Sunday, October 9, 2011

A Word Borrowing Fiesta!

It seems like all languages are influenced by the languages of other cultures that either conquer them or are geographically near to them, and in many cases there is just blatant word stealing (or word borrowing... is that the politically correct term?). Some easy examples I can think of are "shared" between the U.S. and Mexico. Words like email, yanqui and carro are used in Mexican Spanish, and words like burrito, rodeo and tornado are used in American English. These words seem to only come when there is something new introduced into a culture that there was no word for before. It doesn't seem very common for one language to simply replace its own words with another's. For example, the English language didn't have a word for meat and beans wrapped in flat bread, so "burrito" is used. The Spanish language (or any language for that matter) had no word for messages sent electronically via the internet, so it as well as many others adopted the American word "email". Ancient Welsh was no exception to this.


Wales, like much of ancient Europe, was conquered by Rome. This occured in the first century A.D. In A History of Wales from the Earliest to the Edwardian Conquest, it says "though they retained their Celtic speech, the Welsh tribes were far from being unaffected by the influence of the Latin which must have overflowed their country with the coming of the [Roman] soldiers." It says that Welsh contains a large number of Latin "loan-words", but what was most interesting to me is that it says historians are able to tell what areas of life were most influenced by the foreign conquerers and what areas were least affected by looking at what kinds of Latin "loan-words" the Welsh were using. It gives 3 areas that were greatly influenced by the Romans:
  • Words used to describe war
  • Words used to describe reading and writing
  • Words used to describe the home
Weapons retained their Welsh names (sword=cleddyf, javelin=gwaew), but facets of war introduced by the Romans such as strategies and engineering had no Welsh words and therefore the Roman words were adopted (trench=ffos, bridge=pont). The Welsh had no written language or alphabet, so they had to steal words for things like books (llyfr), author (awdwr) and the verb "to write" (ysgrifennu). However, words for things pertaining to orally transmitted knowledge were of Celtic origin (poet=bardd, musician=creddor, song=cathl). Things pertaining to the home that already existed in ancient Wales retained their Welsh names (house=ty, roof=to, drws=door), but characteristics of the house brought by the Romans had to have new names (window=ffenestr, beam=trawst, rafter=ceibr).

I find it very interesting that the book mentions that even more important than the areas we know the Romans did influence are those that they didn't influence. Almost all words that deal with law and politics are completely of Welsh origin (people=pobl, country=gwlad, chieftan=brenhin, judge=brawdwr). This shows that unlike almost all other countries Rome conquered, their laws and politics had little lasting effect on the Welsh.

This is an excellent example of how language can be a "window to the past" (cliche). Just by seeing what words the Welsh adopted from the Romans and which ones they didn't, we can see the extent of Roman influence on Welsh life and society. It also gives an example of a similarity we have with an ancient people. The practice of word stealing is by no means unique to our culture and has in fact been going on for millenia.

3 comments:

  1. What a great connection to make about cross-cultural interactions through language. When I lived in New Mexico, I saw this a lot. The Spanish conquered the Native American tribes there, but the language is often a mixture of both. For example, there was a town called Pojoaque which was on a Native American Reservation. They proceeded to build overpasses on the highway passing through the town where they put the original Native American name "PO-SUWAE-GEH" to show their true heritage. My New Mexico History teacher used to say that Pojoaque was an English word butchering a Spanish word butchering a Native American word. And I'm sure the Native American word had even more complicated origins.
    This makes me wonder--is it better to try and keep a language pure, or to let it evolve and in essence be "butchered"? Or is there no such thing as "pure" language?

    ReplyDelete
  2. During the interview I did last week, I found out that Hindi is derived from Sanskrit. After looking up some stuff about after the partition of Pakistan and India, Hindi speakers started taking most of the Persian words and replacing them with Sanskrit words, although the higher language before were already the Sanskrit words. And since Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, so is Hindi. Brother Gill said that Hindi was formed after Sanskrit was written down as a more simplified form of it. So, I think what I mean to say is, I think every language but the Adamic language is some derivation of some thing going on. English is a complete hodge-podge of all the good stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting point about whether or not there is a pure language. We know from the Bible that there once was one language on the earth at the time of the Tower of Babel; then God scrambled the languages which sort of signaled of language evolution so to speak.

    I also remember back to by Islamic studies and that the Muslims believe that Arabic is the purest form of language since they believe its the language of God since Muhammad dictated the Qur'an in Arabic.

    ReplyDelete