Things You Thought You Knew About English

[Rival]

So, as @exchemist said on another thread, the -eth ending no longer used in Modern English is the third person ending for verbs (he speaketh).

But this is just one side of the story.

-eth was indeed the preferred ending for such verbs in many parts of Southern England; however in the North of England the ending -es was preferred (in other words, basically the way we tend to use it today; he speaks), but often with an extra 'e' - he speakes. Early on this 'e' would have been sounded.

The present participle, -ing, was also different, and in the majority of cases was not -ing but -and,

I'll let the book do the talking:

 

[Harel13]

Early on this 'e' would have been sounded.

So all southerners had lisps?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So all southerners had lisps?

That would be 'lithps', wouldn't it?

 

[Rival]

So all southerners had lisps?

So did your guys!

I've noticed English transliterations still use the -th in Hebrew whrere indeed the teth would have originally required it, but is now -t (Sabbath/Shabbat). Also interesting in forms like beith - beit - beis, in certain speech. Along with the betacism b -> v (Iacob/Iacov). 'David' is also an interesting one because afaik it would have been more like 'Dawud'.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Many years ago, I thought English grammar and spelling made sense.

 

[Harel13]

That would be 'lithps', wouldn't it?

I don't have a lisp though.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So, as @exchemist said on another thread, the -eth ending no longer used in Modern English is the third person ending for verbs (he speaketh).

But this is just one side of the story.

-eth was indeed the preferred ending for such verbs in many parts of Southern England; however in the North of England the ending -es was preferred (in other words, basically the way we tend to use it today; he speaks), but often with an extra 'e' - he speakes. Early on this 'e' would have been sounded.

The present participle, -ing, was also different, and in the majority of cases was not -ing but -and,

I'll let the book do the talking:

View attachment 70382

View attachment 70383​

Nope. Never thought I knew this about English!

 

[Harel13]

So did your guys!

Many possibilities come to mind, so I'll just go ahead and ask: Which guys?

I've noticed English transliterations still use the -th in Hebrew whrere indeed the teth would have originally required it, but is now -t (Sabbath/Shabbat).Also interesting in forms like bath - beit - beis, in certain speech. Along with the betacism b -> v (Iacob/Iacov). 'David' is also an interesting one because afaik it would have been more like 'Dawud'.

The history of transliterations is such a complicated subject, it makes me go: "OY!"
The most famous example of a difference in pronunciation among Hebrew speakers in Tanach is the story of the Ephraimites in Judges, but most people miss that there are several other examples in throughout Tanach and also later Jewish sources. In the late 19th-early 20th century it was opined by one rabbi, based on these observations, that different modern Jewish communities preserved different ancient pronunciation traditions. But modern scholarship as well as pretty much most of the Jewish world today holds that only one group has preserved an ancient form of pronunciation, the Yemenites.

And then we get into the question of: What did the Greeks hear, and what were they able to pronounce?

And that leads us to the question of: What did the medieval Englishmen hear, and what were they able to pronounce?

And so forth, ad nauseam.

So, should it be a "t" or a "th" or an "s" or some other sound that has been lost to time?
Answer: We don't know..!

 

[Harel13]

Many years ago, I thought English grammar and spelling made sense.

Ah, youthful naiveté. How I miss it sometimes.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ah, youthful naiveté. How I miss it sometimes.

Arabic grammar is still significantly harder than its English counterpart even for a lot of native Arabic speakers, but I find it much more consistent. Arabic also has multiple prescriptive authorities, so its grammatical consistency has been preserved even though the rules of Arabic grammar were codified over a millennium ago:

List of language regulators - Wikipedia

 

[Rival]

I'm glad people found this informative! It is very niche.

 

[Harel13]

Arabic grammar is still significantly harder than its English counterpart even for a lot of native Arabic speakers, but I find it much more consistent. Arabic also has multiple prescriptive authorities, so its grammatical consistency has been preserved even though the rules of Arabic grammar were codified over a millennium ago:

List of language regulators - Wikipedia

There's harder and then there's logical. English certainly doesn't have the latter going for it.

 

[Rival]

There's harder and then there's logical. English certainly doesn't have the latter going for it.

It's good for border protection

If you really want to live here you'll learn our language.

You have to really want to live here to do that...

 

[Rival]

Many possibilities come to mind, so I'll just go ahead and ask: Which guys?

The history of transliterations is such a complicated subject, it makes me go: "OY!"
The most famous example of a difference in pronunciation among Hebrew speakers in Tanach is the story of the Ephraimites in Judges, but most people miss that there are several other examples in throughout Tanach and also later Jewish sources. In the late 19th-early 20th century it was opined by one rabbi, based on these observations, that different modern Jewish communities preserved different ancient pronunciation traditions. But modern scholarship as well as pretty much most of the Jewish world today holds that only one group has preserved an ancient form of pronunciation, the Yemenites.

And then we get into the question of: What did the Greeks hear, and what were they able to pronounce?

And that leads us to the question of: What did the medieval Englishmen hear, and what were they able to pronounce?

And so forth, ad nauseam.

So, should it be a "t" or a "th" or an "s" or some other sound that has been lost to time?
Answer: We don't know..!

I'm guessing as there were different tribes these would have had different dialects as with Anglo-Saxon dialects.

 

[exchemist]

So did your guys!

I've noticed English transliterations still use the -th in Hebrew whrere indeed the teth would have originally required it, but is now -t (Sabbath/Shabbat). Also interesting in forms like beith - beit - beis, in certain speech. Along with the betacism b -> v (Iacob/Iacov). 'David' is also an interesting one because afaik it would have been more like 'Dawud'.

It is Dawood or Daoud in Arabic of course to this day. Beit/bayt as I recall is Arabic for house. I believe Bethlehem is from Beit-somethingorother.

 

[exchemist]

So, as @exchemist said on another thread, the -eth ending no longer used in Modern English is the third person ending for verbs (he speaketh).

But this is just one side of the story.

-eth was indeed the preferred ending for such verbs in many parts of Southern England; however in the North of England the ending -es was preferred (in other words, basically the way we tend to use it today; he speaks), but often with an extra 'e' - he speakes. Early on this 'e' would have been sounded.

The present participle, -ing, was also different, and in the majority of cases was not -ing but -and,

I'll let the book do the talking:

View attachment 70382

View attachment 70383​

What about the continuing use of thou/thee/thy in Yorkshire? Is that still going and is it just thee or do the nominative and genitive also survive?

 

[Rival]

What about the continuing use of thou/thee/thy in Yorkshire? Is that still going and is it just thee or do the nominative and genitive also survive?

It really depends where you go; mostly just thee or tha' theses days. It seems to be dying here though.

One thing that is very noticeable is 'sen' for self , himsen, mysen, etc.

 

[exchemist]

It really depends where you go; mostly just thee or tha' theses days. It seems to be dying here though.

One thing that is very noticeable is 'sen' for self , himsen, mysen, etc.

I've always rather liked thou and thy. They seem to convey a special intimacy, rather as tu/toi in French.

 

[Rival]

I've always rather liked thou and thy. They seem to convey a special intimacy, rather as tu/toi in French.

I might go on a one man mission to bring it back, starting with my class. The turban has caught on so who knows.

 

[exchemist]

I might go on a one man mission to bring it back, starting with my class. The turban has caught on so who knows.

I must say I rather liked it. (Though I admit it did make me wonder, for a brief instant, about chemotherapy - my wife wore one when she was on taxol.)