The preference for Anglo-Saxon over Latinate words... That the multi-syllabic non-Anglo-Saxon words are to be avoided? I first read about that in the 90s. I didn't quite agree then; I still don't.
English as a language is a mess of derivations from around the world. In those early Anglo-Saxon days every single thing known could be held in the mind of an individual. They weren't stupid, but they kew little. The culture grew through exposure to things and ideas (cultural diffusion) The Anglo-Saxons were not the original people of the British Isles; they were invaders from what is now Germany like so many other peoples. Consider the Vikings, Normans, Caesar's army and roads and scholars and then the priests and the Silk Road, and the Celts were there longer or nearly longest and probably/possibly from Eastern Europe, and the Gypsys came later (the word "pal"). We won't start about the much older people and languages from Doggerland, the Picts, and Goths, and the language Norn. All of them brought language. Why pretend there is a better vocabulary? Language is not "pure", a Latinate. European languages are all muddled with one another. And why is that a bad thing?
It is unlikely that the word "silk" is Anglo-Saxon. Silk likely first came to England on the Silk Road, and wasn't named by Anglo-Saxons.
from the online Etymology Dictionary:
silk (n.)
"fine soft thread produced by the larvae of certain types of moths, feeding on mulberry leaves;" c. 1300, silke, from Old English seoloc, sioloc "silk, silken cloth," from Latin sericum "silk," plural serica "silken garments, silks," literally "Seric stuff," neuter of Sericus, from Greek Serikos "pertaining to the Sēres," an oriental people of Asia from whom the Greeks got silks. Their region is vaguely described but seems to correspond to northern China as approached from the northwest.
We do want to use specifics, clear and concrete language. Abstractions aside, as writers choose words (Gothic) that cleave (German) close to the body (German), to touch (Latin) and taste (Latin). Somehow the ongoing appeal to use Anglo-Saxon only (they were not a nice culture) rubs me wrong. WASP? Words don't always come from where we think they do.
I have always preferred similes that not only compared the unknown to the known but the manufactured to the natural.
Admittedly, I streamlined a lot of linguistic history to make the points in this post--it seemed better to call the language before 1066 Anglo-Saxon and not get into the myriad streams that fed it. When I first learned this stuff it I was fascinated and I wanted to pass on the idea that the workers spoke one way and the nobles spoke another and that together they evolved into English. [By the way, check out Paul Kingsnorth's,THE WAKE (2014).] I looked up all the words I put in the two piles, but apparently with "silk" I stopped at Old English . . . Also, the point was never to avoid Latinate words, but to use them only when you need to--it's easy to let your diction get too cerebral . . . and of course it depends on the task, finding the voice of the speaker you want to be in a given piece.
Box and grain, silk and pain are from the Latin or Greek via Latin. Almost all European language is PIE. The Saxons spoke differently from those they conquered. So did the Vikings and Caesar's army speak differently than those they conquered. That oppressed people often have a different vocabulary and syntax—well, that is worth talking about, but not what I read. I am fond of John Gardner—did he start this? Anyway, to ask for simple words is worthwhile, but the "Anglo-Saxon-Latinate" contrast remains, to my mind, a fuzzy distinction, when all we really want is to keep our word choices simple unless the rhythm or precision demand otherwise.
Always an interesting conversation with you, David.
Interesting and helpful, thank you! On a slight tangent, but I’m currently reading a Victorian novel and had to look up “nosegay” fly the first time. It’s certainly a very descriptive word!
The preference for Anglo-Saxon over Latinate words... That the multi-syllabic non-Anglo-Saxon words are to be avoided? I first read about that in the 90s. I didn't quite agree then; I still don't.
English as a language is a mess of derivations from around the world. In those early Anglo-Saxon days every single thing known could be held in the mind of an individual. They weren't stupid, but they kew little. The culture grew through exposure to things and ideas (cultural diffusion) The Anglo-Saxons were not the original people of the British Isles; they were invaders from what is now Germany like so many other peoples. Consider the Vikings, Normans, Caesar's army and roads and scholars and then the priests and the Silk Road, and the Celts were there longer or nearly longest and probably/possibly from Eastern Europe, and the Gypsys came later (the word "pal"). We won't start about the much older people and languages from Doggerland, the Picts, and Goths, and the language Norn. All of them brought language. Why pretend there is a better vocabulary? Language is not "pure", a Latinate. European languages are all muddled with one another. And why is that a bad thing?
It is unlikely that the word "silk" is Anglo-Saxon. Silk likely first came to England on the Silk Road, and wasn't named by Anglo-Saxons.
from the online Etymology Dictionary:
silk (n.)
"fine soft thread produced by the larvae of certain types of moths, feeding on mulberry leaves;" c. 1300, silke, from Old English seoloc, sioloc "silk, silken cloth," from Latin sericum "silk," plural serica "silken garments, silks," literally "Seric stuff," neuter of Sericus, from Greek Serikos "pertaining to the Sēres," an oriental people of Asia from whom the Greeks got silks. Their region is vaguely described but seems to correspond to northern China as approached from the northwest.
We do want to use specifics, clear and concrete language. Abstractions aside, as writers choose words (Gothic) that cleave (German) close to the body (German), to touch (Latin) and taste (Latin). Somehow the ongoing appeal to use Anglo-Saxon only (they were not a nice culture) rubs me wrong. WASP? Words don't always come from where we think they do.
I have always preferred similes that not only compared the unknown to the known but the manufactured to the natural.
Admittedly, I streamlined a lot of linguistic history to make the points in this post--it seemed better to call the language before 1066 Anglo-Saxon and not get into the myriad streams that fed it. When I first learned this stuff it I was fascinated and I wanted to pass on the idea that the workers spoke one way and the nobles spoke another and that together they evolved into English. [By the way, check out Paul Kingsnorth's,THE WAKE (2014).] I looked up all the words I put in the two piles, but apparently with "silk" I stopped at Old English . . . Also, the point was never to avoid Latinate words, but to use them only when you need to--it's easy to let your diction get too cerebral . . . and of course it depends on the task, finding the voice of the speaker you want to be in a given piece.
Box and grain, silk and pain are from the Latin or Greek via Latin. Almost all European language is PIE. The Saxons spoke differently from those they conquered. So did the Vikings and Caesar's army speak differently than those they conquered. That oppressed people often have a different vocabulary and syntax—well, that is worth talking about, but not what I read. I am fond of John Gardner—did he start this? Anyway, to ask for simple words is worthwhile, but the "Anglo-Saxon-Latinate" contrast remains, to my mind, a fuzzy distinction, when all we really want is to keep our word choices simple unless the rhythm or precision demand otherwise.
Always an interesting conversation with you, David.
Interesting and helpful, thank you! On a slight tangent, but I’m currently reading a Victorian novel and had to look up “nosegay” fly the first time. It’s certainly a very descriptive word!
Thanks. Now you can add "tussie-mussie" to your arsenal.