Re: French
| From: | Adam Walker <carrajena@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 20:55 |
|---|
--- Erbrice <erbrice@...> wrote:
>
> Nederlands is de eerste taal ik leerde . Fonetisch
> is het fascinerend
> en zeer mooi. Helaas de Nederlander spreken veel
> talen erg goed. Zij
> hebben niet het geduld om mij te laten spreken lang.
> Maar ik lees
> heel vloeiend. Ik ben niet verbaasd dat de lijst
> kwamen van daar.
> (Deze tekst is vertaald automatisch ...) :) :) :)
See, this is what always gets me. Frisian, Dutch and
Flemish are, historically, English's closest
relatives, yet I struggle to put together the basic
idea of a post like this. German is somewhat less
closely related, but not really any more
incomprehensible. The Skandinavian languages are
significantly less closely related, but rather more
inteligible? How can that be? And then we move on to
the Romance languages and even one spelled as
interestingly as French is far more comprehensible. I
have no problem picking up a novel in Galician (which
I have never studied) and following along well enough
to enjoy it. (I do admit Romanian is somewhat less
comprehensible than the other Romance languages, but
still comprable to Swedish or Norwegian, not nearly so
opaque as Dutch.) I even find Greek easier to muddle
through than Dutch.
It probably boils down to the massive importation of
Latin/Romance and Greek vocabulary, but English still
has a vital core of Germanic vocabulary. So why is
this so topsy-turvy for me? Do others find the same
to be true?
Adam
Ed ñavisud in junu suñu pera nun regrediri ad ul Erodu, regrediruns ad il
sustrus provinchi peu'l via aurra.
Machu 2:12
Replies