Origin of articles in Western European languages

[rupol2000]

Missed that. Since there are no articles, a sentence in Latin could have several meanings. You have to take the correct one from the other sentences.

No, it’s not like that. Context replaces articles. In fact, they are not needed at all, this is a silly design.

 

[rupol2000]

To be honest, I don’t understand at all how they could appear in languages. It seems that the peoples who spoke them hardly understood the difference between the abstract and the concrete; this required separate explanations.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't know from where they got into the English and other West European languages, but they are the thing I still find confusing and can't grasp the logic of appropriate using them.

The Origin of the Speeches

They are evolved forms of THIS, THAT and ONE. They originated from IE's other words. Some groups chose to go that way; others didn't, just as most ethnicities chose to change MOON because it was also used meaning MONTH. English just changed its pronunciation. LUNA means light and is related to English LOOK.

 

[rupol2000]

The Origin of the Speeches

They are evolved forms of THIS, THAT and ONE. They originated from IE's other words. Some groups chose to go that way; others didn't, just as most ethnicities chose to change MOON because it was also used meaning MONTH. English just changed its pronunciation. LUNA means light and is related to English LOOK.

In ancient IE languages, the moon was denoted by the word Soma, hence for example Somnabulism. Where did the word moon come from in English is also not very clear. By the way, the word hell has the same root as the sun, in general, this root meant heat. But this word is also not clear where it comes from, in Aryan it is not, there the sun is Surya.

BTW there might be inversion. The "sun" apparently has to do with "Soma"(moon), slavic "son"(sleep) is intermediate here.

Look is some kind of Old English verb word from the same type as irregular verbs in English. This is an inflectional form of the type "take-took" but the inflections are lost.

 

[rupol2000]

Irregular verbs are exactly atavisms of Indo-European grammar in English.

 

[Bleipriester]

No, it’s not like that. Context replaces articles. In fact, they are not needed at all, this is a silly design.

But that is what I said

 

[rupol2000]

MOON because it was also used meaning MONTH

These words are connected, the month is a lunar cycle, but it is not clear where the root itself came from.

 

[rupol2000]

But that is what I said

Well, yes, I misunderstood. But this does not necessarily have to attract other proposals. It's usually obvious. If someone says "take ruler from table" it is clear that we are talking about a specific ruler and specific table.

 

[rupol2000]

hypothetically, ambiguities may arise there, but in practice this never happens, if something needs to be clarified, you can express it with the word "this", in any case it is not prohibited in any language. Therefore, the articles are clearly redundant.

 

[rupol2000]

It is as if we were playing European football and called the ball the ball for European football all the time. If it is necessary to clarify this is specified, but the articles are always specified everything.

 

[Bleipriester]

To be honest, I don’t understand at all how they could appear in languages. It seems that the peoples who spoke them hardly understood the difference between the abstract and the concrete; this required separate explanations.

If we would forbear from anything that is not essential, we could go back to gutturals or something like that.

 

[rupol2000]

If we would forbear from anything that is not essential, we could go back to gutturals or something like that.

In fact, the complexity of the redundancy of the language speaks of its poor design, it doesn't matter in which sign system it happens. It's just that languages are layered on top of each other and there is a lot of incompatible grammar that is ugly intertwined. Different grammatical forms for the same language units and the like. Ideally, a person should understand the words of the language without defining these words separately, they should be understood from the grammar itself, if it is consistent.
Moreover, such redundancy will not mean the expressiveness of the language and grammatical diversity. It's just the opposite. As in a heap of rubbish, there is little useful, although there is a lot of shit.

 

[Unkotare]

This thread is like a Three Stooges skit.

 

[zaangalewa]

If we consider this langs to be the heirs of Indo-European (although typologically this is not so), then this could not be a source, because in the ancient IE there are not articles. It are there in the Semitic. How did it get into Western Europe? If through the Germans it means the Proto-Germanic language is related to the Semitic, so it turns out?

The English and German language are both Germanic languages. The English language uses no articles - but uses nevertheless grammatical genders (For example the USA = "she"). The German language use indeed 4 grammatical genders (three with articles, one without article). The word "Deutschland" (=Germany) is for example without any article and we call Germany not "she" but "it". I call this absolutelly neutral. The other form of neutral (relativelly neutral) is with article - and the other two grammatical genders (male and female) are also with article. So I guess the "neutral" form which we use with article never had been really neutral. It seems to me our ancestors saw in the world around a kind of family with female, male and child-like elements on a kind of neutral background.

And the Yiddish language (also a Germanic language) had been the language the Jews developed and used since centuries in Germany. I guess the Yiddish speaking Jews (German Jews) had a similar contact to Hebrew - the language of their forefathers - as Germans in general had to Latin (also a language of our forefathers). Latin and Hebrew were languages which were specially used in church services - and Latin (lingua franka) was also used in administration and science . Latin uses two grammatical genders - male and female - so the logic of this language is more bipolar. Yiddish - and the other Germanic languages around - use a more familiar form of logic. The English language seems to be also very bipolar although it uses no grammatical genders any longer.

Hebrew uses two grammatical genders like the Romanic languages and the Indian language. English (an exception within the Germanic languages) uses no grammatical gender like the Iranian, the Finno-Ugrian, the Armenian and the Turk-languages. And the Germanic (exception English), Slawic, Greek and Albanian languages use three grammatical genders.

 

[zaangalewa]

The English are from a German tribe called Anglosachsen.

The Anglosaxons were two tribes: the Angeln and the Saxons. (North Germans)

They took their language with them, mixed it with Romanic (Latin) and new elements and a new language came into being. The German language ascends from Germanic languages but is now very different from what it has been 1000 years ago. Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian ascend from Latin. Slavic languages are also from northern tribes.

 

[zaangalewa]

What does this mean in the context of the fact that there are no articles in Latin?

Latin uses endings: -us = male (Benedictus = he who is blessed), -a = female (Benedicta = she who is blessed).

Where did they come from in English?

 

[zaangalewa]

No, it’s not like that. Context replaces articles. In fact, they are not needed at all, this is a silly design.

It's a question of complexity and simplicity. The grammatical gender of the sun is in the German language for example female - a symbol for the life spending power of the sun. The grammatical gender of "girl" (Mädchen) is for example neutral - because a girl is a child and not a woman.

 

[zaangalewa]

The Origin of the Speeches

They are evolved forms of THIS, THAT and ONE. They originated from IE's other words. Some groups chose to go that way; others didn't, just as most ethnicities chose to change MOON because it was also used meaning MONTH. English just changed its pronunciation. LUNA means light and is related to English LOOK.

I guess the English world "look" comes from an expression like "lusen" or "lugen" (spoken: loosn, loogen). This has to do with hunting men who take a look. Imagine hunting Red Indians who examine something or take a look who is coming from the far. Or in your language: a loser lost something so he has to take a look where it is.

 

[ESay]

Hebrew uses two grammatical genders like the Romanic languages and the Indian language. English (an exception within the Germanic languages) uses no grammatical gender like the Iranian, the Finno-Ugrian, the Armenian and the Turk-languages. And the Germanic (exception English), Slawic, Greek and Albanian languages use three grammatical genders

The English uses three grammatical genders - he, she, it. It mainly corresponds with the Slavic languages, for example the Russian - on, ona, ono.

 

[ESay]

This thread is like a Three Stooges skit.

If that is all what you can offer as a teacher, I wouldn't be surprised if you had failed miserably in your field.