Some time ago I worked in a science laboratory in Germany, there were scientists from all over the world, and the working language was English. For most of them, English was not their native language. Native German speakers were the largest group by far, probably about half of them. German and English are closely related, so native German speakers were probably struggling less than some others, but there is a bunch of typical mistakes that Germans make when speaking English. Since there were so many Germans, non-Germans started to adopt these mistakes as well, because they kept hearing them from different people all the time. Eventually even some native English speakers started to talk like that in order to be understood by everybody else...
Correct. Europe needs a national language. I would prefer Latin for historical and cultural reasons. But that's not reaiistic. But simple English would do it perfectly. First step should be, to be able in every European country, to fill out applications in the national language or in English
English, being a national language of a state, can never be the official language of Europe because, like any national language, it would be an expression of the domination of one European cultural part over the other parts. the common European language must be neutral and therefore cannot correspond to any of the national languages of the memebrian states.
I like the idea. However English is a reduced language in comparison with our great- grandfather Indoeuropean language and still spoken f.ex. Slavonic languages, which are still inflectional. English speakers are baffled, when confonted with declinations and more complicated coniugations, inflection of numerals, gender suffixes, and so on! Existing European languages come from 2 groups: satem - 100 (sto) and ketum (centum), so which dialect of Indoeuropean should prevail??? Plus all the "granfather" languages as Proto- Germanic, Proto-Slavonic, Proto-Celtic etc. are kind of a dialects of Indoeuropean. To sum up: English, which is relatively simple due to residual inflection, gained enormous popularity (reaseons :power of GB and later USA). I'm sorry, but people will be too lazy to learn our reconstructed great -grandpa language😢. Most of the European languages contain plenty of Latin words, a trace of a previously dominant international language as a hereditary of Roman Empire and Catholic church. Even my previous sentence consist mostly of words with Latin origin. So there were ideas to restore Latin. But is also a flectional language and needs much effort to operate its rich syntax... and certainly, favours speakers of Romanic languages. So, I guess we can only dream about Indoeuropean... Esperanto was made to be simple, but you see, economic and political power of English prevailed...
Now that Britain has left, we are no longer committed to any of the traditions of the English language, so the EU would now be free to officially propose a coherent, phonetic spelling for the English language, which would greatly simplify things for everybody.
The English would agree with this, very few of us would choose English as our frist language if we had a choice, so yes phonic spelling please. Only English teachers would be disapproving. However the English used today is different from the past. So it will keep evolving in the future. So yes euroglish will continue to develop in mainland Europe. It different to British English, different to American English, same is true for Australia, New Zealand and Canada. We all have our own version. Always amused to hear that English is one language it is many with many more dialects about 165 in England alone.
@@evie1915 Yes, true, languages evolve, but not very fast. It is true that newly invented scripts tend to be more consistent than old ones. Like for example Norwegian is pretty phonetic, Danish much less so. If we invent a coherent English spelling now, we should be good for at least a century, and even after that it will still be much better than it is now. No problems that a small orthography reform couldn't fix 😁. Look at the other European languages, most of them have evolved for centuries since being invented, yet none comes to my mind that would be anywhere near as chaotic as English as far as pronunciation is concerned.
The "orthography reform" comparison is not correct, those are not equivalents. Equivalents are "orthography reform" (6 syllables) and "Rechtschreibreform" (4 syllables). You can then separately discuss the length of words for numbers. 2-digit numbers tend to be longer by one syllable in German because they contain the word "und" which is not there (any more) in English. When counting quickly, the "und" gets reduced though, so it basically doesn't take the time for an extra syllable any more: "ein'nzwanzig", "zwei'nzwanzig" ...
Europeans should've settled to base it on neo Latin - with expectancy for it to change and "simplify" (including grammar). Regardless, English were already widely popular relatively, and buffed up by soft power like media and aspects like high relevance in IT.
Language isn't about efficiency. I greet everyone with 'Adishatz' instead of 'Hello' or even 'Alu' and I purposefully add another sylable to 'Hospital' to form 'Uspitalu'. If languages were meant to be efficient, I wouldn't have developed a more complex idiolect.
Der Silbenzahlvergleich für die Rechtschreibreform ist verzerrt. Deutsch kommt in der englischen Version nicht vor. Und die Genitivbildung verlängert die deutsche Version noch mal künstlich.
I love the fact that German often only uses ONE word or English has a collection of words: Strainer, colander, sieve sip, swallow, gulp Dot, point, period Turn, revolve, spin Also, I love the literal words: Colon = Doppelpunkt = double point Sloth = Faultier = lazy animal
They tried to create Esperanto but it didn't work, so they made English into "Englishanto" which became the world's second language, which I name it as "PseudoEnglish"
The spread of the English language in Europe has many advantages, but also one major disadvantage: most people speak English very well, but are not native speakers. Since companies, authorities and educational institutions all want to avoid communication errors, only native English speakers have a chance of getting a job, regardless of their other experience and qualifications!
@@andreahoehmann1939 Being a native speaker doesn't necessarily mean that one actually masters the language. Most Danes, for example, are largely semi-analphabets. They struggle with proper plural endings and present-tense endings, they tend to use three prepositions as "universal prepositions", meaning that everything is either _omkring_ (about), _i forhold til_ (compared to) or _på_ (on). Splitting of compound nouns is rampant (influence from English, no doubt), and punctuation is all over the place. The national philosophy is _'s long azits sumwha korrekt, its' foin._ Or to quote a German mock poster I once saw: _nider met da rektshreibunk!_ 😂
@danielvanr.8681 It is true that being a native speaker is not always a sign of English proficiency, or any other skill, but this seems to be irrelevant to almost all employers.
@@danielvanr.8681in the Netherlands many of the Dutch are in the same path. Proficiency in English is OK, but mastering their own Dutch language, be it spoken or written... Disastrous...
What a load of nonsense. The vast majority of Europeans still speak their own tongue and will continue doing so. English has been diluting other languages for ages, through music, recently and trade in the further past. It works both ways, English uses borrowed words like landscape (Dutch - landschap) that have been in our vocabulary for hundreds of years. Languages have to be flexible and that's why you have commissions in various countries who look at their own language and remove or change obsolete grammar, spelling etc. The elite in Europe used to use Latin, The elite in England used to use French, these languages didn't 'take over', rather the language of the common man became the 'lingua franca'
The French must be the only exceptions, then, because they have what amounts to a 'language police', i.e. the Academie Francaise, who are doing their utmost to keep French 'pure', by banning any foreign words (especially Americanisms) which can legitimately be replaced by an existing French one. Since a lot of the time there isn't a reasonable replacement, they're fighting a losing battle! They don't seem to be interested in 'improving' the language at all.
@@NorthernChimp Yes because they don't ban words (with the possible exception of France), they remove obsolete grammar and usually simplify it or make it more relevant. Example: in Dutch, some years ago, they removed oo from the end of some words which now end in o. Also, the sch combination was dropped from the end of some words and replaced with s. All sensible changes that everyone (almost) embraced.
@@IrishSchaller Thank you, now I understand better. The examples you gave are _spelling_ reforms, which make much more sense to me than attempting to change how people speak grammatically. In France, we have several comities who regard any flexibility as crime and blasphemy, and we get taught from early school years, a sense of shame for not applying grammar rules (for things like gender and number), that were, historically, artificially introduced in the language. This is where my question came from.
Rubbish! 'I will speak to you in old words you will understand'......all the words in that sentence probably come from Anglo Saxon, which is early German. The English language is based on 3 major sources, Anglo Saxon, Latin and French (though we also have words which came from the Vikings and from Celtic). The most commonly used words, however, tend to come from Anglo Saxon.
@@vivienhodgson3299 Neither modern English nor modern German are Anglo-Saxon. They may be heavily based on such, words such as faeder become vater and father, but Anglo-Saxon is unintellible to speakers of both modern languages. As far as I know, no Anglo-Saxon words have come directly to modern English in the last centuries. There are only about twenty common words which have come from modern German to modern English - more than three times that number from India. I suggest you look them up.
Which language did you learn first? English spelling is highly idiosyncratic. This is what makes English difficult. English grammar is simpler than German.
@sigmaoctantis1892 I found everything more Simple in German then in English. For Example, sometimes in English you can't know, at least at the begining if it's male or female. In German you can. I found that very useful. And German Ortography is much easier then English one. I learned English first and German Second.
@@tomislavnagy8715 Gender is fairly irrelevant in English except when it is actually a male or female person. I am a native English speaker and find gender in German a complicating feature. Yes, it is much easier to work out pronunciation with German spelling. Spelling/reading is the most difficult thing about English. English is (I think) about 25% Germanic. So, learning German after English would make it easier. Also, if you first language is one of the Germanic languages, that would make German easier.
German isn’t difficult because it has long words, it are the grammatical cases. I’m Dutch, and we do the same as the Germans, making new words by gluing old ones together. I can speak German, more or less. But I didn’t choose it in high school. I went for French.
@ the video was about German being difficult for English speakers. The English have only have one case. German and English are both Germanic languages, they are close. Learning German for speakers of a non-Germanic language is of course difficult.
@@johnbrereton5229 Anglo-saxons came in the 5th century first as mercenaries, later as invaders. They spoke the original base of English. (= Anglo-Saxon) Their country of origin was northern Germany. Still today a region of Germany is called Sachsen, in Latin Saxonia. The original language of Great Britain before 500 was Celtic, which practically disappeared except in some very remote regions of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
@schurlbirkenbach1995 The Anglosaxons didnt come from 'Germany' because no such country existed at that time. England is actualy an older country than Germany. German and Germanic are not the same. The Germananic languages originated in Scandinavia, not Germany. Also modern research has shown that a Germanic language was used by the Iceni tribe who inhabited modern day Northfolk and Southfolk and the germanic speaking Belgae tribe were well established in Southern Britain when Caesar first invaded in 55BC.
@johnbrereton5229 Please give me sources of your opinion. Everything I found, told me, the Iceni were Celts. And Germany did not exist in 500 bc. as a political unity. As well as England did not exist as a political unity. But it existed the Germanic tribes in this territory, which in fact came from Southern Scandinavia.
@schurlbirkenbach1995 England became a unified country in 927 AD while Germany was part of the Empire of Charlemagne and then the Holy Roman Empire. It wasnt untill the German Confederation in 1815 after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire that Germany was united in one separate country. However, the east coast of Britain traded with and was peopled by those from the nearby north western coast of Europe before the Roman invasion by Caesar in 55bc. One of these tribes was the Iceni and new research by Daphne Nash Briggs concludes that the Iceni used Germanic on their coins, as the inscriptions dont make sense in Celtic. The Belgae were a large tribe who lived along the Northwest coast of Gaul who Cesare described as Celts of Germanic origins and it is believed that they were a Germanic tribe who adopted Celtic culture.
@@johnbrereton5229 you speak of political entities, I speak of ethnicities. In one of his anti-papal songs in the 13th century, Walter von der Vogelweide spoke of the German speaking people. Do you know the term "querelles allemandes". Anyway, both languages, English and German have the same sources, that is recognized by Scientists and every more intelligent German pupil, which can translate the first lines in his first English book for children whithout preteachings, whereas that's impossible with Latin based and all Slavic languages. And it's logic, that at the time of Shakespeare, the two languages were nearer to their common origins than now. PS. Thanks for your sources. This would explain why the Celtic language disappeared so quickly in England. Because in Caesar's time it was no longer the dominant one.
Seriously? Iceberg in English is more likely derived from the language of their long-term naval rivals from across the North Sea: the Dutch. In Dutch IJsberg is very efficiently a mountain of ice. As many linguists have already pointed out, English is a mixture of the old Celtic languages of the British Isles and the languages of invading tribes and later the trading partners and both cultural and political influencers.
The various influences are by no means of equal strength. English is a Germanic language with a whole bunch of Latin-based words borrowed mostly through French.
No. You can't just kill of all of the languages. Each of those language have a history and culture behind them. You can't just kill them off for some basic "English". Do not strip away culture. We should not be one Europe, we are all different but united.
The way EU is demented at the moment I am afraid it is devolving backwards, this new language will be twice less precise and efficient… as we getting ‘simple’
Das Union European non nodigas das Anglise, dat non esas das idiom ofisial in kaina Stst Member ov das Union European / La Uniono Europana ne bezonas la angla, qua ne esas oficiala linguo en nula Stato Membro. / Le Union Europee non necessita del anglese, que non es lingua official in necun Stato Membro / Evropejska Unija ne potrěbuje angličsky, ktora ne jest oficielny jazyk v nikakij Člensky Statu.
West Europe is American colony. It is true. English is reflecting this current situation. For this reason Germans will use American English. European English doesn't have any ground.
![Why Finnish Is One of The EASIEST Language [7 Reasons]](/img/n.gif)
A syllable is _not_ made of letters, it is made of sounds.
Some time ago I worked in a science laboratory in Germany, there were scientists from all over the world, and the working language was English. For most of them, English was not their native language. Native German speakers were the largest group by far, probably about half of them. German and English are closely related, so native German speakers were probably struggling less than some others, but there is a bunch of typical mistakes that Germans make when speaking English. Since there were so many Germans, non-Germans started to adopt these mistakes as well, because they kept hearing them from different people all the time. Eventually even some native English speakers started to talk like that in order to be understood by everybody else...
This is an everyday occurrence in NYC. The perfect tenses are rarely used and usually mangled when whwn an attempt is made.
We already have a official language. Broken english
It's referred to as "€ŋliʃ" or "Euronglish" (especially by the Brits?) to differ from other phenomena like "Engrish" and "Renglish".
Correct. Europe needs a national language. I would prefer Latin for historical and cultural reasons. But that's not reaiistic. But simple English would do it perfectly. First step should be, to be able in every European country, to fill out applications in the national language or in English
English brainrot
😂😂😂
English, being a national language of a state, can never be the official language of Europe because, like any national language, it would be an expression of the domination of one European cultural part over the other parts. the common European language must be neutral and therefore cannot correspond to any of the national languages of the memebrian states.
The EU could speak Proto-Indo-European
hahaha a good one
Good news for Iranians and South Asians then
I like the idea. However English is a reduced language in comparison with our great- grandfather Indoeuropean language and still spoken f.ex. Slavonic languages, which are still inflectional. English speakers are baffled, when confonted with declinations and more complicated coniugations, inflection of numerals, gender suffixes, and so on! Existing European languages come from 2 groups: satem - 100 (sto) and ketum (centum), so which dialect of Indoeuropean should prevail??? Plus all the "granfather" languages as Proto- Germanic, Proto-Slavonic, Proto-Celtic etc. are kind of a dialects of Indoeuropean. To sum up: English, which is relatively simple due to residual inflection, gained enormous popularity (reaseons :power of GB and later USA). I'm sorry, but people will be too lazy to learn our reconstructed great -grandpa language😢. Most of the European languages contain plenty of Latin words, a trace of a previously dominant international language as a hereditary of Roman Empire and Catholic church. Even my previous sentence consist mostly of words with Latin origin. So there were ideas to restore Latin. But is also a flectional language and needs much effort to operate its rich syntax... and certainly, favours speakers of Romanic languages. So, I guess we can only dream about Indoeuropean...
Esperanto was made to be simple, but you see, economic and political power of English prevailed...
PIE originated in central asia/russia. Not EU territory
@@Matt-jc2ml Doesn't matter, it's the common language of the EU
Euriziano is a good idea for european common language!
It's not always about efficiency and number of syllabes. Some times languages are about expressivity and transmission of emotions.
Now that Britain has left, we are no longer committed to any of the traditions of the English language, so the EU would now be free to officially propose a coherent, phonetic spelling for the English language, which would greatly simplify things for everybody.
Yesss,a phonetic english would be easier
Ðe drim wil fainäli kom tru! 😂
The English would agree with this, very few of us would choose English as our frist language if we had a choice, so yes phonic spelling please. Only English teachers would be disapproving. However the English used today is different from the past. So it will keep evolving in the future. So yes euroglish will continue to develop in mainland Europe. It different to British English, different to American English, same is true for Australia, New Zealand and Canada. We all have our own version. Always amused to hear that English is one language it is many with many more dialects about 165 in England alone.
European English Spelling ❤ Would be nice to see
@@evie1915 Yes, true, languages evolve, but not very fast. It is true that newly invented scripts tend to be more consistent than old ones. Like for example Norwegian is pretty phonetic, Danish much less so.
If we invent a coherent English spelling now, we should be good for at least a century, and even after that it will still be much better than it is now. No problems that a small orthography reform couldn't fix 😁.
Look at the other European languages, most of them have evolved for centuries since being invented, yet none comes to my mind that would be anywhere near as chaotic as English as far as pronunciation is concerned.
The "orthography reform" comparison is not correct, those are not equivalents. Equivalents are "orthography reform" (6 syllables) and "Rechtschreibreform" (4 syllables).
You can then separately discuss the length of words for numbers. 2-digit numbers tend to be longer by one syllable in German because they contain the word "und" which is not there (any more) in English. When counting quickly, the "und" gets reduced though, so it basically doesn't take the time for an extra syllable any more: "ein'nzwanzig", "zwei'nzwanzig" ...
Europeans should've settled to base it on neo Latin - with expectancy for it to change and "simplify" (including grammar).
Regardless, English were already widely popular relatively, and buffed up by soft power like media and aspects like high relevance in IT.
Brother, we just need to reactivate latin.
English is a neutral language - did you ask the Irish?
I believe English is a neutral language not because of UK but USA.
Se elekti parolantan lingvon estus nur pri logiko, ĉiuj parolus Esperanton antaŭ longe 😂
Nur se Esperanto havos bonan armeon mdr.
Kurioze ke la jutuba algoritmo tuj sugestas tiun videon al esperantistoj
@hxocxjo Ni ĉeestas ĉie 😂
Language isn't about efficiency. I greet everyone with 'Adishatz' instead of 'Hello' or even 'Alu' and I purposefully add another sylable to 'Hospital' to form 'Uspitalu'. If languages were meant to be efficient, I wouldn't have developed a more complex idiolect.
Der Silbenzahlvergleich für die Rechtschreibreform ist verzerrt. Deutsch kommt in der englischen Version nicht vor. Und die Genitivbildung verlängert die deutsche Version noch mal künstlich.
I love the fact that German often only uses ONE word or English has a collection of words:
Strainer, colander, sieve
sip, swallow, gulp
Dot, point, period
Turn, revolve, spin
Also, I love the literal words:
Colon = Doppelpunkt = double point
Sloth = Faultier = lazy animal
They tried to create Esperanto but it didn't work, so they made English into "Englishanto" which became the world's second language, which I name it as "PseudoEnglish"
The spread of the English language in Europe has many advantages, but also one major disadvantage: most people speak English very well, but are not native speakers. Since companies, authorities and educational institutions all want to avoid communication errors, only native English speakers have a chance of getting a job, regardless of their other experience and qualifications!
@@andreahoehmann1939 Being a native speaker doesn't necessarily mean that one actually masters the language.
Most Danes, for example, are largely semi-analphabets. They struggle with proper plural endings and present-tense endings, they tend to use three prepositions as "universal prepositions", meaning that everything is either _omkring_ (about), _i forhold til_ (compared to) or _på_ (on). Splitting of compound nouns is rampant (influence from English, no doubt), and punctuation is all over the place. The national philosophy is _'s long azits sumwha korrekt, its' foin._ Or to quote a German mock poster I once saw: _nider met da rektshreibunk!_ 😂
@danielvanr.8681 It is true that being a native speaker is not always a sign of English proficiency, or any other skill, but this seems to be irrelevant to almost all employers.
@@danielvanr.8681in the Netherlands many of the Dutch are in the same path. Proficiency in English is OK, but mastering their own Dutch language, be it spoken or written... Disastrous...
@@jandevries3252 En ek dag dat Afrikaans die "kombuis-Nederlands" of "baby Dutch" was. 😂
People from the uk can’t work in the EU anymore since Brexit.
I watched something a few years back explaining why the Chinese written word far more efficient that other written languages once learned.
Except foreign words, like country or human names. Japanese has a better affinity with foreign words, while still using the same system as Chinese.
Bus doesn’t stem from English but from Latin. It has been Omnibus originally.
What a load of nonsense. The vast majority of Europeans still speak their own tongue and will continue doing so. English has been diluting other languages for ages, through music, recently and trade in the further past. It works both ways, English uses borrowed words like landscape (Dutch - landschap) that have been in our vocabulary for hundreds of years.
Languages have to be flexible and that's why you have commissions in various countries who look at their own language and remove or change obsolete grammar, spelling etc. The elite in Europe used to use Latin, The elite in England used to use French, these languages didn't 'take over', rather the language of the common man became the 'lingua franca'
Are such commissions really helping flexibility?
The French must be the only exceptions, then, because they have what amounts to a 'language police', i.e. the Academie Francaise, who are doing their utmost to keep French 'pure', by banning any foreign words (especially Americanisms) which can legitimately be replaced by an existing French one. Since a lot of the time there isn't a reasonable replacement, they're fighting a losing battle! They don't seem to be interested in 'improving' the language at all.
@@NorthernChimp Yes because they don't ban words (with the possible exception of France), they remove obsolete grammar and usually simplify it or make it more relevant. Example: in Dutch, some years ago, they removed oo from the end of some words which now end in o. Also, the sch combination was dropped from the end of some words and replaced with s. All sensible changes that everyone (almost) embraced.
@@IrishSchaller Thank you, now I understand better. The examples you gave are _spelling_ reforms, which make much more sense to me than attempting to change how people speak grammatically.
In France, we have several comities who regard any flexibility as crime and blasphemy, and we get taught from early school years, a sense of shame for not applying grammar rules (for things like gender and number), that were, historically, artificially introduced in the language.
This is where my question came from.
Bundesverkehrswegeplanungsbeschleunigungsgesetz is certainly the most efficient Word, right😂
We got Hotel from French, not from English.
There are suprisingly few German words in English, only about a dozen in common use.
Many more... but more in fields like science and philosophy..,😅
@@kapuzinergruftand theology
Rubbish! 'I will speak to you in old words you will understand'......all the words in that sentence probably come from Anglo Saxon, which is early German. The English language is based on 3 major sources, Anglo Saxon, Latin and French (though we also have words which came from the Vikings and from Celtic). The most commonly used words, however, tend to come from Anglo Saxon.
@@vivienhodgson3299 Neither modern English nor modern German are Anglo-Saxon. They may be heavily based on such, words such as faeder become vater and father, but Anglo-Saxon is unintellible to speakers of both modern languages. As far as I know, no Anglo-Saxon words have come directly to modern English in the last centuries.
There are only about twenty common words which have come from modern German to modern English - more than three times that number from India.
I suggest you look them up.
What about Eldsay English or Anglish?
Konstrukte lingwas yo en-stan in Europa 😉👍
I needed 1 Year to learn English on C2 and only 6 Months to learn German on C2! German is easy and English is difficult!
Which language did you learn first?
English spelling is highly idiosyncratic. This is what makes English difficult. English grammar is simpler than German.
@sigmaoctantis1892 I found everything more Simple in German then in English. For Example, sometimes in English you can't know, at least at the begining if it's male or female. In German you can. I found that very useful. And German Ortography is much easier then English one. I learned English first and German Second.
@@tomislavnagy8715 Gender is fairly irrelevant in English except when it is actually a male or female person. I am a native English speaker and find gender in German a complicating feature.
Yes, it is much easier to work out pronunciation with German spelling. Spelling/reading is the most difficult thing about English.
English is (I think) about 25% Germanic. So, learning German after English would make it easier. Also, if you first language is one of the Germanic languages, that would make German easier.
From C1.2 to C2, you probably only needed 6 months. That's really true lol😂😂😂
@geomanhaes No. I went grom A1 to C2 in 6 Months in German.
German isn’t difficult because it has long words, it are the grammatical cases. I’m Dutch, and we do the same as the Germans, making new words by gluing old ones together. I can speak German, more or less. But I didn’t choose it in high school. I went for French.
Your analysis is only true for natives of analytic languages. It is biased. Ask someone whose mother tongue has even more cases than German!
@ the video was about German being difficult for English speakers. The English have only have one case. German and English are both Germanic languages, they are close. Learning German for speakers of a non-Germanic language is of course difficult.
Great essay! Thanks for sharing.
Ausgezeichnetes Video, Roger. Thanks.
abonniert.
How could the origin of English words begin in Germany, England is older than Germany?
@@johnbrereton5229 Anglo-saxons came in the 5th century first as mercenaries, later as invaders. They spoke the original base of English. (= Anglo-Saxon) Their country of origin was northern Germany. Still today a region of Germany is called Sachsen, in Latin Saxonia. The original language of Great Britain before 500 was Celtic, which practically disappeared except in some very remote regions of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
@schurlbirkenbach1995
The Anglosaxons didnt come from 'Germany' because no such country existed at that time. England is actualy an older country than Germany. German and Germanic are not the same. The Germananic languages originated in Scandinavia, not Germany. Also modern research has shown that a Germanic language was used by the Iceni tribe who inhabited modern day Northfolk and Southfolk and the germanic speaking Belgae tribe were well established in Southern Britain when Caesar first invaded in 55BC.
@johnbrereton5229 Please give me sources of your opinion. Everything I found, told me, the Iceni were Celts. And Germany did not exist in 500 bc. as a political unity. As well as England did not exist as a political unity. But it existed the Germanic tribes in this territory, which in fact came from Southern Scandinavia.
@schurlbirkenbach1995
England became a unified country in 927 AD while Germany was part of the Empire of Charlemagne and then the Holy Roman Empire. It wasnt untill the German Confederation in 1815 after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire that Germany was united in one separate country. However, the east coast of Britain traded with and was peopled by those from the nearby north western coast of Europe before the Roman invasion by Caesar in 55bc. One of these tribes was the Iceni and new research by Daphne Nash Briggs concludes that the Iceni used Germanic on their coins, as the inscriptions dont make sense in Celtic.
The Belgae were a large tribe who lived along the Northwest coast of Gaul who
Cesare described as Celts of Germanic origins and it is believed that they were a Germanic tribe who adopted Celtic culture.
@@johnbrereton5229 you speak of political entities, I speak of ethnicities. In one of his anti-papal songs in the 13th century, Walter von der Vogelweide spoke of the German speaking people. Do you know the term "querelles allemandes". Anyway, both languages, English and German have the same sources, that is recognized by Scientists and every more intelligent German pupil, which can translate the first lines in his first English book for children whithout preteachings, whereas that's impossible with Latin based and all Slavic languages. And it's logic, that at the time of Shakespeare, the two languages were nearer to their common origins than now. PS. Thanks for your sources. This would explain why the Celtic language disappeared so quickly in England. Because in Caesar's time it was no longer the dominant one.
Foedus Europaeum latine loqui oportet :-)
Seriously?
Iceberg in English is more likely derived from the language of their long-term naval rivals from across the North Sea: the Dutch. In Dutch IJsberg is very efficiently a mountain of ice.
As many linguists have already pointed out, English is a mixture of the old Celtic languages of the British Isles and the languages of invading tribes and later the trading partners and both cultural and political influencers.
No it is just a Germanic language with major influence.
The various influences are by no means of equal strength. English is a Germanic language with a whole bunch of Latin-based words borrowed mostly through French.
That is me shitequal. It comes how it comes.
I understood the reference from German, although that sentence wouldn't work in English without German knowledge...
No. You can't just kill of all of the languages. Each of those language have a history and culture behind them. You can't just kill them off for some basic "English". Do not strip away culture. We should not be one Europe, we are all different but united.
i don't think the author said we should kill any language
Well, he is not talking about what should be, we agree there, but he is talking about the future.
What a bunch of nonsense
The way EU is demented at the moment I am afraid it is devolving backwards, this new language will be twice less precise and efficient… as we getting ‘simple’
Das Union European non nodigas das Anglise, dat non esas das idiom ofisial in kaina Stst Member ov das Union European / La Uniono Europana ne bezonas la angla, qua ne esas oficiala linguo en nula Stato Membro. / Le Union Europee non necessita del anglese, que non es lingua official in necun Stato Membro / Evropejska Unija ne potrěbuje angličsky, ktora ne jest oficielny jazyk v nikakij Člensky Statu.
Esperanto!
West Europe is American colony. It is true. English is reflecting this current situation. For this reason Germans will use American English. European English doesn't have any ground.
Thank god we are an american colony ,imaging be a rusian colony ,that would be horrible,no freedoms dictatorship
@@joaquindiaz7818 Not to mention speaking a language with six or seven cases! 😱
@@joaquindiaz7818 Cancelling native German language is freedom. Well done. Go ahead.
@@johnboyce8279 It is more productive for you to compare your native language with English.
@@АлексейЛеонидов-б9в As a german, I speak both german and english. Its sad for russian trolls to only have one language :(