That's why I wrote it in quotes. 'Germanic', and you can fuck off now if you want. Extrovert... lol

Edit: "actual linguistics science" 💀

Here's something topical, why don't you read that and get back to me when you finish high school:

Gattir allar, aþr gangi fram, vm scoðaz scyli, vm scygnaz scyli; þviat ouist er at vita, hvar ovinir sitia a fleti fyr.

Egredit: That was a weird flex, I'll compose myself and write you a proper answer instead because I'm a bit cunty like this and I should really stop belittling people's intelligence, they are also people in a way.

Christ man you’re such a liar lmao. GERMANIC ISN’T A LANGUAGE. And certainly not a WRITTEN one. And English didn’t “originate” from French. Old English is unintelligible to Modern English speakers because it’s a completely different language, you are straight up lying through your teeth when you say you can read it fine, much less understand it. 85% of vocabulary in Old English isn’t even present in Modern English. Even more so with Old Norse lmao. French is very clearly unintelligible with English as well. French is literally my second language, so I can very easily tell you that. Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie about being able to understand other languages, including ficticious ones?

I'm sorry but this is lazy. I missed the quotes, as in 'Germanic', denoting exactly the thing that you said- it's a multitude of languages and dialects and ursprungs or herkünfte. Once you understand a lot of languages, a lot of languages become quite understandable.

English, hahaha, I'm sorry to offend your nationalistic sensibilities, but this is the Bayeux Tapestry: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bayeux_Tapestry

You know, of course the story, as the Normans, who would become the ruling dynasty thenceforth until present day, were Norsemen right? Not "Norwegian" (although actual Norwegians too, this was of course before nationstates were a thing)(thing, by the way, is Old Norse for, well, "Thing". It is what they would call a Råd, or Råth, or in German "Rat", perhaps in France it would be 'le tribunal' or something gay like that- a public and intermittently recurring assembly before which one would lay various legal matters, in to what amounted to jurisprudence at the time in circa AD 800 (although in fact ridiculously much older but I digress) like who stole whom's cow or who raped and pillaged whom's village et cetera), but Norsemen, or Nordmen, or Northmen, or plain and simple "Vikings", were the de facto rulers of the land at the time, not whatever the French were, apart from being murdered a lot by pillage massacres.

The Føroyar islands north of England (well technically the UK/Scotland but whatever)(technically technically an autonomous and self-governing entity under the control of the state of Denmark, I felt like you would have mnjehhed that one if I didn't explain it) have spoken their version of Old Norse mixed with local dialects and natural, organic evolution of whatever Celtic remnants remained from pre-glacial times. I can read that out of the box, because it is so ridiculously similar to modern Scandinavian languages. But this has derailed to the point I don't know what I am schooling you on anymore.

That entire take is just silly. “Language degratation” is a lie sold to you by shitty middle school English Language Arts teachers.

By who? This is very much my 100% own opinion on the matter, I assure you. Fuck arts teachers, art is useless.

“All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as “corruption” to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language-change must be based upon a recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfil in the society which uses it”.”

Nice, but I'm more a Chomsky kind of guy. I was going to get into Derrida, but I will NOT deal with another headache right now.

Again, your stance is seen as completely stupid in the realm of actual linguistics science.

Well, in the realm of real life, you're completely stupid!

There isn’t a difference. How do you think sound change and many other forms of language change occur without this ““degradation””? Do you think that the transitions between languages just happen because God willed it and everyone just accepted it? No, people back then complained about language change in the same exact way that you are now. You are speaking a “bastardized” form of language by your own logic. Every word you speak is completely different from the “educated” proscribed speak of before. Almost none of the words you’re saying are being used in their ““original”” sense.

If I change the course of a stream because I want it to flow in another direction, will it flow in the same direction if I simply just threw rocks at it?

And I will have you know that the extent to which I speak a bastardized form of language then that is because I am a bastard, coming from a long and illustrious line of bastards. Hey that's a French word! But of course they would invent that, you really need words for things you see everyday.

According to your anti-scientific logic, it should mean to approach a question and start begging to it.

Antiscientific logic! 😘🤏

So you think that whatever things sound like, that's what they mean? Words are all a guesswork that starts anew every time we speak to one another? I would presume some more structure to language than that.

Also consider this:

"BARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBAR".

Surely you understand what I mean by that? It's only natural evolution of language.

I want to ask you again, do you think AAVE, Scottish English, and all other large dialect groups of English are incorrect? Do you think you’re better at linguistics than a majority of professional linguists?

I would love to debate you on this, but I'm literally (literally literally) in the process of composing my book on this subject, which I did out of a need to be able to point to it as a source of reference, because it takes too long explaining my position every time it comes up, and the time I would spend on discussing it with you would take time away from that effort, not that that is how I would spend that time, because that time is better spent on hookers and cocaine, and constitutes a thoroughly self-defeating proposition.

I mean all of the above tongue in cheek and with good sportsmanship just fighting you with words, no harm meant, nothing personal, you loveable French bastard. :) <3