Відео

Finally remembered to subscribe. My beowulf and (UK) Sweet's Anglo Saxon primer and reader are still on my book shelves.

Who/ Whom...I use these distinctions and bugger! the jackals who do not 😂

Who, at 9:56, would construct that sentence. The claw of the biggest bear in the forest. Surely! I would never even have considered the clumsy construction you use as your example. It just would not come to mind. Especially putting an apostrophe s on forest. Why?

Maybe start with Chaucer, the closest middle English comes to modern English. Then there is the rather difficult to follow Piers Plowman. Not the language just the slightly muddled style. Then the wonderful Gawain poet's work. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, The moving The Pearl etc. Then take a sidestep into Old English. Easy peasy it isnt but fascinating yes.

All the grammar explanation is only needed by those who didnt learn other languages. In the UK until the mid 1960s we had Latin and French as core subjects. (French because of 1066 and the Normans we were told)

I used, long ago, be able to read Old English with minimum use of the glossary. I recall the fury of Bishop Wulfstan's address to the English. Basically the Viking raids were God's punishment for their misdeeds. Nothing at all to do with the riches available for the taking in monasteries and churches. No it was all the fault of the peasants toiling in the fields to fill his belly. 😂

And your speaking RUBBISH. Try going around the country, You will discover thousands of old words. Oh and you don't know how old English was spoken. No one does unless your 6 hundred or more years old. We can't possibly know how any ancient language was spoken. Your terms have been interpreted by know all middle class proffesors who frankly know very little. Plus a word in English is often pronounced totally differently from the written script...OH BY THE WAY. YOU COULD BORE IN THE OLYMPIC'S AND WIN...TRY LISTENING TO YOUR SELF.. ALEDGEDLY. BOLLOCKS IS WHAT WE SAY IN ENGLISH TO IDIOTS MEANING ,.I THOROUGHLY DISAGREE WITH YOU OLD CHAP. .CHUKETA, JOSSKINS, FRIG, INTERPRET THOS WODS.

Let's stop pretending Beiwulf is in English. It's an imported Swedish story read to foreign Norse speaking foreign kings. Its not remotely English. English descends from the Frieslan language not from Scandinavian.

Just stumbled across this video. So interesting. Found myself saying out loud ‚ah that makes sense ‚ ❤

Hmm I would be quite interested in buying your book but when I go through the link I see that you want $35 for a which is far too expensive.

I really wish our language hadn't been bastardised by the french. 😞

Definately going to order the book. Will be very interresting to read as a swede with good knowledge in english and some german and some dutch .

Simon Roper name drop 🤍

Dative is known more plainly, as I'm sure you and anyone who's studied German know, is the indirect object.

Never had a problem with "whom" it's very intuitive. But all those "lays" are so confusing. Sometimes I'm lying in bed and can't understand to whom am I even lying.

Apropos of "who/whom", English also has something that at least works the same as the Latin AcI (accusativ cum infinitiv), e.g.: "I believe him to be." Whether the English form really comes from Latin, perhaps via Old French, is a genuine original English form, or even a late academic insertion, it is conspicuous. I've never looked into it and therefore don't know of any "official" explanation of it. English also has its form of French "c'est moi" in "it's me" which using the nominative would otherwise be "it's I" (shudder). But that form (the accusative) isn't present in the question "who is it?" (not: "whom is it"), whereas it is in the answer "it's me" or "it's her".

_Lay_ as the past tense of _lie_ seems archaic. No one would say "I lay in bed" to mean they were in bed in the past tense, but instead would more likely say "I lied in bed" and to a much lesser degree might say "I lain in bed." This despite the past tense _lied_ referring to the act of lying as in telling a falsehood.

THE "AMERICAN" LANGUAGE USESS "OLD ENGLISH" !! Indeed, and "American" English includes many Words that "English English" dumped decades ago. Such as "Sidewalk" a reference to the pre Victorian era of construction of such things. In Britain were replaced the real "Sidewalks" with modern Paving slabs, hence the term for such things became "PAVEMENT" back in the 1900's. To reveal just one "Old English" term still used by Americans !!!

If you ever use four-letter 'rude' words you are speaking Anglo-Saxon.

Regarding the verb pairs where one is doing vs one is causing to be done, this seems to me to be an expression of ergativity in language, though I am insufficiently learned in the matter. Is this true? Also, I have always had a pet peeve about the word "visibility". For example, one might hear that a car or airplane has "good visibility" meaning it is easy to see out from within. However, the same word is used to mean "can be seen easily". It seems to me that this is a case of English NOT having ergativity in its structure, though in this case it may be because this particular word was probably imported directly from Latin. Anyway, very interesting video (<== is this ergative?!), and I hope to hear from you! P.S. How did "virtual" meaning of or relating to a (manly) man come to mean "ersatz" or "simulated"?

I (not native English speaker) alway thought that whom was dative. Especially since the German "wem". I would not say e.g "whom do you see?" but "who do you see?", and e.g. "whom do you give this?" I can see a clear distinction between such phases but I guess I German-ized (Modern😂) English.

Any relation?

So, is “children” another example of that neuter plural form?

Me and my friends don't reliably make distinctions between nominative and accusative pronouns.

Every time I hear someone say: I sink that ship, my ears bleed. It's I sench that ship! 🙄

am, *eart (it's North Germanic, OE is bist), and is are not from wesan.

I sense a connection with “hung,” past and past participle of “hang” as in “hang a picture,” and “hanged,” past and past participle of “hang” as in “hang a person.”

OE “were” seems to be a distant cognate of Latin “vir” (pronounced “weer,” also meaning “man” (in the masculine or “virile” sense).

❤❤❤ Loved the vid! So much fun!

I've always intuitively thought of who/whom being the equivalent to he/him and you can always tell when whom is being misused if you try the same sentence with him instead of whom. He hit him. Who hit whom?

"The biggest bear in the forest's claw" As a native English speaker I would never say this out loud, and certainly never write it.

4:02 Whom are you speaking to? I'm certain there are people who know the difference between who & whom - whomever they are.

Yer pretty.

Mice - mouse Lice - louse Dice - douse? Hice? - house

Yeah, let's keep English weird. Exclude those losers from the wider world...

And, of course, knowing Modern English should make it much easier to learn Old English.

Whenever the British guys on Cracking the Cryptic talked about Aad van de Wetering, I heard his name as Ard and didn't know it was Aad until I saw it spelled out.

‘The biggest bear in the forest’s claw’<‘The claw of the biggest bear in the forest’ 9:57

What about w/v???

9:59 i hate this about english. too much ambiguity

12:10 I think Ive picked up on the fact that most words that start with ge- usually have that prefix dropped in modern english. Getimbrode becomes timber, gelic becomes like, and gehyrth becomes hear. I find that fascinating

Great video, and very clearly explained through your spoken dialogue (often not the case among videos like these). Something that might be really helpful for future videos, is when showing panels or slides with text on them, to highlight the relevant bits of text as they're being addressed (like -es in weres or bracketing the noun phrase when describing it) just to make it clear which parts of affixes are important to the point you're making. I think the absolute gold-standard for this on UA-cam is LangFocus' highlighting everytime a phrase or sentence is pulled on screen. Consistently one of the clearest ways to identify exactly what pieces are being addressed at any one time.

What about child & children? It has an -En ending although there’s an R in the middle.

3:30 women be shopping

The text editing software I use is called Emacs, and there are several versions of it. The "cs" at the end of "Emacs" sounds like an X, so following the ox/oxen example, some witty folk pluralise Emacs to Emacsen, which sounds better to me than the rather clunky Emacses alternative.

Does the word field come from the fact that all the trees in that area have been felled?

I'm struck by the similarities to Latin grammar, not least that Latin also exiles a lot of weird ones to the neuter nouns. :D

"Rise" and "raise"? rise rose risen raise raised raised

In Black Country dialect, in the Midlands, you can say "how bist?" as a type of greeting which means "how are you?"

Uh... so the habitual be in African American English is the traditional usage of be? Beran, weres, cwēne, are those equivalent to der, das, die genders in German?