If i could write European history i would unite Europe under Polish language

I don't, and that's why I said it could be.


The English language changed. The German language changed. The Fresian language didn't change. (Some Danish and German people still speak Fresian.)


I'd rather speak Polish.

;)

Sorry, badly put by me. What i mean is how do they know Dutch developed first, rather than developing out of other languages.

They can't say for certain ofcourse. The problem is that most of the European tribes never wrote anything down. We do know that Fresian is an older language than German, English and Dutch though, like what Gaelic is in Ireland. The Dutch people spoke a variety of dialects before it was decided that all of Holland should speak ABN. (An abbreviation which loosely translates as Common Civilized Dutch.) This modern day Dutch has much in common with the Germanic languages, but it's not really what I mean with Dutch language. (My bad!)

I know a very good book, which deals with the Empire in the Balkans, but it has the disadvantage that the Hungarian language. Let's say I speak Hungarian, do not cause trouble for me to read it. h ttp://konyv-konyvek.hu/balkani_birodalom

i can't imagine our entire world sitting around trying to figure out how to say "5 or more" of some new word that just came out, how to conjugate it properly, or creating 1,000 new verbs a year ending in "owac".

a completely inefficient language such as Polish is simply a bad candidate for a universal European language.

You probably don't know the language or little of it if you think so. It is quite rich so a certain amount of complexity mus be present. It is hard too master it too, because of its sophistication, but certainly it is a language that is far more rich than e.g. English. Coming back to the main topic, having just one European language would result in little development of languages, and little diversity, so probably it would be a bad idea. And what would all the linguists be doing then;)??

let's all learn Cornish then. I think it's much more closer to original language of first European inhabitans...

LOL LOL & LOL

You cannot be serious??

English has by far the largest vocabulary for a start. There are loads of words in English for which there are no polish equivalents - or at least not easy to express succinctly.

Absolutely agree with Teffle. American English can have less vocabulary (in use) but certainly not British version

And vice versa. Also, many if not most of those magic words are simply borrowings. Any language can borrow, including Polish! ;-p

That's a case in every comparison! There are words in Polish that you won't find in English too. That is a proof for what exactly? Nothing. I hope it's not about saying which language is better, because this would be extremely pointless.

By saying that Polish is more rich and complex than English I meant many different aspects altogether, lexis being one of them. And estimating just the number of words in a language is impossible as that are open sets.

Of course - but it depends what you mean by "borrow"

Zeitgeist and déjà vu for example, both used also in English, are obviously foreign but there are foreign words that have become assimilated over the centuries and their pronunciation has changed etc so that they are now functionally "English" words.

Again, the same in Polish too.


More complex - yes, definitely won't argue with that one!

And no, definitely not saying which is "better" LOL

But more rich - what do you mean then?

Exactly. I don't want to claim here that either language is richer or better or whatnot. I just want to point out that there is no perfect language - and English is not currently an international language because of its rich vocabulary or unique character, but only because its grammar can be simplified to the point of absurdity while still retaining some vestiges of meaning, thus enabling communication between non-native English speakers who have had even a few lessons and carry a dictionary ;-)

Not sure if that is a good thing, but here you are. BTW, Polish as an international language seems unnecessarily cruel to me.

Poles look best in their simplest form. I really like Poles in their most simplest form, the most innocent ones make me feel so much in Poland. Alas, things are not the same every passing day. But then there are good things coming in too ... in all of its various ways.

Crow ... I like many things you say buddy (apart from many things which I may not like ... as you know my mentality, lol).

Cornish is part of the Celtic branch of the Indo-European Language family and as such is no closer to the original language of the first European inhabitants than Polish. The only spoken language in Europe which would qualify as being nearer to the language of the original European inhabitants is Euzkadi (Basque).

By mixing the idea of history and language you raise an interesting point. All languages borrow a little bit from other languages but only one language is truly cannibalistic in the way it has absorbed and continues to absorb words and grammar from other languages, and that is English. The name English derives from the fact that it started life as the language of the Angles who were invaders from the north of the Netherlands and this is seen in the great similarity between Freisian words for weather with English. The language of the Angles, however was changed a great deal by the related language of the Saxons, the existing traditional Briton languages, and the small remains of Latin. Saxon words are commonly found in words for basic land structures, and other basic things like swearing, and resoluteness - thus Churchill's speech "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing fields... we will never surrender" has so many Anglo Saxon words in it that a real Anglo Saxon would possibly understand it.

English was added to by Norwegian and Danish when the Vikings invaded. This is especially true in the north of England and accounts for the great difference between English in the north, and English in the south of England.

English nearly became extinct when the Normans invaded and tried to force everyone to speak French but eventually English revived and absorbed French and today about a quarter of English is French words, especially words to do with food, shopping, and working. When the British and American colonization of North America began it started a huge influx of Spanish and Native American and the world wide extent of the British Empire lead to English adopting words from India, Malay, African languages and so on.

There is even some Polish words, or words that have been changed but originated with Polish. Words like 'horde', schmuck, gherkin, polonaise, mazurka, and so on.

The reason I make this summary of English like this is that of all the languages, English already incorporates the history of Europe in its structure. Other languages might be able to write about European history, but English is a living example of a language that includes parts of all European languages, plus Asian, African, Australian Aboriginal, and North and South American native cultures as well. It is not the language spoken by the most people (Chinese is and Spanish has almost the same number of speakers as English) but it is the only language that is a truly world language in the sense that it incorporates parts of almost every language. You realize how much this is so when you look at a small and far away culture like Innuit and see the large number of Innuit words we commonly use - anorak, kayak, moose, caribou, caucus, and so on.

It is interesting to have a look at the origins of words in an English sentence. It demonstrates how mixed up it is:

A (Anglo-Saxon) horde (Polish) of (Greco-Latin via Dutch) men (Sanskrit via Dutch) could (Greco-Latin) have (German) a (Anglo-Saxon) pow wow (Native American) whilst (German) eating (Greco-Latin via German) cake (Danish) and (German) smoking (German) a (Anglo-Saxon) pipe (French) under (Dutch) a (Anglo-Saxon) stormy (Dutch) sky (Norse) while (German) holding (Norse) umbrellas (Italian) and (German) dancing (French) a (Anglo-Saxon) mazurka (Polish). This (Anglo-Saxon) would (Anglo-Saxon) be (Latin) better (Dutch) than (Anglo-Saxon) holding (Norse) a (Anglo-Saxon) kangaroo (Australian Aboriginal) court (French).

So perhaps the spread of English is merely the language looking for all its lost roots :-) and maybe it is a more appropriate language for writing the history of the whole of of Europe. Like Polish it is a language rich in idioms that are good for telling the stories of real people.

I think Italian is like the best sounding European language, Spanish sounds nice but with a Spanish accent them Latin Americans blabber and mess up it's integrity ;-)

That is all very well, and your summary is interesting and well-written, but please understand that each and every European language could claim the same. There are Latin, Greek, German, French, English, Russian, Italian, Czech, etc etc borrowings in Polish... plus borrowings from faraway cultures such as karibu, amok, kajak, harakiri, nirwana, joga, etc.

If they would not have been in Byzantine empire as soldiers and later being part of the army that stopped the Turks from invading Vienna, you would not write a sh1t, wherever the frakk you live...


BS. The 'popularity/domination' is based on those countries which are mainly using it and/or where it is motherlanguage. Another point is, that we live still in a world(not only regarding language) dominated by Anglo, 'cause of their drive to dominate in some way and as a result f.e. in business or other fields the main language is English.

Try to convnce a Chinese or Russian in business meeting to speak English. Minimal chance...

As from my perspective it is simple to learn and that's it. Wouldn't mind if instead it would be Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Suaheli... etc. ;)

I forgot to mention the Soviets too.

Schnucki, wish what you like but impossible :D

Do you or did somebody in your wider family have some bad experience with Russians? I really would like to understand your aversion or maybe even hate for them. I'm a little concerned.


Good proposal!

I don't hate you. I just don't like you guys. Yes, I do have some personal reasons for my opinion about you but I don't feel like bringing it up on this forum.

Why don't you like Russians? Please answer directly to the question, if you can.


I' m curious as I said. Feel free to write a PM.


Why? It would to me more look like a nice challenge for a change. ;-)

LMFAO, I could use dozens of ancient british words to describe this idea and your reasoning(?) behind it,but theyd all get censored out with *****s .....


not sure about that,but it certainly stimulates the saliva glands,Scheveningen indead :)([ˈsxeːvənɪŋə(n)])


wzdislaw Shakespearski?

not to mention that it would be a terrible waste of time in this case :-)

You are very correct. ;) Hahahah

You are one seriously crazy guy, Crow.

That is all.

the guy is mental...

Much of what Crow writes sounds familiar.I just had no idea that Serbs are so volatile and express this in the open.