Print

Print


Costentin Cornomorus wrote:

>--- Joe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I think it does change in ways CL didn't. Read
>>>good literature from the late 20th century and
>>>
>>>
>>>from the middle 19th - there's a good bit of
>>
>>
>>>change. Very little of it's underlying
>>>
>>>
>>grammar; I
>>
>>
>>>think it's mostly style and lexicon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Is it possible that, not being native speakers
>>of Latin, we are merely
>>less perceptive of analogous stylistical
>>differences.
>>
>>
>
>Aye, there is that.
>
>
>
>>Incidentally, 10 of the words in this message
>>derive from Latin.  That's just under one
>>third. Scary.
>>
>>
>
>Course, what's cool about English, is I can
>change that stat very easily:
>
>I think it does awend (perhaps even amend) itself
>in ways Old Latin didn't. Read
>good writings from the late 20th hundredyear and
>from the middle 19th - there's a good bit of
>amending. Soothly little of it's underlying
>grammar; I think it's mostly crafters way and
>wordhoard used.
>
>The English tongue has a wonderful mathom in all
>the old, homely words that sit just outside the
>little emganging circle of firelight we call
>"lexicon". The second miraculous treasure of
>English is its curious capacity for shanghaying,
>burgling and otherwise grand larcenising foreign
>languages of its choicest morsels!
>
>
>

I always found the native English words much more poetic than the
Romance borrowings.  I like the way you did that, but much of that, of
course, would not be recognised by Standard English.