Escaping Germany
The work of Noah Webster and other Usicans (Americans) in bettering the English language is often considered editing; in coming up with slightly different things that just happened to be better. However, forgotten here is that English is not foundationally the way the Angles (people in England) spoke. Similarly to the way that rabbi-reverence has tricked many modern Jesusians into believing that the philosophy for tax-cattle/subjects left alive by the Middle Eastern conquest is European tradition when it is completely not, English was not that tradition. Webster was not adding something but returning what was lost ("stolen" is a better word, but for this essay now we will just say "lost").
What became called English (Anglish) was a dialect of the way the Germans spoke. What Noah Webster did was turning English back toward its roots (German), rather than inventing a new way of not doing many of the tomfooleries done by the Angles: adding vowels unnecessarily and changing words to claim difference equals wisdom and improvement. Webster's work was more like throwing out the boxes full of crud someone'd left in the attic rather than building a new attic. However, the things he did have been called--in a culture dominated by the tricks used on the descendants of the Angles--modifications.
(Incidentally, the way the Angles changed their dialect of German is related to the sometimes just foolish, sometimes unintentionally bad, sometimes diabolical incidences of the people who wanted to mix Europeans with Arabs/Africans and have led to the 2025-highly-visible changes in the British population. The type of behavior that caused the Angles then to have made their dialect of German so idiotic are relevant in ways beyond how today's Angles think it's proper to spell some word.)
For an example, consider the following sentence in Angle-mutated German:
Ich habe zwei vatres.
(English is "I have two fathres," lol, the German word for "fathers" is here misspelled in the Britardian way.)
…An ancient Anglo (Angle) would identify this mutation as simply crazy, contrafactual, while a modern Anglo institution would identify to what it refers as a sensible “family.” However, what is up there is not actually German! Rather, it demonstrates the way that the Angles began butteffing the language, switching Rs and Es.
(The real German is Ich habe zwei vaters.)
As one of the German versions of “the” shows clearly—der—this is alien to the language. It is why Noah Webster can be simply seen to be returning English to what it was rather (rathre in the U.K.?) than making up a variation. English was not a language of asinine reversal. Think of the German for book—buch—and books—bucher. The R sound indicated a plural, and the language was sensible in that it reflected how the human can generate an R sound only by starting it by generating a vowel-like passage of air past the vocal cords. The E after the R commonly seen in modern British English is a pretension; a claim like unto “I am so great I can produce an R sound on its own.” That isn’t at all true, but that fits with making behavior “behaviour” but still saying it the same.
This pretension doesn’t seem at all important, but consider how the British saved the world from militaristic Germany in WW1 and then again in WW2. The way that the British government acted in both instances is very like the way English got changed.
Very many very simple words in German end in ER and are never spelled correctly with the ending of RE. These are simple words, not elaborate ones, and they show from where English came. Actor, schauspieler. There are plenty of others; you can look those up, or maybe you speak German, whatever. What there are not are words that end in a consonant followed by a vowel, but said as though they end in a vowel followed by a consonant.
The sheer and outright stupidity of the Britardian revision of the dialect of German should be noted. If the vowels of that dialect were to become silent, that would be impossible. Imagine trying to speak without using any vowels. What the Angles did is make the vowels selectively silent—some of them, a very small number of them, became considered silent in order to produce an illusion of culture and intelligence. By changing “center” to “centre,” you spell the word as though the R were not supposed to be a termination, but merely add some flavor to a vowel termination. However, the British never—not with centre and not with any other word like that (“nevre”?)—terminate the word by pronouncing the vowel sound at the end. Pronunciation stayed the same as in the parent German; the spelling of the written language was just changed. This means that the word retained a vowel sound prior to the last consonant. The spelling of the written language became modified to become less clear; less accurate! Why a population using a language would go out of its way to change how words looked when written but not how they sounded when spoken speaks to the essential nature of the Angle grouping.
The reason that grouping was desired to leave Germany, not stay in the land of the Franks, and instead mass murder quite a few Celts and make those remaining their slaves, is exemplified in the craziness of the way that dialect of German was changed. The Angles did find a place to stay, terribly for those who were there first, and the development of their language continued.
How do you say the political party of labor in Angland? Labour of course! How do you say "our" in "our things"? "Our" of course! Do you pronounce “our” like “or”? No! No, that would be incorrect.
Now that we’ve verified that you know how to spell/say Labour in the land of the Celts Angles, and we’ve also verified that you know how “our” becomes said like “or” not always but only at the end of mainstream political parties, how do you spell the other major party there? Toury? No! No, in fact you still spell it Tory! That’s right: when you make the OR sound at the end of the Labour party, you spell it with an OUR but say it with an OR, but when you do the other major party, you do it with an OR and say it also with an OR.
The rules are completely arbitrary. The difference between how Labour/Tory are spelled and yet the simultaneous similarity in how part of them is pronounced gives away the random nature of the change to language. There was not a sudden decision by the Angles to sprinkle the salt and pepper of arbitrary unspoken vowel additions across the words of the language. What makes the way the Angles did it particularly stupid is that it was done arbitrarily: not to every word, but just to some. It was not a linguistic change caused by an alteration in the way the people spoke and wrote over centuries, but rather an alteration to just some of the available words. That kind of behaviour (which is never pronounced “behave-our” but only “behave-yore”) cuts against it having been an organic, real change. It was like what people call an Astroturf change to politics when the appearance of a grassroots movement is presented, but what is happening is actually not that.
The irony of linguistic Britishisms further demonstrates the way that after their removal from mainland Europe the Angles pieced together an artificial culture to go along with their rape/murder of the Celts. Tea is drank in China, of course, and also many other places. It can be drank by itself, as part of a meal, or as part of a snack. The attempt at making the drinking of tea indicative of high culture shows that the change in language was probably done for the same reason. This was referenced jestingly by the writer J.R.R. Tolkein (born and lifelong British so he can't be accused of ignorance) in how he has his "hobbit" characters develop a culture of humorously presented extra meals, such as "elevensies," at which tea is drank, which recall the habitual snacks had by the descendants of the Angles (the Anglish) in an event meant to include biscuits, crumpets, etc. For example, a hobbit's late morning tea becomes elevensies and the change is presented as humorous.
Comments
Post a Comment