They'd probably get some of that for free if they leant on Scottish and Northern dialect words, like they give the example of

Famous > Nameknown is one of the examples, but perhaps Wellkent would work better if they're otherwise using ken for knowledge.

That's true! I forgot about Scots

Perhaps the word bairns for children could have been used instead of the word offspring. The word is pretty similar to the Scandinavian words for children

Wellkennt is closer to the German Wohlbekannt too

Do you have any examples of an English / Scandinavian hybrid?

Also, I wonder if such a thing might actually arise in the Scandinavian countries in the future?

I'm not aware of any natural or constructed English/Scandinavian pidgins/creoles, but that sure would be fun. The conventional wisdom is that it's easier for an English speaker to learn Swedish than it is to learn German.

Regarding if that would arise in the Scandinavian countries in the future - it actually seems more likely in German speaking countries. There is actually a word for it now - Denglisch (Deutsch Englisch), similar to e.g. Hinglish (Hindi English). Basically using German grammar with large amounts of English vocabulary. I hear so many English words in German lately for which there exists a perfectly good German word already.

Examples:

Denlisch: "Bist du ready?" Deutsch: "Bist du bereit?" English: "Are you ready?"

Denglisch: Joke Deutsch: Witz

Norwegian has several loanwords from English. Some are pronounced differently (such as "juice"), while others use the English pronunciation, but sometimes with a Norwegian ending. The latter is more common among the youth.

Another example:

"Denne eplejuicen er helt fucka / føkka"

-> This apple juice is fucked up.

Gamers often talk about "lev'le opp" ("level up") for example, but it's not used that often in its written form. It just looks strange to me. Sometimes they even replace a Norwegian word such as "oppgradere" with its English equivalent ("upgrade"), but pronouncing it in a mix of English and Norwegian.

I wonder where the b in sein conjugation came from?

  are (v.)
  present plural indicative of be (q.v.), from Old English earun (Mercian), aron (Northumbrian), from Proto-Germanic *ar-, probably a variant of PIE *es- "to be" (see am). Also from Old Norse cognates.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/are

> The conventional wisdom is that it's easier for an English speaker to learn Swedish than it is to learn German.

If we consider pronunciation then closest is probably Danish. As English pronunciation seems to be alien to most European languages.

Not Danish. Danish is pretty alien. Norwegian is quite easy for an English speaker, plus all the dialects mean that even technicalities such as the tone accent can be "worked around". Swedish and Norwegian are both pretty easy to pronounce and pretty easy to learn as an English speaker. Most of the problem is vocabulary, not really so much the grammar.

Yorkshuhman here… we say “ta” (tak) for thanks. We also say “cheers” (tschuss) for goodbye.

Going a bit deeper, “dale” (daal - Dutch), “beck” (beek - Dutch).

Having learnt (not learned) in Amsterdam, it’s very, very like the dialects of the north east of Yorkshuh. So much so, it’s rather a surprise.

Exactly my observation as a southerner who has lived in the north and Scandinavia

Norwegians speaking their native tongue to me sound like they’re speaking German with a Geordie accent.

if you’re only half-listening to a Scouser, it could easily be Dutch

cheers means goodbye in Yorkshire? In Lancashire (and elsewhere in the UK) I’ve never heard it mean anything other than “thank you” or the thing you say after clinking glasses

the only time I’ve ever heard anything different is from foreigners learning English

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheers “goodbye”

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerio 1. “Goodbye”, 2. “Hello”

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheero “A friendly greeting”

yes I’m aware of the dictionary definitions, that’s why foreigners say it, but not once have I ever heard an actual Brit use it like that. it’s a definition that has pretty much passed out of common usage

Cheers is used as goodbye here in the East Midlands. If you were here, you'd hear plenty of Brits use it on a daily basis.

in what context?

I could be wrong about this of course, but I suspect what you’re observing is people saying thank you as they’re leaving: e.g. getting off the bus, or after buying something, or after receiving directions

The phrase "Cheers for now" is less ambigous as a sign off or goodbye than cheers on its own.

In the context of 'cheers' being a direct one-to-one replacement of 'goodbye'. (Or more precisely 'bye'.) If, in my local usage, there is any difference between 'bye' and 'cheers', it's that the latter has a bit more bonhomie about it.

In this context, I'm afraid, you are wrong. When I'm in the office, the last thing I say to everybody else as I leave is, 'Cheers.' I'm not thanking them for letting me into office; I'm saying, 'Goodbye.'

I'm perplexed as to why you're pushing this so hard. People who have experience of this are telling you something. But you, despite clearly not having the same experience, are telling them that they are wrong. Don't mean to be snarky, but why is this so important to you?

Next up, 'Do Midlanders really call each other mardy?'

yesterday after discussing this, I asked multiple people I know from across the country, including the midlands, and they all said that no, cheers is not something they've ever heard as goodbye. I stand by the fact that cheers means thank you/regards, and occasionally is used in place of or alongside goodbye when some kind of transactional behaviour has taken place

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/1gkmqj/what_exactly_...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/2sjb2j/how_do_i_use_...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/8tooyt/is_cheers_ins...

you're misunderstanding the nuance of it. when other people are leaving the office and they say cheers, they're saying a short form of "cheers for working with me today" more equivalent to "regards" than "goodbye"

It’s also used in Bristol. “Cheers Drive” is a good-bye to a bus driver.

that’s “thank you” not “bye”

I understand it as “goodbye”. You have a point though.

Are you familiar with the Danelaw, and with Danegeld? I think that knowing "Danes" ruled much of mainland Britain for hundreds of years and provided kings of a unified-ish (pre-Norman) England (Cnut [Canute]) makes it less surprising?

The pronunciation of words between English and Dutch make them appear to be quite different. Once you’re used to hearing Dutch, which most British won’t be, the differences are much, much less than one might imagine.

Are you sure that "cheers" and "tschuss" are etymologically related? I would love that.

Everything I could find points to a Latin cognate, "cara".

Might be a common origin from Latin.

It does appear to be more than a coincidence that my dialect and the modern German usage share a word that sounds the same and means the same.

Northern English is significantly influenced by Scandinavian words today- for example the “-by” suffixes on town names is a direct use of the modern Danish word for town, Kirkby meaning Church Town in a direct translation

not a direct answer to your question, but there is a great youtube video explaining the reasons why English may be more Scandinavian in origin than we thought. has to do with... can't remember gotta search, brb

>Do you have any examples of an English / Scandinavian hybrid?

the idea being floated is that English is that Anglo-Saxon / Scandinavian hybrid.

I think Shetlandic is the closest you'll get: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland_dialect

It’s not clear to me why the project should seek to revert the linguistic influence of Norman invaders while enshrining or even amplifying the linguistic influence of Norse invaders.

What is the "Anglish project"? Do you mean people who write in it for fun, as one might write a short story in Klingon? Or are there people advocating that we should adopt it, by avoiding romance-language words? Something else?

Sorry, by project I mean community, i.e. yes the people who use it for fun

I think it depends on what region of England or the UK at large you want to consider. If you're NE England into Scotland, yeah, Scandinavian languages had influence and that's is reflected in their current vocab. Other areas may have retained more of the original dialect with fewer Scandinavian influences initially though those would return via the Normal invasion with added French vocabulary.

Old Norse accounts for about 5% of English vocabulary, including very common everyday words, not regional. Examples: egg, knife, sky, skill, etc, etc. Tons of core vocab.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Old...

And "they", "them", "their", which is really interesting. I can understand a language borrowing nouns (or verbs, or adjectives) from a neighbour, but pronouns?

For me (with minimal working) this Anglish project looks distinctly racist. All the warning signs are there ... "purity". If you are a linguist then you will know that language is way more complex and interesting than the bollocks that "Anglish" proposes.

Let's start with this: "Anglish is a kind of English which prefers native words"

So what exactly is "native"? Before Roman Britain - the Iron Age, the inhabitants of these islands generally speak Brythonic languages which are quite similar to each other. We have a Greek bloke called Pytheas who attests that. Those languages become modern Brythonic languages - Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cumbric etc.

Post Romani: Britain has always only been a day sail or less from a lot of places so loads of people have rocked up here across the ages.

English happily subsumes all and any other languages and notions. We now need to look at Tik Tok, Facebook and the like to see how fast the language is evolving.

Anglish is racist and a relic.

Its odd that you immediately paint this as racist, when it is exactly what the "Académie Française" does and has done for centuries.

And, if you read into the site even a little they define Anglish inborn terms as those in use prior to 1066 after the Norman Conquest [1] of England.

This is an innocent conlang designed to highlight some interesting historical circumstances around a bloody and protracted conquest. That some people with Inborn Anglish ancestory have an interest in their own history is innocent and given current trends, perfectly reasonable.

I would suggest you examine you own biases before jumping to conlcusions, as I doubt you would make the same statements against any other culture seeking to document their history.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest

how are you defining “racist”?

I don't think this has anything to do with Brittain or geography but rather the language of the Angles, which is posited to form the primary substrate for modern English.

> But I'm convinced that Faarlund is correct [1]; that Old English is not the only ancestor of Modern English, and that actually Modern English is more like a creole of Old English and Old Norse.

But your link says the opposite of that:

> In the book, we show that both synchronically and historically, Middle (and Modern) English is unmistakably North Germanic and not West Germanic. (Uncontroversially, Old English, just like Dutch and German, is West Germanic.) That is, Middle English did not develop from Old English.

> We claim that Middle and Modern English are instead direct descendants of the language spoken by Scandinavians who had relocated to England over more than two centuries prior to the Norman Conquest. We refer to this earlier language as Norse.

The model there is that you have Angles in England speaking English and they get so badly overrun by Norse settlers that their language is replaced rather than influenced. None of them realize that this has happened; everyone blithely continues to refer to their language as "English" even though they've switched what language they're speaking. That seems like a difficult case to make.

>> … English is unmistakably North Germanic and not West Germanic …

that’s exactly what they were saying. English is traditionally described as West Germanic with German, Frisian and Dutch, but as a creole with Old Norse it could be instead described as North Germanic

The link says that Old English is not an ancestor of modern English.

triyambakam says that it is.

A creole would be neither West Germanic nor North Germanic; creoles are new. The grammatical structures of a creole are, in general, not inherited from any of the "parent" languages.

it’s a synecdoche. the link is saying it didn’t solely develop from Old English, not that it didn’t at all

It really can't get any clearer than stating "Middle English did not develop from Old English."

you’re reading it too literally

You are attempting to read in a viewpoint that the book specifically says it doesn't believe.

do you genuinely think that the book is saying that English is not descended at all from Old English and is in fact solely descended from Old Norse?

based on the rest of the text which is making the argument that middle-English is a creole between Old English and Old Norse, it's very clearly a synecdoche to be read as "Middle English did not solely develop from Old English.". you're taking your attempt to be contrary a bit too far here