Mixing
Does English have bi-gram GN 'natively'?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I noticed that in English the bigram GN appears in a strange way. Some examples I can find are the word stems -cogn-, -sign-, -lign-, all of which looks very similar to French counterparts. By this I think GN is of French origin, and therefore comes from Latin, ultimately.
OTOH, GN in many words are pronounced separately, which contradicts with the "French origin" hypothesis, because in French GN is pronounced like "ny" (e.g. canyon). And also note that this pronunciation is similar to other Germanic languages like German, but I can't find any similarity between a German word containing GN and an English -GN- word.
Assume "native" = Old English, that is pre-1066 origin. Words imported from Latin or Greek families via French -after- 1066 probably wouldn't count as "native". I think Romance originating words borrowed into Old English before 1066 are probably fair game (but there probably aren't any with "gn").
etymology vocabulary
asked 10 hours ago
iBug
1495
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I noticed that in English the bigram GN appears in a strange way. Some examples I can find are the word stems -cogn-, -sign-, -lign-, all of which looks very similar to French counterparts. By this I think GN is of French origin, and therefore comes from Latin, ultimately.
OTOH, GN in many words are pronounced separately, which contradicts with the "French origin" hypothesis, because in French GN is pronounced like "ny" (e.g. canyon). And also note that this pronunciation is similar to other Germanic languages like German, but I can't find any similarity between a German word containing GN and an English -GN- word.
Assume "native" = Old English, that is pre-1066 origin. Words imported from Latin or Greek families via French -after- 1066 probably wouldn't count as "native". I think Romance originating words borrowed into Old English before 1066 are probably fair game (but there probably aren't any with "gn").
etymology vocabulary
asked 10 hours ago
iBug
1495
11
Define "natively". The vast majority of "English" words in use today were originally imported from other languages.
– FumbleFingers
10 hours ago
Agnostic is from Greek - it's an a- prefix but you don't explicitly rule that out. Pugnacious is apparently directly from Latin
– Chris H
10 hours ago
2
You appear to use a rather idiosyncratic definition of native = Germanic. If this is actually what you mean, could you be clear about that in the question?
– Chris H
10 hours ago
7
I'm tempted to make an argument in favour of words of Celtic origin but I don't honestly think you can define native English
– Chris H
10 hours ago
1
Let me gnaw on that a little bit.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I noticed that in English the bigram GN appears in a strange way. Some examples I can find are the word stems -cogn-, -sign-, -lign-, all of which looks very similar to French counterparts. By this I think GN is of French origin, and therefore comes from Latin, ultimately.
OTOH, GN in many words are pronounced separately, which contradicts with the "French origin" hypothesis, because in French GN is pronounced like "ny" (e.g. canyon). And also note that this pronunciation is similar to other Germanic languages like German, but I can't find any similarity between a German word containing GN and an English -GN- word.
Assume "native" = Old English, that is pre-1066 origin. Words imported from Latin or Greek families via French -after- 1066 probably wouldn't count as "native". I think Romance originating words borrowed into Old English before 1066 are probably fair game (but there probably aren't any with "gn").
etymology vocabulary
asked 10 hours ago
iBug
1495
I noticed that in English the bigram GN appears in a strange way. Some examples I can find are the word stems -cogn-, -sign-, -lign-, all of which looks very similar to French counterparts. By this I think GN is of French origin, and therefore comes from Latin, ultimately.
OTOH, GN in many words are pronounced separately, which contradicts with the "French origin" hypothesis, because in French GN is pronounced like "ny" (e.g. canyon). And also note that this pronunciation is similar to other Germanic languages like German, but I can't find any similarity between a German word containing GN and an English -GN- word.
Assume "native" = Old English, that is pre-1066 origin. Words imported from Latin or Greek families via French -after- 1066 probably wouldn't count as "native". I think Romance originating words borrowed into Old English before 1066 are probably fair game (but there probably aren't any with "gn").
etymology vocabulary
etymology vocabulary
asked 10 hours ago
iBug
1495
asked 10 hours ago
iBug
1495
edited 4 mins ago
asked 10 hours ago
iBug
1495
asked 10 hours ago
iBug
1495
asked 10 hours ago
iBug
1495
1495
11
Define "natively". The vast majority of "English" words in use today were originally imported from other languages.
– FumbleFingers
10 hours ago
Agnostic is from Greek - it's an a- prefix but you don't explicitly rule that out. Pugnacious is apparently directly from Latin
– Chris H
10 hours ago
2
You appear to use a rather idiosyncratic definition of native = Germanic. If this is actually what you mean, could you be clear about that in the question?
– Chris H
10 hours ago
7
I'm tempted to make an argument in favour of words of Celtic origin but I don't honestly think you can define native English
– Chris H
10 hours ago
1
Let me gnaw on that a little bit.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 6 more comments
11
Define "natively". The vast majority of "English" words in use today were originally imported from other languages.
– FumbleFingers
10 hours ago
Agnostic is from Greek - it's an a- prefix but you don't explicitly rule that out. Pugnacious is apparently directly from Latin
– Chris H
10 hours ago
2
You appear to use a rather idiosyncratic definition of native = Germanic. If this is actually what you mean, could you be clear about that in the question?
– Chris H
10 hours ago
7
I'm tempted to make an argument in favour of words of Celtic origin but I don't honestly think you can define native English
– Chris H
10 hours ago
1
Let me gnaw on that a little bit.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
11
11
Define "natively". The vast majority of "English" words in use today were originally imported from other languages.
– FumbleFingers
10 hours ago
Define "natively". The vast majority of "English" words in use today were originally imported from other languages.
– FumbleFingers
10 hours ago
Agnostic is from Greek - it's an a- prefix but you don't explicitly rule that out. Pugnacious is apparently directly from Latin
– Chris H
10 hours ago
Agnostic is from Greek - it's an a- prefix but you don't explicitly rule that out. Pugnacious is apparently directly from Latin
– Chris H
10 hours ago
2
2
You appear to use a rather idiosyncratic definition of native = Germanic. If this is actually what you mean, could you be clear about that in the question?
– Chris H
10 hours ago
You appear to use a rather idiosyncratic definition of native = Germanic. If this is actually what you mean, could you be clear about that in the question?
– Chris H
10 hours ago
7
7
I'm tempted to make an argument in favour of words of Celtic origin but I don't honestly think you can define native English
– Chris H
10 hours ago
I'm tempted to make an argument in favour of words of Celtic origin but I don't honestly think you can define native English
– Chris H
10 hours ago
1
1
Let me gnaw on that a little bit.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
Let me gnaw on that a little bit.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 6 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
Old English had a lot of words spelled with "gn" somewhere in the word. With some patience you can get a pretty complete list here by doing a regular expression search for gn (the first 500ish hits are valid, the rest match words found in the body of the definition).
Cross checking with the OED, I see that very few current words have an etymology of "germanic" and are spelled still with a "gn" (most of them I've never heard of and were added to the language from German itself much later). The two I have heard of are "gnat" and "gnaw", which both date back to Old English. One I haven't heard of is "agnail" (OE angnægl,), which according to the OED is etymologically from "the Germanic base of ange + the Germanic base of nail" (see also here).
I do see there are plenty of words that are still used that lost the "gn". For example, "again" was once spelled ongeagn. In addition, "rain" was spelled regn.
answered 9 hours ago
Laurel
25.4k64891
2
gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnaw are all OE. 'gnu' is from dutch from german from khoisan 18th c.. 'gneiss' is from German 18th c.. gnome' from French 18th c
– Mitch
9 hours ago
1
'Germanic' used 'g' to lengthen a preceding vowel (and 'gg' for actual non-initial /g/), resulting in 'wrong' pronunciations of many later Latin imports.
– AmI
9 hours ago
@Mitch According to collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gnarl, "gnarl" is a 19th century back formation probably from "knurl".
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Yes, at the start of some words like gnaw. There are also some compound words made from native elements that are spelled with -gn-, such as hangnail.
Even though the G in gnaw is “silent†in present-day English, it used to represent a consonant sound.
The /g/ sound is a bit rare outside of word-initial position in native English vocabulary because it was historically vocalized in many contexts to /j/ or /w/.
answered 10 hours ago
sumelic
43.1k6102203
3
I don't like "hangnail" because it's more a compound of two words that happens to have GN in between. The gnaw one seems valid.
– iBug
10 hours ago
@iBug: In that case your question should not have asked about "letter sequence" but about them as a unit.
– R..
28 mins ago
@R.. My bad because I initially meant "doublet" (I don't know if this word exists, but I know there's "triplet") Edit: OK I found that word. It's bigram.
– iBug
6 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Other words of English etymology using "gn" are gnarl, gnash, and gnat. As sumelic has pointed out, they are found at the beginning of these words.
answered 9 hours ago
Liz
1123
Certainly "gnarl" seems to count as "native English", since it was invented in the 19th century! But "gnash" is probably Scandinavian (from old Norse). "gnat" is old English, or Germanic.
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I think you are confusing spelling and pronunciation. English has tended to a certain (in some ways confusing) deviation in how different forms of the same root word is pronounced. So:-
In French we have the verb prononcer and the noun prononciation
In English we have the verb pronounce but the noun pronunciation
The French pronounce and spell the syllable in question verb and noun in exactly the corresponding way: the English do not.
So with your word sign, The French pronounce the ‘g’ in ‘signe’ (strictly the ‘g’ and ‘n’ are slurred together as more like ‘ng’) in the same way as in the verb ‘signer’ and the noun ‘signal’ (Latin ‘signum’, probably, it is now thought, pronounced rather like today’s French).
But English, in adopting the word ‘signe’ has shifted its vowel sound from the ‘ee’ to the pronunciation of sign (as in line). Yet in the noun signal this has not happened: the ‘g’ is no longer silent, any more than it is in ‘signify’ (cp. French ‘signifier’, pronounced like ‘signe’). This kind of silent ‘g’ only occurs (as far as I can find) when it occurs in a final syllable (as in ‘resign’ - but ‘resignation’.
Another interesting example is French ‘ligne’, with English ‘line’ (not ‘lign’!). Here the corresponding Latin is not ‘lignum‘ (which means ‘wood’!) but ‘linea’ (meaning ‘thread, or ‘line’, with no ‘g’, silent or otherwise). I do not know why it is not spelled ‘line’ (pronounced ‘feen’) as in ‘fine’ (similarly pronounced). After all, the noun ‘linéarité’ and adjective ‘linéaire’.
Where does that leave us? First, it is an illustration of how language, including how it is pronounced and spelled, over time. A major factor in this, above all in times when literacy was not as widespread and communication was more localised than it came to be by the end of the 18th century, was ‘natural selection’ and, as part of that, what how words sat comfortably in the mouth. One key part of this was the so-called ‘great vowel shift’, in which letters ‘i’ and ‘e’ came to sit higher in the mouth. So, we might think, as ‘ee’ shifted, the ‘g’ before ‘n’ became awkward to say and fell silent. Meanwhile spelling partly sticks with old spelling and partly reacts to the most prevalent changes.
One other point is that it is difficult to speak of a ‘native’ version of ‘English’, or indeed of aboriginal English people. ‘English’ is derived from the language of the germanic tribe of Angles, who invaded, as did the Saxons and then the Vikings, each with their own germanic dialects. Before that had come the Romans, bringing with them people from all over western Europe, the middle East and North Africa. Later, of course, came the French-speaking Normans, whose language filled the aristocracy and, no doubt the legal, medical and merchant professions, as well as Latin-using clerics, while much of the peasantry remained illiterate and had the most passing knowledge of French or Latin. English as we know it emerged from the clash between the two languages. So we see that the words for the most basic things are generally ‘anglo-saxon’ - ‘house’, ‘window’, ‘hand’, ‘where’, ‘go’, ‘foot’, ‘boat’, ‘day’, ‘night’... The French involves things peasants would not possess or need. As the two came together, the Anglo-Saxon tended to prevail for most everyday purposes, while Franco-Latin and, indeed, Greek prevailed for professional, intellectual, technical legal and similar areas of life, of which the large mass of people had little contact. There is no discoverable ‘native’ language. It happened over hundreds of years.
So there is no native English in the sense you mean. The language is a mongrel.
answered 7 hours ago
Tuffy
2,5781612
The general consensus view of linguists is that English is a Germanic language, so “native†English vocabulary is Germanic. It’s not that hard to identify. There are some people who argue for different analyses, like calling English a “creoleâ€Â, but those are minority viewpoints. The presence of many loanwords in a language doesn’t make the concept of “native†vocabulary meaningless from the perspective of historical linguistics, even if it may make it harder for linguistically naive native speakers to identify originally native vs. originally borrowed words.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Japanese is an example of another language that has many loanwords, including old and well-integrated loans from Chinese, but that also has a stratum of native vocabulary (inherited from Proto-Japonic) that linguists can identify and analyze.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Well, yes, you are right: I disagree with the consensus, and the questioner should be aware of that. I should have mentioned it. But there is far too much Franco-Latin in English to call as a whole germanic. The French/Latin words (other than ‘pompom’ or legal jargon like ‘alias’ or ‘alibi’) are not loan words in any sense I can recognise. They are as fully part of the language as the Angle, Saxon, Frisian and the rest. I am not sure what purpose is served by looking for the earliest, when the two so clearly crashed together.
– Tuffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
Old English had a lot of words spelled with "gn" somewhere in the word. With some patience you can get a pretty complete list here by doing a regular expression search for gn (the first 500ish hits are valid, the rest match words found in the body of the definition).
Cross checking with the OED, I see that very few current words have an etymology of "germanic" and are spelled still with a "gn" (most of them I've never heard of and were added to the language from German itself much later). The two I have heard of are "gnat" and "gnaw", which both date back to Old English. One I haven't heard of is "agnail" (OE angnægl,), which according to the OED is etymologically from "the Germanic base of ange + the Germanic base of nail" (see also here).
I do see there are plenty of words that are still used that lost the "gn". For example, "again" was once spelled ongeagn. In addition, "rain" was spelled regn.
answered 9 hours ago
Laurel
25.4k64891
2
gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnaw are all OE. 'gnu' is from dutch from german from khoisan 18th c.. 'gneiss' is from German 18th c.. gnome' from French 18th c
– Mitch
9 hours ago
1
'Germanic' used 'g' to lengthen a preceding vowel (and 'gg' for actual non-initial /g/), resulting in 'wrong' pronunciations of many later Latin imports.
– AmI
9 hours ago
@Mitch According to collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gnarl, "gnarl" is a 19th century back formation probably from "knurl".
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
Old English had a lot of words spelled with "gn" somewhere in the word. With some patience you can get a pretty complete list here by doing a regular expression search for gn (the first 500ish hits are valid, the rest match words found in the body of the definition).
Cross checking with the OED, I see that very few current words have an etymology of "germanic" and are spelled still with a "gn" (most of them I've never heard of and were added to the language from German itself much later). The two I have heard of are "gnat" and "gnaw", which both date back to Old English. One I haven't heard of is "agnail" (OE angnægl,), which according to the OED is etymologically from "the Germanic base of ange + the Germanic base of nail" (see also here).
I do see there are plenty of words that are still used that lost the "gn". For example, "again" was once spelled ongeagn. In addition, "rain" was spelled regn.
answered 9 hours ago
Laurel
25.4k64891
2
gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnaw are all OE. 'gnu' is from dutch from german from khoisan 18th c.. 'gneiss' is from German 18th c.. gnome' from French 18th c
– Mitch
9 hours ago
1
'Germanic' used 'g' to lengthen a preceding vowel (and 'gg' for actual non-initial /g/), resulting in 'wrong' pronunciations of many later Latin imports.
– AmI
9 hours ago
@Mitch According to collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gnarl, "gnarl" is a 19th century back formation probably from "knurl".
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
Old English had a lot of words spelled with "gn" somewhere in the word. With some patience you can get a pretty complete list here by doing a regular expression search for gn (the first 500ish hits are valid, the rest match words found in the body of the definition).
Cross checking with the OED, I see that very few current words have an etymology of "germanic" and are spelled still with a "gn" (most of them I've never heard of and were added to the language from German itself much later). The two I have heard of are "gnat" and "gnaw", which both date back to Old English. One I haven't heard of is "agnail" (OE angnægl,), which according to the OED is etymologically from "the Germanic base of ange + the Germanic base of nail" (see also here).
I do see there are plenty of words that are still used that lost the "gn". For example, "again" was once spelled ongeagn. In addition, "rain" was spelled regn.
answered 9 hours ago
Laurel
25.4k64891
Old English had a lot of words spelled with "gn" somewhere in the word. With some patience you can get a pretty complete list here by doing a regular expression search for gn (the first 500ish hits are valid, the rest match words found in the body of the definition).
Cross checking with the OED, I see that very few current words have an etymology of "germanic" and are spelled still with a "gn" (most of them I've never heard of and were added to the language from German itself much later). The two I have heard of are "gnat" and "gnaw", which both date back to Old English. One I haven't heard of is "agnail" (OE angnægl,), which according to the OED is etymologically from "the Germanic base of ange + the Germanic base of nail" (see also here).
I do see there are plenty of words that are still used that lost the "gn". For example, "again" was once spelled ongeagn. In addition, "rain" was spelled regn.
answered 9 hours ago
Laurel
25.4k64891
edited 8 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Laurel
25.4k64891
answered 9 hours ago
Laurel
25.4k64891
answered 9 hours ago
Laurel
25.4k64891
25.4k64891
2
gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnaw are all OE. 'gnu' is from dutch from german from khoisan 18th c.. 'gneiss' is from German 18th c.. gnome' from French 18th c
– Mitch
9 hours ago
1
'Germanic' used 'g' to lengthen a preceding vowel (and 'gg' for actual non-initial /g/), resulting in 'wrong' pronunciations of many later Latin imports.
– AmI
9 hours ago
@Mitch According to collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gnarl, "gnarl" is a 19th century back formation probably from "knurl".
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2
gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnaw are all OE. 'gnu' is from dutch from german from khoisan 18th c.. 'gneiss' is from German 18th c.. gnome' from French 18th c
– Mitch
9 hours ago
1
'Germanic' used 'g' to lengthen a preceding vowel (and 'gg' for actual non-initial /g/), resulting in 'wrong' pronunciations of many later Latin imports.
– AmI
9 hours ago
@Mitch According to collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gnarl, "gnarl" is a 19th century back formation probably from "knurl".
– alephzero
7 hours ago
2
2
gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnaw are all OE. 'gnu' is from dutch from german from khoisan 18th c.. 'gneiss' is from German 18th c.. gnome' from French 18th c
– Mitch
9 hours ago
gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnaw are all OE. 'gnu' is from dutch from german from khoisan 18th c.. 'gneiss' is from German 18th c.. gnome' from French 18th c
– Mitch
9 hours ago
1
1
'Germanic' used 'g' to lengthen a preceding vowel (and 'gg' for actual non-initial /g/), resulting in 'wrong' pronunciations of many later Latin imports.
– AmI
9 hours ago
'Germanic' used 'g' to lengthen a preceding vowel (and 'gg' for actual non-initial /g/), resulting in 'wrong' pronunciations of many later Latin imports.
– AmI
9 hours ago
@Mitch According to collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gnarl, "gnarl" is a 19th century back formation probably from "knurl".
– alephzero
7 hours ago
@Mitch According to collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gnarl, "gnarl" is a 19th century back formation probably from "knurl".
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Yes, at the start of some words like gnaw. There are also some compound words made from native elements that are spelled with -gn-, such as hangnail.
Even though the G in gnaw is “silent†in present-day English, it used to represent a consonant sound.
The /g/ sound is a bit rare outside of word-initial position in native English vocabulary because it was historically vocalized in many contexts to /j/ or /w/.
answered 10 hours ago
sumelic
43.1k6102203
3
I don't like "hangnail" because it's more a compound of two words that happens to have GN in between. The gnaw one seems valid.
– iBug
10 hours ago
@iBug: In that case your question should not have asked about "letter sequence" but about them as a unit.
– R..
28 mins ago
@R.. My bad because I initially meant "doublet" (I don't know if this word exists, but I know there's "triplet") Edit: OK I found that word. It's bigram.
– iBug
6 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Yes, at the start of some words like gnaw. There are also some compound words made from native elements that are spelled with -gn-, such as hangnail.
Even though the G in gnaw is “silent†in present-day English, it used to represent a consonant sound.
The /g/ sound is a bit rare outside of word-initial position in native English vocabulary because it was historically vocalized in many contexts to /j/ or /w/.
answered 10 hours ago
sumelic
43.1k6102203
3
I don't like "hangnail" because it's more a compound of two words that happens to have GN in between. The gnaw one seems valid.
– iBug
10 hours ago
@iBug: In that case your question should not have asked about "letter sequence" but about them as a unit.
– R..
28 mins ago
@R.. My bad because I initially meant "doublet" (I don't know if this word exists, but I know there's "triplet") Edit: OK I found that word. It's bigram.
– iBug
6 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Yes, at the start of some words like gnaw. There are also some compound words made from native elements that are spelled with -gn-, such as hangnail.
Even though the G in gnaw is “silent†in present-day English, it used to represent a consonant sound.
The /g/ sound is a bit rare outside of word-initial position in native English vocabulary because it was historically vocalized in many contexts to /j/ or /w/.
answered 10 hours ago
sumelic
43.1k6102203
Yes, at the start of some words like gnaw. There are also some compound words made from native elements that are spelled with -gn-, such as hangnail.
Even though the G in gnaw is “silent†in present-day English, it used to represent a consonant sound.
The /g/ sound is a bit rare outside of word-initial position in native English vocabulary because it was historically vocalized in many contexts to /j/ or /w/.
answered 10 hours ago
sumelic
43.1k6102203
edited 9 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
sumelic
43.1k6102203
answered 10 hours ago
sumelic
43.1k6102203
answered 10 hours ago
sumelic
43.1k6102203
43.1k6102203
3
I don't like "hangnail" because it's more a compound of two words that happens to have GN in between. The gnaw one seems valid.
– iBug
10 hours ago
@iBug: In that case your question should not have asked about "letter sequence" but about them as a unit.
– R..
28 mins ago
@R.. My bad because I initially meant "doublet" (I don't know if this word exists, but I know there's "triplet") Edit: OK I found that word. It's bigram.
– iBug
6 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3
I don't like "hangnail" because it's more a compound of two words that happens to have GN in between. The gnaw one seems valid.
– iBug
10 hours ago
@iBug: In that case your question should not have asked about "letter sequence" but about them as a unit.
– R..
28 mins ago
@R.. My bad because I initially meant "doublet" (I don't know if this word exists, but I know there's "triplet") Edit: OK I found that word. It's bigram.
– iBug
6 mins ago
3
3
I don't like "hangnail" because it's more a compound of two words that happens to have GN in between. The gnaw one seems valid.
– iBug
10 hours ago
I don't like "hangnail" because it's more a compound of two words that happens to have GN in between. The gnaw one seems valid.
– iBug
10 hours ago
@iBug: In that case your question should not have asked about "letter sequence" but about them as a unit.
– R..
28 mins ago
@iBug: In that case your question should not have asked about "letter sequence" but about them as a unit.
– R..
28 mins ago
@R.. My bad because I initially meant "doublet" (I don't know if this word exists, but I know there's "triplet") Edit: OK I found that word. It's bigram.
– iBug
6 mins ago
@R.. My bad because I initially meant "doublet" (I don't know if this word exists, but I know there's "triplet") Edit: OK I found that word. It's bigram.
– iBug
6 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Other words of English etymology using "gn" are gnarl, gnash, and gnat. As sumelic has pointed out, they are found at the beginning of these words.
answered 9 hours ago
Liz
1123
Certainly "gnarl" seems to count as "native English", since it was invented in the 19th century! But "gnash" is probably Scandinavian (from old Norse). "gnat" is old English, or Germanic.
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Other words of English etymology using "gn" are gnarl, gnash, and gnat. As sumelic has pointed out, they are found at the beginning of these words.
answered 9 hours ago
Liz
1123
Certainly "gnarl" seems to count as "native English", since it was invented in the 19th century! But "gnash" is probably Scandinavian (from old Norse). "gnat" is old English, or Germanic.
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Other words of English etymology using "gn" are gnarl, gnash, and gnat. As sumelic has pointed out, they are found at the beginning of these words.
answered 9 hours ago
Liz
1123
Other words of English etymology using "gn" are gnarl, gnash, and gnat. As sumelic has pointed out, they are found at the beginning of these words.
answered 9 hours ago
Liz
1123
answered 9 hours ago
Liz
1123
answered 9 hours ago
Liz
1123
answered 9 hours ago
Liz
1123
1123
Certainly "gnarl" seems to count as "native English", since it was invented in the 19th century! But "gnash" is probably Scandinavian (from old Norse). "gnat" is old English, or Germanic.
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Certainly "gnarl" seems to count as "native English", since it was invented in the 19th century! But "gnash" is probably Scandinavian (from old Norse). "gnat" is old English, or Germanic.
– alephzero
7 hours ago
Certainly "gnarl" seems to count as "native English", since it was invented in the 19th century! But "gnash" is probably Scandinavian (from old Norse). "gnat" is old English, or Germanic.
– alephzero
7 hours ago
Certainly "gnarl" seems to count as "native English", since it was invented in the 19th century! But "gnash" is probably Scandinavian (from old Norse). "gnat" is old English, or Germanic.
– alephzero
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I think you are confusing spelling and pronunciation. English has tended to a certain (in some ways confusing) deviation in how different forms of the same root word is pronounced. So:-
In French we have the verb prononcer and the noun prononciation
In English we have the verb pronounce but the noun pronunciation
The French pronounce and spell the syllable in question verb and noun in exactly the corresponding way: the English do not.
So with your word sign, The French pronounce the ‘g’ in ‘signe’ (strictly the ‘g’ and ‘n’ are slurred together as more like ‘ng’) in the same way as in the verb ‘signer’ and the noun ‘signal’ (Latin ‘signum’, probably, it is now thought, pronounced rather like today’s French).
But English, in adopting the word ‘signe’ has shifted its vowel sound from the ‘ee’ to the pronunciation of sign (as in line). Yet in the noun signal this has not happened: the ‘g’ is no longer silent, any more than it is in ‘signify’ (cp. French ‘signifier’, pronounced like ‘signe’). This kind of silent ‘g’ only occurs (as far as I can find) when it occurs in a final syllable (as in ‘resign’ - but ‘resignation’.
Another interesting example is French ‘ligne’, with English ‘line’ (not ‘lign’!). Here the corresponding Latin is not ‘lignum‘ (which means ‘wood’!) but ‘linea’ (meaning ‘thread, or ‘line’, with no ‘g’, silent or otherwise). I do not know why it is not spelled ‘line’ (pronounced ‘feen’) as in ‘fine’ (similarly pronounced). After all, the noun ‘linéarité’ and adjective ‘linéaire’.
Where does that leave us? First, it is an illustration of how language, including how it is pronounced and spelled, over time. A major factor in this, above all in times when literacy was not as widespread and communication was more localised than it came to be by the end of the 18th century, was ‘natural selection’ and, as part of that, what how words sat comfortably in the mouth. One key part of this was the so-called ‘great vowel shift’, in which letters ‘i’ and ‘e’ came to sit higher in the mouth. So, we might think, as ‘ee’ shifted, the ‘g’ before ‘n’ became awkward to say and fell silent. Meanwhile spelling partly sticks with old spelling and partly reacts to the most prevalent changes.
One other point is that it is difficult to speak of a ‘native’ version of ‘English’, or indeed of aboriginal English people. ‘English’ is derived from the language of the germanic tribe of Angles, who invaded, as did the Saxons and then the Vikings, each with their own germanic dialects. Before that had come the Romans, bringing with them people from all over western Europe, the middle East and North Africa. Later, of course, came the French-speaking Normans, whose language filled the aristocracy and, no doubt the legal, medical and merchant professions, as well as Latin-using clerics, while much of the peasantry remained illiterate and had the most passing knowledge of French or Latin. English as we know it emerged from the clash between the two languages. So we see that the words for the most basic things are generally ‘anglo-saxon’ - ‘house’, ‘window’, ‘hand’, ‘where’, ‘go’, ‘foot’, ‘boat’, ‘day’, ‘night’... The French involves things peasants would not possess or need. As the two came together, the Anglo-Saxon tended to prevail for most everyday purposes, while Franco-Latin and, indeed, Greek prevailed for professional, intellectual, technical legal and similar areas of life, of which the large mass of people had little contact. There is no discoverable ‘native’ language. It happened over hundreds of years.
So there is no native English in the sense you mean. The language is a mongrel.
answered 7 hours ago
Tuffy
2,5781612
The general consensus view of linguists is that English is a Germanic language, so “native†English vocabulary is Germanic. It’s not that hard to identify. There are some people who argue for different analyses, like calling English a “creoleâ€Â, but those are minority viewpoints. The presence of many loanwords in a language doesn’t make the concept of “native†vocabulary meaningless from the perspective of historical linguistics, even if it may make it harder for linguistically naive native speakers to identify originally native vs. originally borrowed words.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Japanese is an example of another language that has many loanwords, including old and well-integrated loans from Chinese, but that also has a stratum of native vocabulary (inherited from Proto-Japonic) that linguists can identify and analyze.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Well, yes, you are right: I disagree with the consensus, and the questioner should be aware of that. I should have mentioned it. But there is far too much Franco-Latin in English to call as a whole germanic. The French/Latin words (other than ‘pompom’ or legal jargon like ‘alias’ or ‘alibi’) are not loan words in any sense I can recognise. They are as fully part of the language as the Angle, Saxon, Frisian and the rest. I am not sure what purpose is served by looking for the earliest, when the two so clearly crashed together.
– Tuffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I think you are confusing spelling and pronunciation. English has tended to a certain (in some ways confusing) deviation in how different forms of the same root word is pronounced. So:-
In French we have the verb prononcer and the noun prononciation
In English we have the verb pronounce but the noun pronunciation
The French pronounce and spell the syllable in question verb and noun in exactly the corresponding way: the English do not.
So with your word sign, The French pronounce the ‘g’ in ‘signe’ (strictly the ‘g’ and ‘n’ are slurred together as more like ‘ng’) in the same way as in the verb ‘signer’ and the noun ‘signal’ (Latin ‘signum’, probably, it is now thought, pronounced rather like today’s French).
But English, in adopting the word ‘signe’ has shifted its vowel sound from the ‘ee’ to the pronunciation of sign (as in line). Yet in the noun signal this has not happened: the ‘g’ is no longer silent, any more than it is in ‘signify’ (cp. French ‘signifier’, pronounced like ‘signe’). This kind of silent ‘g’ only occurs (as far as I can find) when it occurs in a final syllable (as in ‘resign’ - but ‘resignation’.
Another interesting example is French ‘ligne’, with English ‘line’ (not ‘lign’!). Here the corresponding Latin is not ‘lignum‘ (which means ‘wood’!) but ‘linea’ (meaning ‘thread, or ‘line’, with no ‘g’, silent or otherwise). I do not know why it is not spelled ‘line’ (pronounced ‘feen’) as in ‘fine’ (similarly pronounced). After all, the noun ‘linéarité’ and adjective ‘linéaire’.
Where does that leave us? First, it is an illustration of how language, including how it is pronounced and spelled, over time. A major factor in this, above all in times when literacy was not as widespread and communication was more localised than it came to be by the end of the 18th century, was ‘natural selection’ and, as part of that, what how words sat comfortably in the mouth. One key part of this was the so-called ‘great vowel shift’, in which letters ‘i’ and ‘e’ came to sit higher in the mouth. So, we might think, as ‘ee’ shifted, the ‘g’ before ‘n’ became awkward to say and fell silent. Meanwhile spelling partly sticks with old spelling and partly reacts to the most prevalent changes.
One other point is that it is difficult to speak of a ‘native’ version of ‘English’, or indeed of aboriginal English people. ‘English’ is derived from the language of the germanic tribe of Angles, who invaded, as did the Saxons and then the Vikings, each with their own germanic dialects. Before that had come the Romans, bringing with them people from all over western Europe, the middle East and North Africa. Later, of course, came the French-speaking Normans, whose language filled the aristocracy and, no doubt the legal, medical and merchant professions, as well as Latin-using clerics, while much of the peasantry remained illiterate and had the most passing knowledge of French or Latin. English as we know it emerged from the clash between the two languages. So we see that the words for the most basic things are generally ‘anglo-saxon’ - ‘house’, ‘window’, ‘hand’, ‘where’, ‘go’, ‘foot’, ‘boat’, ‘day’, ‘night’... The French involves things peasants would not possess or need. As the two came together, the Anglo-Saxon tended to prevail for most everyday purposes, while Franco-Latin and, indeed, Greek prevailed for professional, intellectual, technical legal and similar areas of life, of which the large mass of people had little contact. There is no discoverable ‘native’ language. It happened over hundreds of years.
So there is no native English in the sense you mean. The language is a mongrel.
answered 7 hours ago
Tuffy
2,5781612
The general consensus view of linguists is that English is a Germanic language, so “native†English vocabulary is Germanic. It’s not that hard to identify. There are some people who argue for different analyses, like calling English a “creoleâ€Â, but those are minority viewpoints. The presence of many loanwords in a language doesn’t make the concept of “native†vocabulary meaningless from the perspective of historical linguistics, even if it may make it harder for linguistically naive native speakers to identify originally native vs. originally borrowed words.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Japanese is an example of another language that has many loanwords, including old and well-integrated loans from Chinese, but that also has a stratum of native vocabulary (inherited from Proto-Japonic) that linguists can identify and analyze.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Well, yes, you are right: I disagree with the consensus, and the questioner should be aware of that. I should have mentioned it. But there is far too much Franco-Latin in English to call as a whole germanic. The French/Latin words (other than ‘pompom’ or legal jargon like ‘alias’ or ‘alibi’) are not loan words in any sense I can recognise. They are as fully part of the language as the Angle, Saxon, Frisian and the rest. I am not sure what purpose is served by looking for the earliest, when the two so clearly crashed together.
– Tuffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I think you are confusing spelling and pronunciation. English has tended to a certain (in some ways confusing) deviation in how different forms of the same root word is pronounced. So:-
In French we have the verb prononcer and the noun prononciation
In English we have the verb pronounce but the noun pronunciation
The French pronounce and spell the syllable in question verb and noun in exactly the corresponding way: the English do not.
So with your word sign, The French pronounce the ‘g’ in ‘signe’ (strictly the ‘g’ and ‘n’ are slurred together as more like ‘ng’) in the same way as in the verb ‘signer’ and the noun ‘signal’ (Latin ‘signum’, probably, it is now thought, pronounced rather like today’s French).
But English, in adopting the word ‘signe’ has shifted its vowel sound from the ‘ee’ to the pronunciation of sign (as in line). Yet in the noun signal this has not happened: the ‘g’ is no longer silent, any more than it is in ‘signify’ (cp. French ‘signifier’, pronounced like ‘signe’). This kind of silent ‘g’ only occurs (as far as I can find) when it occurs in a final syllable (as in ‘resign’ - but ‘resignation’.
Another interesting example is French ‘ligne’, with English ‘line’ (not ‘lign’!). Here the corresponding Latin is not ‘lignum‘ (which means ‘wood’!) but ‘linea’ (meaning ‘thread, or ‘line’, with no ‘g’, silent or otherwise). I do not know why it is not spelled ‘line’ (pronounced ‘feen’) as in ‘fine’ (similarly pronounced). After all, the noun ‘linéarité’ and adjective ‘linéaire’.
Where does that leave us? First, it is an illustration of how language, including how it is pronounced and spelled, over time. A major factor in this, above all in times when literacy was not as widespread and communication was more localised than it came to be by the end of the 18th century, was ‘natural selection’ and, as part of that, what how words sat comfortably in the mouth. One key part of this was the so-called ‘great vowel shift’, in which letters ‘i’ and ‘e’ came to sit higher in the mouth. So, we might think, as ‘ee’ shifted, the ‘g’ before ‘n’ became awkward to say and fell silent. Meanwhile spelling partly sticks with old spelling and partly reacts to the most prevalent changes.
One other point is that it is difficult to speak of a ‘native’ version of ‘English’, or indeed of aboriginal English people. ‘English’ is derived from the language of the germanic tribe of Angles, who invaded, as did the Saxons and then the Vikings, each with their own germanic dialects. Before that had come the Romans, bringing with them people from all over western Europe, the middle East and North Africa. Later, of course, came the French-speaking Normans, whose language filled the aristocracy and, no doubt the legal, medical and merchant professions, as well as Latin-using clerics, while much of the peasantry remained illiterate and had the most passing knowledge of French or Latin. English as we know it emerged from the clash between the two languages. So we see that the words for the most basic things are generally ‘anglo-saxon’ - ‘house’, ‘window’, ‘hand’, ‘where’, ‘go’, ‘foot’, ‘boat’, ‘day’, ‘night’... The French involves things peasants would not possess or need. As the two came together, the Anglo-Saxon tended to prevail for most everyday purposes, while Franco-Latin and, indeed, Greek prevailed for professional, intellectual, technical legal and similar areas of life, of which the large mass of people had little contact. There is no discoverable ‘native’ language. It happened over hundreds of years.
So there is no native English in the sense you mean. The language is a mongrel.
answered 7 hours ago
Tuffy
2,5781612
I think you are confusing spelling and pronunciation. English has tended to a certain (in some ways confusing) deviation in how different forms of the same root word is pronounced. So:-
In French we have the verb prononcer and the noun prononciation
In English we have the verb pronounce but the noun pronunciation
The French pronounce and spell the syllable in question verb and noun in exactly the corresponding way: the English do not.
So with your word sign, The French pronounce the ‘g’ in ‘signe’ (strictly the ‘g’ and ‘n’ are slurred together as more like ‘ng’) in the same way as in the verb ‘signer’ and the noun ‘signal’ (Latin ‘signum’, probably, it is now thought, pronounced rather like today’s French).
But English, in adopting the word ‘signe’ has shifted its vowel sound from the ‘ee’ to the pronunciation of sign (as in line). Yet in the noun signal this has not happened: the ‘g’ is no longer silent, any more than it is in ‘signify’ (cp. French ‘signifier’, pronounced like ‘signe’). This kind of silent ‘g’ only occurs (as far as I can find) when it occurs in a final syllable (as in ‘resign’ - but ‘resignation’.
Another interesting example is French ‘ligne’, with English ‘line’ (not ‘lign’!). Here the corresponding Latin is not ‘lignum‘ (which means ‘wood’!) but ‘linea’ (meaning ‘thread, or ‘line’, with no ‘g’, silent or otherwise). I do not know why it is not spelled ‘line’ (pronounced ‘feen’) as in ‘fine’ (similarly pronounced). After all, the noun ‘linéarité’ and adjective ‘linéaire’.
Where does that leave us? First, it is an illustration of how language, including how it is pronounced and spelled, over time. A major factor in this, above all in times when literacy was not as widespread and communication was more localised than it came to be by the end of the 18th century, was ‘natural selection’ and, as part of that, what how words sat comfortably in the mouth. One key part of this was the so-called ‘great vowel shift’, in which letters ‘i’ and ‘e’ came to sit higher in the mouth. So, we might think, as ‘ee’ shifted, the ‘g’ before ‘n’ became awkward to say and fell silent. Meanwhile spelling partly sticks with old spelling and partly reacts to the most prevalent changes.
One other point is that it is difficult to speak of a ‘native’ version of ‘English’, or indeed of aboriginal English people. ‘English’ is derived from the language of the germanic tribe of Angles, who invaded, as did the Saxons and then the Vikings, each with their own germanic dialects. Before that had come the Romans, bringing with them people from all over western Europe, the middle East and North Africa. Later, of course, came the French-speaking Normans, whose language filled the aristocracy and, no doubt the legal, medical and merchant professions, as well as Latin-using clerics, while much of the peasantry remained illiterate and had the most passing knowledge of French or Latin. English as we know it emerged from the clash between the two languages. So we see that the words for the most basic things are generally ‘anglo-saxon’ - ‘house’, ‘window’, ‘hand’, ‘where’, ‘go’, ‘foot’, ‘boat’, ‘day’, ‘night’... The French involves things peasants would not possess or need. As the two came together, the Anglo-Saxon tended to prevail for most everyday purposes, while Franco-Latin and, indeed, Greek prevailed for professional, intellectual, technical legal and similar areas of life, of which the large mass of people had little contact. There is no discoverable ‘native’ language. It happened over hundreds of years.
So there is no native English in the sense you mean. The language is a mongrel.
answered 7 hours ago
Tuffy
2,5781612
answered 7 hours ago
Tuffy
2,5781612
answered 7 hours ago
Tuffy
2,5781612
answered 7 hours ago
Tuffy
2,5781612
2,5781612
The general consensus view of linguists is that English is a Germanic language, so “native†English vocabulary is Germanic. It’s not that hard to identify. There are some people who argue for different analyses, like calling English a “creoleâ€Â, but those are minority viewpoints. The presence of many loanwords in a language doesn’t make the concept of “native†vocabulary meaningless from the perspective of historical linguistics, even if it may make it harder for linguistically naive native speakers to identify originally native vs. originally borrowed words.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Japanese is an example of another language that has many loanwords, including old and well-integrated loans from Chinese, but that also has a stratum of native vocabulary (inherited from Proto-Japonic) that linguists can identify and analyze.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Well, yes, you are right: I disagree with the consensus, and the questioner should be aware of that. I should have mentioned it. But there is far too much Franco-Latin in English to call as a whole germanic. The French/Latin words (other than ‘pompom’ or legal jargon like ‘alias’ or ‘alibi’) are not loan words in any sense I can recognise. They are as fully part of the language as the Angle, Saxon, Frisian and the rest. I am not sure what purpose is served by looking for the earliest, when the two so clearly crashed together.
– Tuffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |Â
The general consensus view of linguists is that English is a Germanic language, so “native†English vocabulary is Germanic. It’s not that hard to identify. There are some people who argue for different analyses, like calling English a “creoleâ€Â, but those are minority viewpoints. The presence of many loanwords in a language doesn’t make the concept of “native†vocabulary meaningless from the perspective of historical linguistics, even if it may make it harder for linguistically naive native speakers to identify originally native vs. originally borrowed words.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Japanese is an example of another language that has many loanwords, including old and well-integrated loans from Chinese, but that also has a stratum of native vocabulary (inherited from Proto-Japonic) that linguists can identify and analyze.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Well, yes, you are right: I disagree with the consensus, and the questioner should be aware of that. I should have mentioned it. But there is far too much Franco-Latin in English to call as a whole germanic. The French/Latin words (other than ‘pompom’ or legal jargon like ‘alias’ or ‘alibi’) are not loan words in any sense I can recognise. They are as fully part of the language as the Angle, Saxon, Frisian and the rest. I am not sure what purpose is served by looking for the earliest, when the two so clearly crashed together.
– Tuffy
6 hours ago
The general consensus view of linguists is that English is a Germanic language, so “native†English vocabulary is Germanic. It’s not that hard to identify. There are some people who argue for different analyses, like calling English a “creoleâ€Â, but those are minority viewpoints. The presence of many loanwords in a language doesn’t make the concept of “native†vocabulary meaningless from the perspective of historical linguistics, even if it may make it harder for linguistically naive native speakers to identify originally native vs. originally borrowed words.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
The general consensus view of linguists is that English is a Germanic language, so “native†English vocabulary is Germanic. It’s not that hard to identify. There are some people who argue for different analyses, like calling English a “creoleâ€Â, but those are minority viewpoints. The presence of many loanwords in a language doesn’t make the concept of “native†vocabulary meaningless from the perspective of historical linguistics, even if it may make it harder for linguistically naive native speakers to identify originally native vs. originally borrowed words.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Japanese is an example of another language that has many loanwords, including old and well-integrated loans from Chinese, but that also has a stratum of native vocabulary (inherited from Proto-Japonic) that linguists can identify and analyze.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Japanese is an example of another language that has many loanwords, including old and well-integrated loans from Chinese, but that also has a stratum of native vocabulary (inherited from Proto-Japonic) that linguists can identify and analyze.
– sumelic
6 hours ago
Well, yes, you are right: I disagree with the consensus, and the questioner should be aware of that. I should have mentioned it. But there is far too much Franco-Latin in English to call as a whole germanic. The French/Latin words (other than ‘pompom’ or legal jargon like ‘alias’ or ‘alibi’) are not loan words in any sense I can recognise. They are as fully part of the language as the Angle, Saxon, Frisian and the rest. I am not sure what purpose is served by looking for the earliest, when the two so clearly crashed together.
– Tuffy
6 hours ago
Well, yes, you are right: I disagree with the consensus, and the questioner should be aware of that. I should have mentioned it. But there is far too much Franco-Latin in English to call as a whole germanic. The French/Latin words (other than ‘pompom’ or legal jargon like ‘alias’ or ‘alibi’) are not loan words in any sense I can recognise. They are as fully part of the language as the Angle, Saxon, Frisian and the rest. I am not sure what purpose is served by looking for the earliest, when the two so clearly crashed together.
– Tuffy
6 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f467130%2fdoes-english-have-bi-gram-gn-natively%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
11
Define "natively". The vast majority of "English" words in use today were originally imported from other languages.
– FumbleFingers
10 hours ago
Agnostic is from Greek - it's an a- prefix but you don't explicitly rule that out. Pugnacious is apparently directly from Latin
– Chris H
10 hours ago
2
You appear to use a rather idiosyncratic definition of native = Germanic. If this is actually what you mean, could you be clear about that in the question?
– Chris H
10 hours ago
7
I'm tempted to make an argument in favour of words of Celtic origin but I don't honestly think you can define native English
– Chris H
10 hours ago
1
Let me gnaw on that a little bit.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago