slayer021175666
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2020
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 254
See! This is why we can't have anything nice!
Nowā¦ how do you pronounce ākviekāā¦ I donāt think I know two people who say it the same lol
Ive heard the same, which I believe is true. But Ive heard keevic, Kaveekā¦ and so many others lolMy understanding based on podcasts:
Quike.
Like quake or quick or quack, but with a hard "eye". Or somewhere in between "quike" and "quake". Most people get this wrong. I probably get it wrong too. So don't take my word for it. Ask somebody from Norway.
The pit sticking it's tounge out it AWESOME!
Yup. I've pretty much accepted the fact now that how a language is used is how it should be used. Not how some book or person says it should be used.The only constant in language is change.
You can try to fight it, but don't expect to win.
Yup, because how a word is used/pronounced in common use is what defines the language. Dictionaries document how words are used, not how they shall be used. If dictionaries aren't updated to match current usage then they are history books, not dictionaries.Webster's has decided that whatever is on common use is correct. Like they think it's okay to pronounce turmeric "too mur ik", conveniently ignoring the first R.
From approx AD 800 to about AD 1000 part of what today is England was referred to as "Danelaw" and under the influence of various Scandinavian factions.. Most English words actually have Latin roots. Of course, there are some similarities among Germanic languages, but they actually evolved as separate languages barring the odd invasion.
The main Germanic influence in Britain appears to be from the Belgae, the first Germanic tribe to colonise the British Isles. Then there were the Saxons. Then Norse refugees fleeing Vikings.
Where did you get my picture. LOLWhat a hoighty toighty tippy typer might look like:
A while ago it was asked of several people who should know, but nobdody could agree and was not settled.
How do you pronounce the wonder hop spelled SAAZ?
+1Dictionaries document how words are used, not how they shall be used. If dictionaries aren't updated to match current usage then they are history books, not dictionaries.
For a second I thought this was the title of some murder eroticaā¦.Die uh see till?
Die ass it uhl?
Die a suh teel?
For a second I thought this was the title of some murder eroticaā¦.
Die uh see till?
Die ass it uhl?
Die a suh teel?
Well, I lived there for most of my life and took a keen interest in its history then discovered how historians just make **** up mainly. You're a believer, I'm not. I don't share your world view, however 'big' they make their fake institutions. I'm one of those annoying people who insist on verifiable evidence, not cheap talk. The abrupt end of the Viking era and the shallow graves periodically uncovered by archeologists and road works give away tantalising clues. As do the unembellished Icelandic sagas. The Vikings were worse than Norse pirates, they were orcs. Read Beowulf. There were always brutal consequences waiting for their pillaging. Linguistics is a rough social 'science' with linguists ranked alongside historians. Both rely on believers. The genetic record? According to DNA genealogists like '23andMe'? Again, you need to be a believer. Most genetic diversity in Europe's human populations was already there 40 000 years ago. It's been so mixed up - with language - over the course of time academic attempts to superimpose biased beliefs to engineer artificial patterns to confirm the beliefs is almost as funny as stand up. Certainly a form of entertainment. Popularising history, that is. Especially when there's a lack of evidence. Hollywood's made a fortune out of it. You've been sold fairytales mainly. Beliefs. And they're far too crude to be called 'facts'. How you interpret them is your business.I am indeed anxious to learn from you how you've uncovered this true history which throws down the combine scholarship of the world's leading experts and refutes beyond a doubt the written historical record of the time, the archeological record, the linguistic analyses, and the genetic record which have been accepted as historical fact by every reputable institution in the world. I'm dying to know!
Die uh see till?
Die ass it uhl?
Die a suh teel?
@TheMadKing
Well, I lived there for most of my life and took a keen interest in its history then discovered how historians just make **** up mainly. You're a believer, I'm not. I don't share your world view, however 'big' they make their fake institutions. I'm one of those annoying people who insist on verifiable evidence, not cheap talk. The abrupt end of the Viking era and the shallow graves periodically uncovered by archeologists and road works give away tantalising clues. As do the unembellished Icelandic sagas. The Vikings were worse than Norse pirates, they were orcs. Read Beowulf. There were always brutal consequences waiting for their pillaging. Linguistics is a rough social 'science' with linguists ranked alongside historians. Both rely on believers. The genetic record? According to DNA genealogists like '23andMe'? Again, you need to be a believer. Most genetic diversity in Europe's human populations was already there 40 000 years ago. It's been so mixed up - with language - over the course of time academic attempts to superimpose biased beliefs to engineer artificial patterns to confirm the beliefs is almost as funny as stand up. Certainly a form of entertainment. Popularising history, that is. Especially when there's a lack of evidence. Hollywood's made a fortune out of it. You've been sold fairytales mainly. Beliefs. And they're far too crude to be called 'facts'. How you interpret them is your business.
Die uh see till?
Die ass it uhl?
Die a suh teel?
I didn't offer you any evidence. Just my interpretation of what's claimed. And noted it was your business how you interpret what you want to believe. Like your belief linguistics is a science. Who discovered America?Ah how silly of me. You lived there with interest, of course! Osmosis works wonders for historical knowledge
Btw, Icelandic sagas were recorded in about 1100-1400, long after the Viking era from 793-1066 or so.
Beowolf was written down sometime between 700-1000 and is about Scandinavians (hrothgar is king of the Danes) and was written in old English translated by linguists and I've read it many times.
Linguistics is very much a science based on statistical modeling and evidence and can be proven by the fact that we can read ancient languages, which were lost and then recovered via Linguistics.
Can you please help me understand the criteria by which you decide what you accept as verifiable evidence? Since you have rejected archeology, genetics, primary sources (that means written at the time it actually happened, I.e. The anglo saxon chronical and other written texts).
I'm also still waiting for your evidence that you keep mentioning.
An interesting English language footnote, as long as we're tossing worts around: In 1066 the Normans (French speaking people) invaded England and took over the high positions in society. They relegated the natives (Saxons) to the menial labor. The Saxons raised Sheep, Pigs, Cows, etc. But when they showed up on the ruling Norman's tables, they were mutton, pork, beef, etc. Lots of other food and job related words have different meanings according the station of the people using/performing them, but I've had too many homebrews to remember any of them at the moment. Thanks for listening.
I didn't offer you any evidence. Just my interpretation of what's claimed. And noted it was your business how you interpret what you want to believe. Like your belief linguistics is a science. Who discovered America?
I didn't offer you any evidence. Just my interpretation of what's claimed. And noted it was your business how you interpret what you want to believe. Like your belief linguistics is a science. Who discovered America?
I heard one expert claim that when you see a movie or TV show about America during and before the American revolution, and people walking around with posh British accents, using thee and thou and pronounce things like wah-tah for water is BS.
The American english accent at the time and the British English accent were both pretty close to the American accent of today. It is the British that went and mutated English the most from back 250-350 years ago.
Now you're just playing semantics and deciding what you want words to mean to suit your beliefs. Of course I can interpret claims for myself. Do you imagine there is something magical about so-called scholars? Let me inform you, as in any human endeavour, there are the good, the bad, and the ugly. You don't suspect what little was documented in writing way back then wasn't even slightly biased or incomplete? That Cnut was one of England's fiercest, most successful warrior kings? Blah! Blah! Blah! He might have been a complete dickhead for all we know. It's not as if there was ever a general consensus documented at the time, is it?You can't interpret a claim. You interpret evidence to make a claim.
Again I ask, you have repeatedly mentioned that you have seen evidence that Vikings never invaded England, will you please let me see it? I would like to make my own interpretation.
The native Americans, about 30,000 years ago. Or did you mean Europeans?
It's now widely accepted that Norse explorers reached the shore of newfoundland around the year 1000. The evidence for that is primarily iron smelting slag and square patterns in the soil which have been interpreted as possible long houses.
You seem like an entertaining person to get a pint with in a pub. I would love to hear your opinions on some diverse topics such as Atlantis, bigfoot, crop circles, human evolution, the vatican, freemasons, modern politics, medical science, etc. I would imagine your antiestablishmentarian beliefs have contrived some incredibly amusing narratives on all of these topics. Cheers and thanks for the entertaining debate!
'Dirty'? As in 'dirty dog'?How about "dog"? How do each of you pronounce "dog"?
How about "dog"?
How do each of you pronounce "dog"?
I say "dog."
Hands down, the most controversial word we have.
Always pickup the underdog. We are all born 'underdogs' by design. Bark! Bark! Bark!d'ya like dags?
I have a friend in Boston. It was a trip how we pronounce words differently.d'ya like dags?
Well then*, let's just conclude this thread with the 'fact' that the often 'mumbled' phrase wort is potentially a load of bollocks.It's not pronounced wert, wort or vort, it's pronounced "raw beer juice". Just like krausen is pronounced "yeast poop foam" and trub is pronounced "beer mud"
How about "dog"?
How do each of you pronounce "dog"?
I say "dog."
Hands down, the most controversial word we have.
Enter your email address to join: