Talk:History of English/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

French and English

For those of you who speak French as well as English, I know the Web address of a great article on the history of the English language:

Histoire de la langue anglaise

It contains a lot of good information on the anglo-normand or franco-normand dialect. Mathieugp 20:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"French was the language of the aristocracy, while English remained the language of the common people" - French was the language of the Norman aristocracy after 1066, but after the late 12th century they began to lose it as a mother tongue (which was now English). This didn't mean that French died out however, the nobility still used French, but had to learn it as a second language.

Which is precisely what the article covers in full. Did you read it in full? -- Mathieugp 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"had nature not intervened, English may not have survived as a separate language. However, in the 14th century the Black Death killed so many of those in positions of power that many English speakers from the working classes rose to fill such positions, so displacing many of the French speakers." - this may have been an important factor, though it must be remembered that the "French speakers" being displaced also had English as their first language and the use of the French language in places such as parliament and other places of power was artificially maintained by people whose mother tongue was actually English.

which awkward fact undermines the quoted claim. This source does not strike me as entirely reliable.

Granted. This is only a hypothesis and should not be in Wikipedia. -- Mathieugp 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The section on the history of the term 'Anglo-Saxon' appears irrelevant to the history of English itself, and contains anti-monarchical bias which, like all bias, is inappropriate here, as well as reading like a conspiracy theory. George I was the great grandson of James I, and the legitimate heir, according to British law. Implying the current royal family are somehow unEnglish because a couple of their ancestors lived in Germany is a favourite tactic of anti-monarchists, not NPOV. Also, while using the term 'Anglo-Saxon' may have been politically convenient (though since it was hardly a topic of great popular interest I'm inclined to doubt even that) but that doesn't prove the name was used because it was politically convenient. For that claim, much stronger proof would be need. Carandol 19:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I always find it funny when English people get offended at the French use of the word Anglo-Saxon. I think we should include this word in the list of faux-amis. French people talk of their imaginary Gaulois ancestors all the time. They do the same with the imaginary ancestors of the English (Anglo-Saxon). That's all there is to it.

However, you have to expect French speakers to mock the monarchy of all nations including their own. There is no way around that. :-) -- Mathieugp 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern English?

I find the example for Modern English a little bit too old. There are still grammatical differences in the sample and from the type of English spoken today. Does anyone else feel that we should update this as well?

I agree that it should be updated. It also shouldn't be a government document, in my opinion, because those tend to be much more formal and use a lot of otherwise archaic language. The trouble, though, is finding a good example of modern-day English that's also public domain. -Branddobbe 08:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

What's the legality of quoting books? I'm pretty sure you can take something like 5 lines (assuming you provide the source, of course) without running afoul of the law. If it isn't, maybe we can take something from one of Wikipedia's featured articles? Jonathan Grynspan 01:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no problem quoting short extracts from books. I'd recommend citing the reference though, but this is more academic rigour and courtesy than any real need. jguk 07:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the first two posters. 1) The Declaration of Independence is, grammatically, Modern English. There are some differences of usage (diction, punctuation) between the Declaration & current language, but not of grammar. 2) Whoever is reading this article has access to hundreds of thousands of examples of current English, i.e. en.Wikipedia itself. But not everyone is hip to the similarities between 18th and 21st century English. 3) Copyright (in the U.S.), until very recently, lasted 75 years. So Hawthorne, Melville, and Fitzgerald are now fair game. --Adamgarrigus 22:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the American Declaration of Independence is not a good example for Modern English on this page. Quite apart from its age, the first three examples are all literature - famous literature, at that. It would be much more consistent to have an example from modern English literature, and the comparison would become a little bit more valid too. Thorf 11:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of those above. It is an odd choice of quotation, especially as it is not like the others (not english literature). I have gone ahead and replaced it with a famous passage from Dickens' Oliver Twist. This is somewhat later, but not drastically. It is also fairly representative of everyday usage, including dialogue, and it was popular fiction of the time. Ooooooooo

Written English

Does anyone have a good knowledge of early examples of written English? I am aware of a medallion dated c 480 AD but this used runes for the inscription. Are the legal codes of Ine and Alfred the earliest known examples of written English using the Roman alphabet? Can anyone help??

I've heard that Beowulf is the first written English. I know it's written with the Latin alphabet, but it's probably more similar to Icelandic than English.Cameron Nedland 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Beowulf is the first epic poem in English. There are runic inscriptions on such things as knives (O.E. seax) and jewelry. There is an early Runic inscription on a knife (possibly handle?) in the British Museum effectively saying that the knife was a gift. Next time I'm there, I'll try to copy it down... Bill Bryson includes an item of jewelry, a medallion, I believe which has an inscription in Anglo-Saxon about a wolf being given as a gift. Also, a large Anglo-Saxon cross in Ruthwell, Dumfries, Scotland with a very extensive set of inscription, including a poetic vision called "the Dream of the Rood," in Futhorc which is a name for the runic inscriptions (c.f.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_Futhorc). As far as the beginning of writing in the Latin script, I'm not sure about the earliest examples... but the change would have been gradual and probably eminating from the Ecclesiastical section. Bede's History Ecclesiastical is in Latin script from the 8th century (?), while the Ruthwell Cross is a near contempory. There is a beautiful pyx (ivory) casket in the British museum as well, also inscribed in Futhorc which is slightly earlier. I see that Wikipedia has an article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_Casket

Thank you Zach Beauvais 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Middle English in the Renaissance?

This passage is somewhat confusing or misleading, since the Renaissance began at different times throughout Europe: "By about the time of the Renaissance, the language had evolved into what is known as Middle English, which Modern English speakers can understand with a little difficulty. From the late 1400s, the language changed further into what is described as Modern English, and as a result of the Great Vowel Shift." While the Renaissance may have begun in Italy around the time of Middle English, it didn't reach Northern Europe for a couple centuries. This is confusing for people who study English history, because to them the "time of the Renaissance" is the late 1400s.

In fact, in Germany and the U.S., I learned that the (northern) Ren. started in 1500/1492. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.225.34.187 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

mb -> m

Did final mb as in lamb really not lose the /b/ until the early 18th century? I would have thought it was much earlier. And what evidence is there for the date? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right; I don't really know when this happened, and it got where it did by mistake. I realize now that the loss of /sw/ was also much earlier, as evidenced by the beginning of the Canterbury Tales "... with his shoores soote". I moved up the loss of /mb/ as well, but I have no idea if this is right; it may be too early. If you know where it goes, please put it there. Benwing 01:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

According to the OED, the first spelling of lamb as lam was in the middle of the 15th century, so I suppose that's a terminus ante quem for the sound change. Sword, on the other hand, seems always to have been speleld with sw-. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Aha, but archaic soot "sweet" from Old English swóte was first spelled sote in 1374 (by Chaucer in fact, though the OED quote is from Troylus, not Canterbury Tales), so there's a date for that. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however pronunciation very often is very slow to change. You must also remember that until the 18th century (with the beginning of the dictionary movement, people chose their letters to match their pronunciation very often, and it doesn't take long in Britain to find a different pronunciation. There are villages in Staffordshire where a native can tell which village a person is from nearly instantly (they're all within 5 miles!). Baugh and Cable track many of the pronunciation changes... often these concurred with historical events. Chaucer's langauge was very heavily influenced in comparison to earlier writings by Norman French, which would have changed his pronunciation. Old Norse influence (especially within the Danelaw) may well have affected a slight change which can still be heard in the dialects around there. 'Records' of pronunciation are very difficult to trace. I have heard that sword kept its pronunciation far longer than is suggested here by some speakers, but that does not mean that the pronunciation of sw in swote was necessarily preserved. Certain 16th century (yes, contemporary with Shakespeare) pronunciations have remained in the Appalachain mountains in West Virginia. If one is fortunate enough to have elderly family from those regions, one can hear some interesting pronunciations which have survived (especially an ar sound in many words like varmint and marchant (merchant). This is first-hand knowledge on my part (my Nanny is in her 90's) which is corroborated by some reading including Bryson, B :Made in America. Be careful trying to track pronunciations to a nicety, they change often and not necessarily uniformly! (I'd suggest Baugh and Cable: A History of the English Language which has many of these changes documented well) Sorry this is so long-winded, Zach Beauvais 10:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to corroborate the OED data, in one of Shakespeare's sonnets, number 17, he rhymes come and tomb in lines 1 and 3 (http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonn01.htm). Although these word don't rhyme in English nowadays they used to nearly rhyme, 'come' being [kum] (lax u) and 'tomb' being [tu:m].

Sound changes section

I think this would be improved by adding a few more example words, especially in the earlier sections. --JHJ 17:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Long mid mergers

About the changes currently referred to on the Phonemic differentiation page (and I think by Wells) as the "long mid mergers": these are currently listed, together with several other diphthong changes, in the c. 1400 to 1600 section, and three different diphthongs (/eI/, /EI/, /aI/) are shown as merging with ME /a:/, at different times. First, it would be nice to have some examples of words with each of those three diphthongs: I don't know which one pain, for example, would have had. Also, I'm somewhat surprised that the mergers are as old as that, given that the distinctions (pain/pane, toe/tow) seem to be generally accepted features of 20th century English in Wales and East Anglia. There's an article at [1] which says that the distinctions were widespread in 19th century England. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to change this myself, but what's the source for the current description?--JHJ 20:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic Sound Changes

Nothing is mentioned of the PGmc in which e went to i in unstressed syllables. E.G. PIE po:d - es - 'feet' > PGmc fo:t - iz.

"Final-syllable /a/ and /e/ were protected in words of two syllables by following /r/ and /ns/. Hence PG /fader/ > NE father"

The fact is r didn't "protect" the vowel e. Rather in OE, words that ended in the form vowel + r were replaced by the oblique form of that word (i.e. not nominative.) Afterwards a vowel was inserted to facilitate the pronunciation of the nominative form which lacked a vowel. This vowel was e when preceded by a front vowel and o when preceded by a back vowel.

E.G.

PGmc. Nom. fade:r, Gen. fadr - az (iz) 'father' > *fader, *fædr > *fædr > OE fæder PGmc. Nom. mo:de:r, Gen. mo:dr - az (iz) 'mother' > *mo:der, *mo:dr > *mo:dr > OE mo:dor

Sound Changes Misplaced

"Loss of /ə/ in final syllables. "

This is listed late in the 1400 to 1600 group. In the book on the Canterbury tales I have, the pronunciation guide says it was unlikely that Chaucer himself pronounced the final schwa represented by e in Middle English. In fact many see this as the impetus of the Great Vowel Shift that occurred in the 15th cent. No longer were the vowels in 'name'[na:m] and 'nam' [nam] "I took" in complementary distribution. Thus a new long vowel /a:/ came about causing the vowels above it to shift upwards to better differentiate themselves. GVS was the result.

"American and Australian English flapping of /t/ and /d/ to [ɾ] in some circumstances."

This phonetic weakening also occurs in some British dialects, notably cockney, as a glottal stop. It might be added that a similar allophonic distribution occurred in British English but was "stamped out" by their spelling pronunciation. This is the reason that final stops are released in RP unlike in every other dialects (thus the /t/ and /p/ in 'tip' and 'pit' have virtually identical aspirated values in RP) and also why certain word that have histories preceding the Enlightenment are pronounced more closely to their spelling (earlier artic became arctic [a:ktIk] in British English.) I would push the flapping back to the 1600 - 1725 category as Britain established colonies.

Hm, if I recall the intro to Canterbury Tales that I saw correctly, it said that final -e wasn't usually pronounced when the next word began in a vowel, so when it was pronounced (for reasons of rhythm/timing etc.) it was spelt as -ë. But poetry often has funny rules, and this is going by a vague memory...

As for flapping, the flapping in AuE and NZE is generally regarded as an example of a change of prestige dialects. The prestige dialect used to be RP, and so Cultivate Australian tends to avoid the onset at the beginning of /i:/; nowadays, its General American, so the younger generations tend to flap their t's (for broad definitions of ‘younger’). I'm almost certain this is a borrowed sound change, not something we inherited. I think there's evidence for the same in Canadian English, but I'm not sure...

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You were definitely right about the Schwa. I reread the book and it said that it disappears before vowel as in German. I'm the one with the bad memory

I find the sound change borrowing interesting. I know a similar process happened in Estuary English where they now pronounce the diphthong in 'how' as æw as in GA.

I doubt that's a borrowed sound change, at least from AmE (I’d be particularly reluctant to describe any changes to vowels in English dilects as borrowed—with all our innovation there, we don't have the time to! At least with consonants we tend to be pretty sedentary, so once someone has a good idea, everyone jumps on!). I imagine it's just spread from some other dialect in England: After all, in Australia we say [æɔ], and have for at least a century. Given Southern American English has [æo] (e.g. the Atlas of North American English revision 2, p. 125), but that much of the rest of the US has [aʊ] or even [ɑʊ], it probably indicates a common origin in England. I've also got an article somewhere on the possible origins of New Zealand English somewhere that also places the fronted and raised first target of NZE as originating in England (described as [ɛɔ], but NZE [ɛ] == AuE /æ(ː)/). —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 05:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right: there are many accents in southern England (in fact just about every accent in southern England that I can think of that's reasonably well removed from RP) which have a starting point for that diphthong in the [æ] or [ɛ] area. --JHJ 16:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Better Name and Incorporation of a New Sound Change

Shouldn't the foot-strut split be called the put-strut split. The word foot didn't participate in the sound change.

I see what you mean, but foot-strut split seems to be a reasonably well-established name. Google on "foot-strut split" and you get a fair number of non-Wikipedia hits. (The words foot and strut are the keywords used in Wells, Accents of English (1982) for the "lexical sets" corresponding to the RP phonemes /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ respectively, hence the use of those words.) --JHJ 16:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, could we elaborate on the 'long vowels become shortened in closed syllables' under 1600-1725? It seems to me, in certain instances, that this sound change is the result of dialectal borrowing (e.g. blood.) Is there no article on this?

(Previous unsigned comment made at 04:30, 16 September 2005 by 24.16.166.16.)

Is there any published evidence it's the result of dialect borrowing? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It is the only instance of <oo> being uh. I would think this would come from a northern dialect of English that didn't go through the foot-strut split. Hearing the word blood (w/ a vowel like book's) the southerner might've interpreted it as blood (w/ uh as in but). Sure it's original research but I'm sure someone out there w/ credentials has said something about 'blood'!

It isn't the only instance; there's also flood. If I remember my university H.E.L. class correctly, the general opinion is that the /u:/ of blood and flood shortened to /U/ so early that they participated in the foot-strut split and changed from /U/ to /V/ at the same time that words like cut and cup did. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Early Modern English

What is the origin of this name? I have never heard of this before, and a search on Yahoo only provides two sites. I realize there can be an early part of Modern English, but there could also be Middle Modern English and Late Modern English. There is an article on Wikipedia, but I question much of it as most of it goes on about the T-V distinction and this information conflicts with the Oxford English Dictionary. Is this real, or self-research? Rt66lt 21:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I’ve heard of Early Modern English in many contexts besides Wikipedia. Take a look for instance at The Early Modern English dictionary, or David Crystal’s Encyclopedia of the English Language. I'm not sure how you're able to find only two sites on yahoo, when I've found many on Google or Yahoo (even search for sites without 'wikipedia'). I've never seen middle nor late Modern used, though for those meanings ‘Contemporary —’ or ‘Present-Day English’ are more popular. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 05:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

New submission at Proto-English

• I think this is valuable information, but I'm not so sure that it belongs where it is. And 'cheese' is not from Latin according to all sources. It's contentious. I think the author here should cite the source of this info.--Hraefen 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• I left a note at the anon user's talk page to cite the source. Hopefully this will work.--Hraefen 03:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it really contentious that cheese is from caseus? I've never heard any suggestion other than that. If this information doesn't belong here, then where? Proto-Germanic language? --Angr (t·c) 06:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• The anon user is now un-anonymous and the new paragraph was pasted diredtly from Latin Influence in English (though I tweaked it a bit). As far as cheese goes...I'll have to get back to you on that...I know there's a propsed Germanic explanation for it.--Hraefen 08:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Cheese existed in Old English and is untraceable before that, as it occurs in many Old Germanic tongues:

[OE. (Anglian) cése, (WSax.) *cíese, cýse (with i- umlaut from céasi, c{aeacu}si) = OHG. châsi (MHG. kæse, Ger. käse), OLG. kâsi, kêsi (MDu. kâse, Du. kaas):{em}WGer. *kâsi, ad. L. c{amac}se-us cheese (bef. 5th c.).] According to the OED. No Latin mentioned anywhere, though I don't doubt that thw words should sound similar, as cheese would have been made in the indo-European period, and there may be a much much older connection as with the word Brother (similar in Greek, Latin, Germanic languages, and Indian Sanskrit). I do not know specifically about cheese, but maybe someone else does? It certainly existed in English before it was English (Anglo Saxon fron Anglian... etc) Thanks Zach Beauvais 10:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • "ad. L. c{amac}se-us cheese" is a mention of Latin: it's an abbreviation for "adapted [i.e. borrowed] from Latin cāseus". I don't know what the anterior etymology of cāseus is, but I am quite certain it's the immediate source of the Germanic word. Whether or not cheese was made in the Proto-Indo-European period is irrelevant to the etymology of the word. Angr (t • c) 11:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Feature Request(s)

• Can we get one of those phylogenetic trees like the biologists use? My only experience in historical linguistics is two weeks of lecture in an intro linguistics class (where I first saw one of these trees), so I don't know if this is hip or not. But I think it's very helpful, especially concise ones for the curious non-linguist. It would be nice to have one for each language's page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TriniTriggs (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention in this history of the influence on English of the aboriginal Celtic and Romanized Celtic populations of England. The native Celtic languages and as well the vocabulary introduced by the pre-Germanic Roman occupation have had a substantial impact on the language - can anyone add these parts? Also, a better understanding of the English language and its oddities can be achieved by reading the section on the Great Vowel Shift.

Actually, they didn't. The aboriginal Celtic languages had a minimal influence on English. Angr/talk 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been the conventional view, but it is open to question and one would have to define 'minimal influence' in order to sustain it. As far as Celtic placenames are concerned, only two are mentioned here, but in fact there are very, very many all over England. This means, of course, that there were people on location to pass these names onwards. Are we to believe that these people exerted minimal influence on the evolution of English? Somehow, that doesn't seem likely. If they were in a position to pass on placenames, would they not have also been in a position to exert influence in other ways? The Celtic substrate is much in evidence as far as regional English accents are concerned in the south-west, south and north-west of England. As the accent of the south-west contributed to the creation of the American English accent, it is difficult to see how this influence could be described as minimal. Further, the periphrastic present-tense construction in English, such as 'I am going', 'she is swimming', etc is identical in spoken Welsh. This construction, as far as I know, cannot be found in any other European language. Then there is the matter of the 'th' sound, which is confined in usage, I believe, to Welsh, English and Spanish. It must be remembered that Spanish was influenced by a considerable Celtic substrate. It is true that the number of words in English that are traditionally identified as being of Celtic origin is small. However, I wonder whether this accurately represents the reality of the situation. It may be that more careful research is needed to clarify this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.105.52.116 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You ask, "If they were in a position to pass on placenames, would they not have also been in a position to exert influence in other ways?" Well, not necessarily, no. Consider how many placenames in North America and Australia are of indigenous origin, and then compare that to the influence of Native American and Aboriginal Australian languages on the grammar of English. In both cases, the effect was no more than a handful of loanwords. As for the progressive construction, on the one hand, it's intriguing that they're found only in English, Spanish, and the Celtic languages; on the other hand, in Spanish at least the construction seems to have evolved centuries after contact with Celtic languages was over, suggesting that it arose spontaneously there. —Angr 07:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, few Celtic words have survived in English aside from place names (london, thames to name but two). Also, few Latin words survive from this period... many were added with the Christianisation of the Anglo Saxon Kings beginning around the 6th century (I think). Certainly Celtic left almost no impact on grammar (if any at all) and Latin only by prescriptivism in the 18th century onwards as a sort of latinisation of the language. No, English is almost entirely the making of an Old West German tongue being bashed about in isolation until the Viking-French in the 11th century. The exception to this is the gradual loss of inflection which was aided by the Norse from the 6th century onwards. I have heard it explained that the Norsemen and Anglisch could broadly understand the words each other spoke, but not the grammatical inflection. Eventually, they dropped them -- leaving us with the beautifully simple form we now enjoy... bit hyperbolic at the end, sorry. Zach Beauvais 10:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Indeed, few Celtic words have survived in English ..." Really? Just a few, common, old, (Irish) Gaelic, household words:
plates = plátaí
cups = cupáin
table = boird
spoon = spúnóg
fork = (for eating) forc
chair = cathaoir
door = doras
father = athair
mother = máthair
coat = cóta
shoe = bróg
leather = leathar
oil = ola
cat = cat
body = corp
[2]
Anyone notice a similarity between Gaelic, German and English? --Pictishboy 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the Irish words plátaí, cupáin, boird, spúnóg, forc, cóta were all borrowed from English (or from the same Norman French source as the English). Cathaoir and ola were borrowed from Latin, as were the English words (via French). Doras, athair, máthair, and corp are words inherited from Indo-European in Irish and English (except corpse in English which is borrowed from French). Cat is a word common to most western European languages, and it isn't clear who borrowed it from whom. In your whole list, the only word that was borrowed from Irish into English was brogue. —Angr 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Split

Might it be wise to split out Sound changes as a new article Phonological history of the English language? Also mightn't be nice to have somewhere a list of phonemic splits and mergers in English which is ordered not by history but by geography and/or such a list grouped according to the phonemes it involves? Jimp 19Dec05

It seems like it might be wise to do so. 64.194.44.220 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wise or otherwise; seeing as there was no opposition and I still thought it a good idea I did it. Jimp 11:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon

I think the para on Anglo-Saxon needs looking at. As far as I can see from the OED, Camden's original text was in Latin and the term Angli Saxones was already well established in Latin, so it would be Camden's translator Holland who actually introduced the term. But even then it seems to apply only to the poeple in the quotes the OED gives, and is not used of the language till the 18th century. However, I'm using the old OED - perhaps someone with access to the current version online or on CD could look it up. --Pfold 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mercian, West Saxon, etc...

It occurs to me that the dialects of Old English may want slightly more space here. It is mentioned that West Saxon became prominent, but why? I understand it to do with the rise of written language among the universities (Oxford, Cambridge and London -- the triangle of which shows the seat of the ancestor of modern English). But what of Mercian, or Bede's dialect of Northumbrian? Zach Beauvais 11:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Word translations of Beowulf

I tried an experiment on the text of Beowulf: If you hover over a word, you will get a translation of that word. Do other people think that is useful? Others can undoubtedly improve on my translations, but I am asking here about the concept. (As a side effect it now displays in a proportional font, which I think is more attractive than the monospaced font of the <pre> tag. I also used long vowels where applicable.) --teb728 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for addition of prose examples

I love the Beowulf and Canterbury Tales samples of Old and Middle English! But I wonder if, as poetry, they really best exemplify those languages. Is anybody able to add a prose sample or two from each language to complement the poetry examples? Robert K S 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As a prose sample of Old English I added the first few paragraphs of "The Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan in Scandinavia and the Baltic." Unlike Beowulf a close translation is possible most places (except when verbs are final in subordinate clauses). --teb728 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Modern English

Except for a sample text, the section on ME ends almost when it starts. Surely there is some-thing to write about after Shakespeare. For example, English has become some-thing of a world language and now has sort of split into various Englishes. 211.225.34.187 11:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mixed language

This article says that English is not a genuine mixed language. However, the article mixed language cites English as its first example of the phenomenon. This should be clarified. (I suspect the truth is that "mixed language" is not as much of a technical term as some believe; it may have a tight definition in some research papers, but it is actually a slightly woolly concept - or am I wrong?) --Doric Loon 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed English from the list of mixed languages. By no stretch of the imagination does it meet the definition. —Angr 15:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)