Mechanical Meldina

this series confuse me a lot but it's too good to not follow so I'm glad it ended.

 

ended ?

this series confuse me a lot but it's too good to not follow so I'm glad it ended.

I don't think I buy this.  I took two courses in Old English and one in Old Norse at university.  OK, so those word endings are definitely a thing and a prominent one, they call them "case" endings and they're a pain; you have to study them like you'd study conjugating verbs in French.  But, first, the case endings in the two aren't much different.  Old Norse had one case that Old English didn't, but it was a weird rarely used one; other than that, they weren't particularly more different than the vocabulary in general, as far as I can remember.  So harmonization between the two shouldn't have required such a drastic alteration.  Second, nobody ever mentioned a major shift in late Old English relative to earlier Old English; I'm pretty sure I studied some materials from late in the period and they still had those endings.
Most importantly, everything I'm aware of on the subject suggests that the change had little or nothing to do with Norse and everything to do with French.  Old English was shattered by the Norman invasion, and rule by people whose language didn't have case endings at all.  English ended up with tons of French wodged into it, and the collision between languages with rather different rules led to a lot of structures being stripped out.
(The somewhat-less-unequal Anglo-Saxon social structure was also shattered by the rather-more-unequal Norman feudal social structure, although vestiges survived in things like the English Common Law and reasserted themselves somewhat over time)

Thanks for this response, I appreciate it. First a disclaimer: I haven't studied at all, don't know much if anything of linguistics - at most it's a hobby. The majority of my information comes from http://historyofenglishpodcast.com/. A good podcast, extremely long though and I can't vouch for how accurate it is.

 

So yes, Norman French had an extremely transformative effect on the language, moreso than Old Norse probably. But I feel you're missing what is a gradual change in Old English due to the influence of Old Norse versus the rather dramatic change produced by the Norman conquest.

 

The thing you have to remember about Anglo-Saxon writing is that it's started by a Wessex king, so it reflects that. And just like modern formal English today, it doesn't reflect how everyday folks spoke - in this case, the Norse that was spoken more heavily in the north and gradually spread south versus the Wessex dialect spoken in..Wessex.

 

Ironically, it was during the Norman conquest that the language became more phonetic, since it was now based on the London dialect instead of the Wessex one. So what seems like a dramatic change in the language is actually just a dramatic change in the written language.

 

This is where the language becomes more French influenced, but it's not as big a change as you might think. Latin based words had been entering the language due to the influence of the church well before the Normans and the heavy import of French words continued well after a French-speaking nobility ruled England. Though admittedly you wouldn't get the 50%+ Latin-based words in English today without the Normans.

 

So those are the words. I haven't talked about the grammar much, admittedly because it's been years since I learned this and I've forgotten the specifics. The grammar changes I talked about do occur before the Normans arrive, though again, I unfortunately can't link you anything because I don't remember the specifics.

 

The grammar changes being caused by case endings isn't certain - it's a theory, after all. However I am certain that English grammar became more simplified and standardised over time, and it was a process that began before the Norman conquest. Whether it's caused by an influx of Norse speakers isn't provable, there's not enough evidence, but both the changes and that immigration occur at the same time.

 

I feel like you're overestimating one event (the Norman conquest) and discounting the passage of time before it. Language changes over time naturally. Whatever the small minority of nobles and scribes were writing doesn't necessarily reflect the common widespread language.

I was going to take to the comments to complain about the tastelessness of the implied robotic phallus in the last chapter, but this snowballing grammar war is far more educational.

 

And there's nothing like a bunch of geeks arguing over trivial semantics to make one feel at home. I'm a little sad that my knowledge of the transition from Old English to Middle English is basically nil.

It's neither. Modern English grammar formed in the 8-10th century with heavy settlement from Proto-Norse speakers. Back then, English was like modern German - word order didn't matter, meaning was derived from unique endings (think goose vs geese, except for EVERY word in the language).
 
Old English and Proto-Norse at that stage were still close enough (both derived from Proto-Germanic) that communication between the two sets of speakers was possible. The problem though, was in the word endings, which differed in both languages.
 
The solution was changing these endings (though they still survive today in animals and some other things, no idea why) into a few generic ones - ie. ed. help vs helped and the transition to fixed word order. For example, 'the dog ate meat' vs 'meat ate the dog'.

I don't think I buy this.  I took two courses in Old English and one in Old Norse at university.  OK, so those word endings are definitely a thing and a prominent one, they call them "case" endings and they're a pain; you have to study them like you'd study conjugating verbs in French.  But, first, the case endings in the two aren't much different.  Old Norse had one case that Old English didn't, but it was a weird rarely used one; other than that, they weren't particularly more different than the vocabulary in general, as far as I can remember.  So harmonization between the two shouldn't have required such a drastic alteration.  Second, nobody ever mentioned a major shift in late Old English relative to earlier Old English; I'm pretty sure I studied some materials from late in the period and they still had those endings.
Most importantly, everything I'm aware of on the subject suggests that the change had little or nothing to do with Norse and everything to do with French.  Old English was shattered by the Norman invasion, and rule by people whose language didn't have case endings at all.  English ended up with tons of French wodged into it, and the collision between languages with rather different rules led to a lot of structures being stripped out.
(The somewhat-less-unequal Anglo-Saxon social structure was also shattered by the rather-more-unequal Norman feudal social structure, although vestiges survived in things like the English Common Law and reasserted themselves somewhat over time)
 

It's a bit rich calling Academie Francaise fascist haha.

Seemed an apt rejoinder to English being called the language of grammar nazis. Nazis OK, fascists not? Or is it only OK to say stuff about English?

(Did not expect a linguistic debate here of all places... boy am I glad I quit my university English studies, lol, otherwise might be tempted to join in. xD)

 

Well, Meldina... antihero'ish, yep. In way that inspires me as a writer, too. The art is wonderful. <3 And I gotta say, that little something of a peek to Alissa's hidden "dark side" is actually the best thing so far. Looking forward to how this continues and so, thanks for the scanlator team~

In a way.  But on the question of who is officially in charge, it is almost the reverse.  The ultimate authority on what's what in the English language, at least as regards vocabulary, is the Oxford English Dictionary--except the grand old OED from the start was founded on the idea that the real authority is what's in use among English speakers, and the task of the dictionary is accurate description and collation.
 
In French, on the other hand, in theory (although not in practice because it's impossible to make things work that way) the ultimate authority on what's what in the French language is the Academie Francaise, which does not as I understand it accept the notion that French is whatever French speakers speak; to the contrary, they take a prescriptive role, such that any deviation from their definition of what is French, is simply wrong no matter how much of a fait accompli it may be in the wild.
 
So, language of grammar Nazis or no, English is certainly not the language of vocabulary Nazis--French would have a much better claim there, having a fascist authority dictating what's what.

Good thing I'm from Québec and am always at odds. Fighting the good fight I guess. Funnily enough because people in France is complacent and using words incorrectly. L'Académie has been working on simplification of language.

It's especially bad in writing, I know people who work in the translation business and let's just say that "for France market" means botching the language and using a myriads of English terms ( especially for computer/technology terms ).

TL;DR L'Académie is making changes based on their own countrymen being unable to use "proper" French.

Well, if my memory serves me correctly, and at my age, that is definitely NOT guaranteed, I believe that one of my teachers long ago mentioned that English sentence structure is based more on the German language than that of any of the Romance languages such as French, Spanish, or Italian.  Which would make your statement that much more appropriate.

It's neither. Modern English grammar formed in the 8-10th century with heavy settlement from Proto-Norse speakers. Back then, English was like modern German - word order didn't matter, meaning was derived from unique endings (think goose vs geese, except for EVERY word in the language).

 

Old English and Proto-Norse at that stage were still close enough (both derived from Proto-Germanic) that communication between the two sets of speakers was possible. The problem though, was in the word endings, which differed in both languages.

 

The solution was changing these endings (though they still survive today in animals and some other things, no idea why) into a few generic ones - ie. ed. help vs helped and the transition to fixed word order. For example, 'the dog ate meat' vs 'meat ate the dog'.

 

 

On the 'could of' vs 'could have' debate, this is one that annoys me as well. It's untrue to say there's no difference in spoken language - they sound extremely similar, but there is a difference in the softer f vs the harder v. This is true for all dialects, even Southern ones, I'm pretty sure. Happy to be proven wrong though.

 

Edit: Yikes, my fault for leaving this tab open hours ago, but there's been some new posts.

 

In a way.  But on the question of who is officially in charge, it is almost the reverse.  The ultimate authority on what's what in the English language, at least as regards vocabulary, is the Oxford English Dictionary--except the grand old OED from the start was founded on the idea that the real authority is what's in use among English speakers, and the task of the dictionary is accurate description and collation.

 

In French, on the other hand, in theory (although not in practice because it's impossible to make things work that way) the ultimate authority on what's what in the French language is the Academie Francaise, which does not as I understand it accept the notion that French is whatever French speakers speak; to the contrary, they take a prescriptive role, such that any deviation from their definition of what is French, is simply wrong no matter how much of a fait accompli it may be in the wild.

 

So, language of grammar Nazis or no, English is certainly not the language of vocabulary Nazis--French would have a much better claim there, having a fascist authority dictating what's what.

 

 It's a bit rich calling Academie Francaise fascist haha. There's similar institutions in other countries. English doesn't have one out of practicality - what literary standards would it follow, what dialect would it be based on? The many countries that speak English wouldn't agree on the (relatively minor) differences between them that easily imo.

 

I think the simple answer is that people can't be bothered answering these questions. There's no major differences making communication between different English-speaking countries hard, the system works, people understand each other fine..so why change anything?

 

An interesting case is the Portuguese version of Academie Francaise (forgot its name, sorry), where speakers from Brazil and Portugal actually do have a very difficult time communicating and this institution is trying to alter the language itself to make both dialects more mutually intellegible.

 

My impression is that Portuguese speakers from Portugal dislike it intensely and see it as the standards of Brazil being pushed more on them than the other way around.

English's wonkiness has nothing to do with being Germanic; Old English worked more like Latin (or Russian) than it did like Modern English. There's a reason the people who study New World languages call ALL the major Western European languages, Germanic or Romance, "Standard Average European". They've all undergone a process called "deflection", Germanic ones more in the verbs, Romance ones more in the nouns (e.g., English only inflects one verb for the subjunctive, but it retains a second case, the genitive, in modified form).

And sorry, but "could of" is OBJECTIVELY wrong, because the negative past tense is "HADN'T been able to": it's "have", not "of". There are essentially no registers or contexts of English where that isn't the case. People can chant their self-congratulatory slogans about "no Academé Anglaise" all they want, the FACT is that corpus-linguistics - which is the REAL authority in EVERY language - says "could of" is a misspelling.

(Accidental double-post.)

Simply put, English is the grammar nazi's language.

In a way.  But on the question of who is officially in charge, it is almost the reverse.  The ultimate authority on what's what in the English language, at least as regards vocabulary, is the Oxford English Dictionary--except the grand old OED from the start was founded on the idea that the real authority is what's in use among English speakers, and the task of the dictionary is accurate description and collation.

 

In French, on the other hand, in theory (although not in practice because it's impossible to make things work that way) the ultimate authority on what's what in the French language is the Academie Francaise, which does not as I understand it accept the notion that French is whatever French speakers speak; to the contrary, they take a prescriptive role, such that any deviation from their definition of what is French, is simply wrong no matter how much of a fait accompli it may be in the wild.

 

So, language of grammar Nazis or no, English is certainly not the language of vocabulary Nazis--French would have a much better claim there, having a fascist authority dictating what's what.

I wonder how many people read the "could've" or "could of" debate below and discovered they quite suddenly had very strong opinions about it, even if they'd never thought about it before. 

New chapter, thanks Nekyou Scans mmm...~!

Simply put, English is the grammar nazi's language.

 

Well, if my memory serves me correctly, and at my age, that is definitely NOT guaranteed, I believe that one of my teachers long ago mentioned that English sentence structure is based more on the German language than that of any of the Romance languages such as French, Spanish, or Italian.  Which would make your statement that much more appropriate.

gotta say, things accelerate pretty quickly in this. but i like it.

Quite right Pervy, English is sort of the "easy to learn, hard to master" type of language. It's basic grammar rules are simple but the many exceptions require that a person be exposed to writing a lot. ( book, books, books ). Quite a big task for ESL.
In contrast, my main tongue, French, has a lot more grammar rules to learn. This is why you see a lot of people saying that French is hard and quit early. English on the other hand is the language no one can master because you need an incredible anount of memory and time to learn of all the exceptions. Since our brain is made to forget and we can't spend our daily lives on studying, this is unfeasible.

Simply put, English is the grammar nazi's language.

And here we have the crux of the matter. 

 

We have some people who insist on buttonholing English grammar into strict and unbreakable rules, and yet, according to almost all of my grammar school teachers, along with many people over the decades that I have talked to about this, the English language is considered to be the most difficult language of all to learn as a second language BECAUSE English has more exceptions to "The Rules" that exist in this constantly evolving language than any other language on Earth.

 

And even though I, myself, have often resorted to "The Rules" when I am proofreading a translation, I still try to keep in mind that the most important thing about fictional writing is that IT MUST BE ENTERTAINING!!!  So that means that even a stubbornly insistent proponent of proper grammar like myself must occasionally take a huge, stinking shit on "The Rules" from time to time as a sacrifice to the entertainment value of the dialogue.

 

That being said, I have reread this series and the original point of contention that was brought up about the phrase, "could of", is, I must admit, correct in that it is entirely inappropriate in its usage here.  But I still maintain that under different circumstances, and according to the arguments that I gave earlier, that phrase might still be used in fictional writing at other times.

So having read through what's here, I'm of two minds.  It's interesting and it moves along nicely and it has some good emotional stuff.  But it's a bit melodramatic and I keep having the feeling that somewhere behind the scenes, the mangaka has lost control of the plot, which at some point is going to collapse under its complications and implausibilities as the poor mangaka frantically pulls levers and flips giant switches which have ceased to respond.

Actually, the "ending sentences with a preposition" thing is not a true rule of English.  The belief that Latin was, as the language of scholarship in the old days and of mighty Rome, subject of classical education, somehow a better language than English, has had strange influences on the teaching of English and on beliefs about what English grammar is and/or should be.  The preposition thing is an example; it was imposed by certain authorities based on a rule that was real in Latin, but in English ending a sentence with a preposition is perfectly natural and often the best approach.  Eg, "Its continuing mission . . . to boldly go where no one has gone before"

Churchill may not have said this, but it's a lovely take-down of the preposition thing:  "This is the kind of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put!"

I'm with you on the apostrophes, though.  Here for the benefit of education is Bob the Angry Flower's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots.

I don't think that you realize just how much perverted orgasmic pleasure we Grammar Nazis get out of debates like this

gross.  i don't get any pleasure out of pointing out bad grammar, its just that some things are so bad they're painful to read or hear.  ending sentences with a preposition is one that really irks me when i notice it, but i often do it too so i can't really fault others for it.  a few things though, like using an apostrophe to indicate plural instead of possessive and using "of" instead of "have", really are painful to see.  it physically hurts me to see such bad examples that can't even be justified as "casual use" like ending sentences in a preposition, as the only reason for them is a lack of education.

While everyone is arguing over a trivial grammar problem, here I am having fun reading.

 

I'm glad I'm not a native speaker. *eats popcorn*

 

I don't think that you realize just how much perverted orgasmic pleasure we Grammar Nazis get out of debates like this, my friend.  So please ignore all of the bodily fluid stains that we have left all over the place from our verbal ejaculations and allow us to enjoy our warped and twisted semi-sexual word games, if you don't mind!!!

 

*Steals popcorn*

 

YUCK!!!  Needs more salt!

While everyone is arguing over a trivial grammar problem, here I am having fun reading.

 

I'm glad I'm not a native speaker. *eats popcorn*

Wow, typesetting this series has been a blast! Steampunk Russia combined with mecha, in a "utopian" society whose decay begins at the top.

"could've" and "could of" sound exactly the same, thus the confusion amongst people who think "could've" is "could of"; its only now that everyone communicates by text that english is partially in a transitionary phase into a phonetic language (where words are spelled exactly how they sound).  anyway, "could of" is never acceptable.

 

The fact that "could've" and "could of" sound alike is a fairly recent development in the evolution of the English language.  Originally, "could've" sounded more like "could av" with more of the soft "a" sound from the word "have". This was still how it was pronounced in my youth, back in the early 1960s.  It has only been in the past forty years that the pronunciation has evolved to the soft "o" sound found in "of".  That is why I say that "could of" may be a proper written usage found in fictional writing.  I will agree with you that this slang term should NEVER be used in NON-fiction, however.  UNLESS, of course, the subject of that non-fiction is concerned with slang terms and phrases and examples are being used for demonstrative purposes.

 

And I have read many novels where slang terms and phrases were commonly used.  You should try reading some of Samuel Clemens' novels or short stories.  That may show you that FICTION can have different, or at least more relaxed, rules of grammar than NON-FICTION.

 

I am still not saying that its usage in this series was or was not appropriate.  I would have to reread the series to make that determination for myself.  I am merely respectfully disagreeing with your declaration that it is NEVER correct to do so, especially when it is used in fiction for comedic or dramatic purposes or to merely individualize one character from another.

Actually, "could of" is a perfectly acceptable phrase which I believe originated as a Southern USA slang bastardization of "could have" and over time, has become part of the Southern dialect of American English. 

"could've" and "could of" sound exactly the same, thus the confusion amongst people who think "could've" is "could of"; its only now that everyone communicates by text that english is partially in a transitionary phase into a phonetic language (where words are spelled exactly how they sound).  anyway, "could of" is never acceptable.