Feeder Languages
The wonderful writer Borges on why he preferred English to Spanish:
“English is both a Germanic and a Latin language…so for almost anything you take it has two words…regal is not exactly the same thing as saying kingly…those two words are not exactly the same…it would make all the difference in the world in a poem if I wrote the holy spirit or the the holy ghost… ghost is a fine dark saxon word, but spirit is a light latin word. Another reason, of all languages English is, i think, the most physical of languages. for example ‘he loomed over’, you can’t say that in Spanish. And in English you can do almost anything with verbs and prepositions, for example ‘to laugh off’, ‘to dream away’,’to live down’ something… ‘to live up to’ something - you can’t say those things in Spanish.”
- Jorge Luis Borges, on ‘Firing Line’ TV programme 1977.
In a chat about this the an erudite person sometimes prone to saying daft things, said "You can say the same thing...about any language. They all have multiple influences that enrich him."......... to which i say: multiple influences is quite different from being a 'dual register' language. Or lets call it a 'two medium sized components' language. The large amount of BOTH Germanic and Latin/French words makes English different from most or possibly all other European languages. It appears that in modern English up to 29% of the words are derived from Norman French, up to 29% from Latin and up to 26% from Germanic roots (note that its not not precise).
Other Germanic languages are vastly more germanic in %... other Latin languages have far more Latin origin words and far less Germanic origin words. For example in German its estimated that a bit more than five percent are from Latin - compared to 29% in English (and 29% French origin words on top of that). Thats a big difference.
As to Latin languages - in Spanish, for example, its estimated that 75% of the words derive from Latin and that Germanic words are only the 4th biggest slice (at, I’m guessing around 6%). Again, that percentage split is very different from English with its BIG slices of BOTH germanic and latin origin words.
And... its not just a question of percentages but that English has, in 1000s of examples, two versions for the SAME thing, coming from two languages, both in common use. Added to that we can note that the two different versions for each thing, like cow and beef, are often strongly connected to the sociological nature of the UK (especially the class system, food, education etc). From the Norman times and still now the French and latin origin words are considered higher class than the germanic origin words. this dual register also influences the literature and TV and music of the UK.
For example, the well known change in 60s Britain towards a more working class influenced cultural flow was indicated by having more vulgar germanic origin words used on TV, films and in music, etc. almost no one called it that but this was a key aspect of it. actors like Michael Caine in 1965 saying, in a working class london accent ‘alright mate?’, instead of 20 years before when actors like Trevor Howard would say, in polite upper class accents, ‘How do you do, sir?’ is an example (‘mate’ is Germanic, ‘sir’ is Latin origin).
I am not sure that France or Germany or Italy or Sweden , or any other Germanic or Latin origin language has that kind of ‘dual language reflects and creates culture’ aspect. Maybe they do, but i suspect that its probably a question of words considered ‘high class’ and ‘proper’ versus ones considered ’street’ or ‘vulgar’ from the SAME language. Rather than from two different ones, as in English. And as far as I can see no other Germanic or Latin origin language has the 'two medium sized components' characteristic. If you can think of one, please tell me.
I welcome anyone telling me of another language anywhere in the world that has TWO components that make up more than 85% of the total words - as in English. Not ONE dominant language with several smaller influences (as in Spanish). I mean a present day language with TWO components, both of which make up a medium slice ( as in 30% or 40% or 50% ) of the words presently used, and that, combined, those two components make up the vast majority of the words in that present language.
Thats not a challenge, its an expression of interest.
**********
(later I got some replies....)
So far I've told these languages may fit that: Tagalog, Japanese and Catalan. So, let's have a look:
Tagalog
Having looked at the situation of Tagalog is seems it may be a ‘double feeder’ mix. And a ‘triple component’ language. According to some studies an estimated “40 percent of colloquial Tagalog vocabulary is comprised of adopted Spanish words or Tagalog words derived from the Spanish language.” Then about half as many English words are in the mix. So, that would make it a double feeder language mix, in normal usage.
But according to another study of root words - “of the 30,000 root words in the Tagalog language, there are close to 4,000 from Spanish, 3,000 from Malay, 2,000 from English, 2,000 from both Hokkien (Min Nan) and Yue Chinese dialects”. Which, quick calculation, makes it roughly 13% Spanish, 7% English, 10% Malay, around 13% from South Chinese sources, and various other smaller sources. Therefore, on that basis its a ‘quintuple feeder’ language mix.
But since those all add up to less than 50% of the total, it means that, around 53% of the words are Tagalog, meaning it is - just - a single language dominated style. The base language makes up the majority of words and it has several smaller feeder languages. In total amount of words at least, though in normal conversation it seems to be double or triple feeder type. In any case, its therefore significantly different from English, in which 85% of the words come from two sources with neither dominating (though we could argue that English is actually triple component if we think of latin and french as distinctively different, see below).
Japanese
As to Japanese - it appears to be a 'triple component' language. According to some sources its approximately 60% kango (Chinese words), 30% wago (original Japanese words), and 10% of gairaigo (non-Chinese loanwords and its estimated that these are 80% or even 90% from English). So that makes Japanese a double feeder type, though we should note that 60% means the majority, therefore making it a a single component dominated language - if we think in terms of total lexicon.
But, then the point comes up that in normal conversation the % of kango words are less and the percentage of gairaigo possibly more. Now, I’m just guessing but lets say that in every day use Japanese is 50% wago, 35% kango and 15% gairaigo (i asked some Japanese people to say what they thought the % was and they were simply not sure, gave wildly different answers. It's likely that i'm slightly wrong here). Would others familiar with Japan agree with my % above? If so then it makes it very similar to the situation of English - a double feeder language (wago and kango) in which both sources are about equal and together add up to about 85% of words.
Except, shouldn't we think of the wago as the 'base language'? Therefore giving the base language of Japanese, wago, two feeder languages - Chinese and English, which together make up 70% of the total vocabulary or around 50% of everyday conversation. That would still leave it roughly as the same type as English, in terms of having two key components (Wago and Kango). But different in one way - it has one big feeder language (kango) and one much smaller feeder language, English. Therefore its more like a 'one big feeder with one medium sized feeder' language, which is different from English and its two medium size components mix.
Also, as with English the different word sources are often connected to different levels of politeness and use in specialist situations. Generally it seems that kango is used in more formal situations. But i am not sure about this. I asked some Japanese about it and they struggled to give examples of a clear explanation. It seems that in English the difference is more stark - in a formal interview, in court, giving an academic lecture etc the amount of French/Latin (and in such cases also Greek) derived words used is markedly higher, easily noticeable, when compared to talking to your pals down the pub. Is such a difference in wago/kango use clear in Japanese? I'm simply not sure. I will ask some more Japanese people.
We can see that specialist occupations in English have a marked difference - legal talk or food making in English has a far higher level of Latin and French in it than normal conversation. and the same seems true in Japan. Gairaigo words increase vastly in certain occupations. One study found that “In specialist dictionaries, say ones focusing on marketing, 75% or more come from English.”
BUT, last point: in Japanese are there TWO words for the same thing, from different source languages and both in common use? Of course, there are often two or more ways of reading and pronouncing kanji characters. There are often multiple kun’yomi and on’yomi ways to say many ideograms (or logograms i believe is the more correct word). For example, 水 has スイ (on-yomi, Readings derived from the Chinese pronunciations) and みず (kun-yomi, Japanese pronunciation) .
But isn’t that different from having two different words for the same thing? English has two completely different words, with different spellings and sounds for the same object or feeling (cow and beef as noted before, or - sick is german derived, ill is french). Japanese has ONE logogram, with two ways or more ways to say it, and/or two or more meanings.
And, another key point: one of those versions, the kun-yomi is from the ‘base language’ which we have already said is not included as a source or feeder language (in this way of looking at it). Therefore we have the base way to say 水 and only ONE other way to say it. Unless we now bring in the gairaigo word ‘water’, but that seems illegitimate in this case - as its a translation of that 水 symbol into a foreign language.
Further complication: We might think that English does not have a base way to say such things - it has only two feeder ways to say it. Or, we could say that the base language of English is Germanic, and that the Latin/ French additions are the feeder elements (either seen as two languages or basically one language if we lump them together) . And that Japanese is the base language and Chinese and English is it's two feeder languages. Or Tagalog is the base with three feeder languages.
Eee, lad, it's complicated. Other languages to come...
The wonderful writer Borges on why he preferred English to Spanish:
“English is both a Germanic and a Latin language…so for almost anything you take it has two words…regal is not exactly the same thing as saying kingly…those two words are not exactly the same…it would make all the difference in the world in a poem if I wrote the holy spirit or the the holy ghost… ghost is a fine dark saxon word, but spirit is a light latin word. Another reason, of all languages English is, i think, the most physical of languages. for example ‘he loomed over’, you can’t say that in Spanish. And in English you can do almost anything with verbs and prepositions, for example ‘to laugh off’, ‘to dream away’,’to live down’ something… ‘to live up to’ something - you can’t say those things in Spanish.”
- Jorge Luis Borges, on ‘Firing Line’ TV programme 1977.
In a chat about this the an erudite person sometimes prone to saying daft things, said "You can say the same thing...about any language. They all have multiple influences that enrich him."......... to which i say: multiple influences is quite different from being a 'dual register' language. Or lets call it a 'two medium sized components' language. The large amount of BOTH Germanic and Latin/French words makes English different from most or possibly all other European languages. It appears that in modern English up to 29% of the words are derived from Norman French, up to 29% from Latin and up to 26% from Germanic roots (note that its not not precise).
Other Germanic languages are vastly more germanic in %... other Latin languages have far more Latin origin words and far less Germanic origin words. For example in German its estimated that a bit more than five percent are from Latin - compared to 29% in English (and 29% French origin words on top of that). Thats a big difference.
As to Latin languages - in Spanish, for example, its estimated that 75% of the words derive from Latin and that Germanic words are only the 4th biggest slice (at, I’m guessing around 6%). Again, that percentage split is very different from English with its BIG slices of BOTH germanic and latin origin words.
And... its not just a question of percentages but that English has, in 1000s of examples, two versions for the SAME thing, coming from two languages, both in common use. Added to that we can note that the two different versions for each thing, like cow and beef, are often strongly connected to the sociological nature of the UK (especially the class system, food, education etc). From the Norman times and still now the French and latin origin words are considered higher class than the germanic origin words. this dual register also influences the literature and TV and music of the UK.
For example, the well known change in 60s Britain towards a more working class influenced cultural flow was indicated by having more vulgar germanic origin words used on TV, films and in music, etc. almost no one called it that but this was a key aspect of it. actors like Michael Caine in 1965 saying, in a working class london accent ‘alright mate?’, instead of 20 years before when actors like Trevor Howard would say, in polite upper class accents, ‘How do you do, sir?’ is an example (‘mate’ is Germanic, ‘sir’ is Latin origin).
I am not sure that France or Germany or Italy or Sweden , or any other Germanic or Latin origin language has that kind of ‘dual language reflects and creates culture’ aspect. Maybe they do, but i suspect that its probably a question of words considered ‘high class’ and ‘proper’ versus ones considered ’street’ or ‘vulgar’ from the SAME language. Rather than from two different ones, as in English. And as far as I can see no other Germanic or Latin origin language has the 'two medium sized components' characteristic. If you can think of one, please tell me.
I welcome anyone telling me of another language anywhere in the world that has TWO components that make up more than 85% of the total words - as in English. Not ONE dominant language with several smaller influences (as in Spanish). I mean a present day language with TWO components, both of which make up a medium slice ( as in 30% or 40% or 50% ) of the words presently used, and that, combined, those two components make up the vast majority of the words in that present language.
Thats not a challenge, its an expression of interest.
**********
(later I got some replies....)
So far I've told these languages may fit that: Tagalog, Japanese and Catalan. So, let's have a look:
Tagalog
Having looked at the situation of Tagalog is seems it may be a ‘double feeder’ mix. And a ‘triple component’ language. According to some studies an estimated “40 percent of colloquial Tagalog vocabulary is comprised of adopted Spanish words or Tagalog words derived from the Spanish language.” Then about half as many English words are in the mix. So, that would make it a double feeder language mix, in normal usage.
But according to another study of root words - “of the 30,000 root words in the Tagalog language, there are close to 4,000 from Spanish, 3,000 from Malay, 2,000 from English, 2,000 from both Hokkien (Min Nan) and Yue Chinese dialects”. Which, quick calculation, makes it roughly 13% Spanish, 7% English, 10% Malay, around 13% from South Chinese sources, and various other smaller sources. Therefore, on that basis its a ‘quintuple feeder’ language mix.
But since those all add up to less than 50% of the total, it means that, around 53% of the words are Tagalog, meaning it is - just - a single language dominated style. The base language makes up the majority of words and it has several smaller feeder languages. In total amount of words at least, though in normal conversation it seems to be double or triple feeder type. In any case, its therefore significantly different from English, in which 85% of the words come from two sources with neither dominating (though we could argue that English is actually triple component if we think of latin and french as distinctively different, see below).
Japanese
As to Japanese - it appears to be a 'triple component' language. According to some sources its approximately 60% kango (Chinese words), 30% wago (original Japanese words), and 10% of gairaigo (non-Chinese loanwords and its estimated that these are 80% or even 90% from English). So that makes Japanese a double feeder type, though we should note that 60% means the majority, therefore making it a a single component dominated language - if we think in terms of total lexicon.
But, then the point comes up that in normal conversation the % of kango words are less and the percentage of gairaigo possibly more. Now, I’m just guessing but lets say that in every day use Japanese is 50% wago, 35% kango and 15% gairaigo (i asked some Japanese people to say what they thought the % was and they were simply not sure, gave wildly different answers. It's likely that i'm slightly wrong here). Would others familiar with Japan agree with my % above? If so then it makes it very similar to the situation of English - a double feeder language (wago and kango) in which both sources are about equal and together add up to about 85% of words.
Except, shouldn't we think of the wago as the 'base language'? Therefore giving the base language of Japanese, wago, two feeder languages - Chinese and English, which together make up 70% of the total vocabulary or around 50% of everyday conversation. That would still leave it roughly as the same type as English, in terms of having two key components (Wago and Kango). But different in one way - it has one big feeder language (kango) and one much smaller feeder language, English. Therefore its more like a 'one big feeder with one medium sized feeder' language, which is different from English and its two medium size components mix.
Also, as with English the different word sources are often connected to different levels of politeness and use in specialist situations. Generally it seems that kango is used in more formal situations. But i am not sure about this. I asked some Japanese about it and they struggled to give examples of a clear explanation. It seems that in English the difference is more stark - in a formal interview, in court, giving an academic lecture etc the amount of French/Latin (and in such cases also Greek) derived words used is markedly higher, easily noticeable, when compared to talking to your pals down the pub. Is such a difference in wago/kango use clear in Japanese? I'm simply not sure. I will ask some more Japanese people.
We can see that specialist occupations in English have a marked difference - legal talk or food making in English has a far higher level of Latin and French in it than normal conversation. and the same seems true in Japan. Gairaigo words increase vastly in certain occupations. One study found that “In specialist dictionaries, say ones focusing on marketing, 75% or more come from English.”
BUT, last point: in Japanese are there TWO words for the same thing, from different source languages and both in common use? Of course, there are often two or more ways of reading and pronouncing kanji characters. There are often multiple kun’yomi and on’yomi ways to say many ideograms (or logograms i believe is the more correct word). For example, 水 has スイ (on-yomi, Readings derived from the Chinese pronunciations) and みず (kun-yomi, Japanese pronunciation) .
But isn’t that different from having two different words for the same thing? English has two completely different words, with different spellings and sounds for the same object or feeling (cow and beef as noted before, or - sick is german derived, ill is french). Japanese has ONE logogram, with two ways or more ways to say it, and/or two or more meanings.
And, another key point: one of those versions, the kun-yomi is from the ‘base language’ which we have already said is not included as a source or feeder language (in this way of looking at it). Therefore we have the base way to say 水 and only ONE other way to say it. Unless we now bring in the gairaigo word ‘water’, but that seems illegitimate in this case - as its a translation of that 水 symbol into a foreign language.
Further complication: We might think that English does not have a base way to say such things - it has only two feeder ways to say it. Or, we could say that the base language of English is Germanic, and that the Latin/ French additions are the feeder elements (either seen as two languages or basically one language if we lump them together) . And that Japanese is the base language and Chinese and English is it's two feeder languages. Or Tagalog is the base with three feeder languages.
Eee, lad, it's complicated. Other languages to come...