Status
Available
Publication
New York : Gotham Books, c2008.
Description
Why do we say "I am reading a catalog" instead of "I read a catalog"? Why do we say "do" at all? Is the way we speak a reflection of our cultural values? Delving into these provocative topics and more, author McWhorter distills hundreds of years of lore into one lively history. Covering the little-known Celtic and Welsh influences on English, the impact of the Viking raids and the Norman Conquest, and the Germanic invasions that started it all during the fifth century AD, and drawing on genetic and linguistic research as well as a cache of trivia about the origins of English words and syntax patterns, McWhorter ultimately demonstrates the arbitrary, maddening nature of English--and its ironic simplicity, due to its role as a streamlined lingua franca during the early formation of Britain. This is the book that language aficionados have been waiting for.--From publisher description.… (more)
Media reviews
It’s basically a combination of two items, each of which would ideally be very slim: a primer on descriptivist views of language (no, English isn’t going to hell in a handbasket), and a popularization of McWhorter’s work on creolization and the history of English. The latter takes up most of
Show More
the book, and it is, to my mind, overwritten and unnecessarily repetitive. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member goodnightmoon
I looked forward to reading this book much more than I actually enjoyed reading it. I found McWhorter's tone odd, especially in the Celtic bits - like he was trying to dissuade me of a belief I never had. I just want to find out more about the history of English, man; I never doubted that English
And many of the references and explanations were clipped or nonexistant - like when he wrote that because of all the modern Germanic spellings of "daughter," linguists can figure out that the original Proto-Germanic word was daukhtro. And then he moves on! Whoa - I want to know how they know that. I felt like I had missed the introductory course and was now in 201.
All in all, despite interesting tidbits, the book read more like an academic persuasive essay, better suited to linguists themselves than to curious lay-people.
Show More
was influenced by the Celts. And many of the references and explanations were clipped or nonexistant - like when he wrote that because of all the modern Germanic spellings of "daughter," linguists can figure out that the original Proto-Germanic word was daukhtro. And then he moves on! Whoa - I want to know how they know that. I felt like I had missed the introductory course and was now in 201.
All in all, despite interesting tidbits, the book read more like an academic persuasive essay, better suited to linguists themselves than to curious lay-people.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Wombat
McWhorter describes the grammatical evolution of the English language, arguing that it is mostly the result of encounters with speakers of other languages in the British Isles. English acquired certain constructs that are relatively rare in the world's languages except in Celtic languages spoken by
Along the way, McWhorter lists and rebuts the various reasons other scholars don't accept (or might not accept) his hypotheses. This uncovers some additional interesting points about language and linguistic research. Such as the trouble of inferring what people's spoken language was like in a time when few people could write, and writing used the formal (rather than the colloquial) language of the time. But I also found these debates quickly grew annoying. As a reader who is not personally familiar with the current scholarship in linguistics, it was never clear whether McWhorter was rebutting active criticisms of his work, anticipating future objections, or merely refuting the reasons scholars have never, till now, considered these points. And since McWhorter is obviously on one side of any of these debates, it's hard to know how well he is representing the opposing view points.
McWhorter also devotes a chapter to using his view of the evolution of English to argue against the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, the idea that our thinking and behavior are influenced by the characteristics of the language we speak. I have to infer that this topic is something of a sore point for McWhorter, because it really felt a bit out of place in the book. Or maybe the problem is that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis strikes me as utter nonsense, and hence I would need to see a lot of supporting evidence for it---especially for the stronger forms of cultural influence McWhorter says it argues for---before I would find any counter arguments interesting or necessary.
Along the way, there are lots of interesting tidbits about language. Like many language writers, McWhorter takes some time out to poke holes in some of our notions of "correct" speech, and offers lots of interesting analogues and examples for a wide range of other languages, including both the commonplace (Russian, Frence, etc.) and the unusual (Frisian, Cree, et al.)
Overall an entertaining and educational read, especially if you're interested in how English got to where it is today, or in languages in general.
Show More
the early inhabitants of Britain, hence this is probably how they came into English. And successive waves of Viking invaders/immigrants who spoke other Germanic tongues had trouble picking up some of the other grammatical complexities, such as word gender and case and tense markings on nouns and verbs, respectively, and thus these features were eroded out of the language. McWhorter also offers some (fascinating) theories about the origins of some of the oddities in the entire Germanic language family when compared with other Indo-European tongues. Along the way, McWhorter lists and rebuts the various reasons other scholars don't accept (or might not accept) his hypotheses. This uncovers some additional interesting points about language and linguistic research. Such as the trouble of inferring what people's spoken language was like in a time when few people could write, and writing used the formal (rather than the colloquial) language of the time. But I also found these debates quickly grew annoying. As a reader who is not personally familiar with the current scholarship in linguistics, it was never clear whether McWhorter was rebutting active criticisms of his work, anticipating future objections, or merely refuting the reasons scholars have never, till now, considered these points. And since McWhorter is obviously on one side of any of these debates, it's hard to know how well he is representing the opposing view points.
McWhorter also devotes a chapter to using his view of the evolution of English to argue against the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, the idea that our thinking and behavior are influenced by the characteristics of the language we speak. I have to infer that this topic is something of a sore point for McWhorter, because it really felt a bit out of place in the book. Or maybe the problem is that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis strikes me as utter nonsense, and hence I would need to see a lot of supporting evidence for it---especially for the stronger forms of cultural influence McWhorter says it argues for---before I would find any counter arguments interesting or necessary.
Along the way, there are lots of interesting tidbits about language. Like many language writers, McWhorter takes some time out to poke holes in some of our notions of "correct" speech, and offers lots of interesting analogues and examples for a wide range of other languages, including both the commonplace (Russian, Frence, etc.) and the unusual (Frisian, Cree, et al.)
Overall an entertaining and educational read, especially if you're interested in how English got to where it is today, or in languages in general.
Show Less
LibraryThing member thorold
Like a lot of popular non-fiction these days, this is somewhat oversold by its subtitle: it's not a history of English, still less an "untold" one, but a set of five essays on more or less controversial topics in historical linguistics. The main focus of the book is in the first and third chapters,
I'm not sure if McWhorter's arguments about the Welsh and the Vikings are convincing, but he does seem to have a valid point when he says that studies of the history of English have been too tied up with statistics on words and etymologies and have not paid enough attention to the really weird things about modern English compared to other languages, like the two present tenses, the "meaningless-do" in questions and negative statements, and the absence of grammatical gender and extreme simplification of verb-forms. In the light of recent research on language-contact elsewhere in the world, he argues that these are developments typical of what happens when a lot of non-native speakers use a language. And he points out some interesting parallel features in Welsh grammar.
The weakness in his position is that there is no written evidence for any of these things until the boom in written Middle-English in the thirteenth century, many centuries after the contacts he's talking about. Can that really be explained away by scribal conservatism? Maybe, maybe not. But it's certainly not something that any non-professional reader of this book is going to be in a position to judge. Generally, when I see a popular book setting out an "academics have been getting this wrong for decades" argument, I'm looking for a very high standard of proof, and that doesn't seem to be on offer here.
The book is written in a strange Brysonic dialect of English, but without most of Bill Bryson's precision and conciseness. McWhorter is obviously a broadcaster first and a writer second: on paper his mixed metaphors and rambling sentences are cruelly exposed to view, and his American colloquialisms look forced rather than spontaneous. And they are often very provincial. As a non-US reader I had to keep stopping to decode obscure references to sports, TV and brand-names.
Show More
where McWhorter argues that contact between speakers of Old English and Celtic languages (ch.1), and between speakers of Old English and Old Norse (ch.3), may have been responsible for some of the grammatical features that make modern English so different from the other Germanic languages. The other three chapters are provided to allow for some routine bashing of language pedants and followers of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ("grammar constrains thought"), and to give some air-time to the Vennemann "Phoenicians in Germania" theory, which sounds in McWhorter's account rather like a modern version of the Victorian obsession with the missing tribes of Israel.I'm not sure if McWhorter's arguments about the Welsh and the Vikings are convincing, but he does seem to have a valid point when he says that studies of the history of English have been too tied up with statistics on words and etymologies and have not paid enough attention to the really weird things about modern English compared to other languages, like the two present tenses, the "meaningless-do" in questions and negative statements, and the absence of grammatical gender and extreme simplification of verb-forms. In the light of recent research on language-contact elsewhere in the world, he argues that these are developments typical of what happens when a lot of non-native speakers use a language. And he points out some interesting parallel features in Welsh grammar.
The weakness in his position is that there is no written evidence for any of these things until the boom in written Middle-English in the thirteenth century, many centuries after the contacts he's talking about. Can that really be explained away by scribal conservatism? Maybe, maybe not. But it's certainly not something that any non-professional reader of this book is going to be in a position to judge. Generally, when I see a popular book setting out an "academics have been getting this wrong for decades" argument, I'm looking for a very high standard of proof, and that doesn't seem to be on offer here.
The book is written in a strange Brysonic dialect of English, but without most of Bill Bryson's precision and conciseness. McWhorter is obviously a broadcaster first and a writer second: on paper his mixed metaphors and rambling sentences are cruelly exposed to view, and his American colloquialisms look forced rather than spontaneous. And they are often very provincial. As a non-US reader I had to keep stopping to decode obscure references to sports, TV and brand-names.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Georg.Miggel
A very interesting book with some new theories about the development of the English language from its Germanic roots. I like his comparisons of the members of the “gang” and even more since I am familiar with two of them (ok, one and a half). McWhorter shows without any prejudice that not only
As a pedant I can’t stop here. So just some petty criticism without substantial weight.
1. Call me humourless but I don’t need cheap jokes to read a scientific book. When he cites Shakespeare he does not need to tell me that Shakespeare did not refer to “Sports Illustrated” when he mentions a “magazine”.
2. “Ich tue vielleicht den Sack aufschneiden” is not an “option”, not even in a grammatical sense. That’s a sentence you would only tolerate coming from a toddler, but it just isn’t German even if all the single words are correct.
3. How to proof that the Phoenicians were in Germany and/or Denmark to teach us idiots good Phoenician grammar? One of the Phoenician Gods was called “Baal”. And one of our Germanic Gods was called “Balder”. Not exactly compelling if you consider that the Phoenicians as well as the Gotes had hundred of Gods and it would be more astounding if there were not two of them with similar names
Show More
all human beings are equal but also all languages though they are very different. It’s an interesting point that a language with an “easy” grammar might be a bigger challenge for the speaker and that the English “meaningless do” really is as meaningless as our “der/die/das”. As a pedant I can’t stop here. So just some petty criticism without substantial weight.
1. Call me humourless but I don’t need cheap jokes to read a scientific book. When he cites Shakespeare he does not need to tell me that Shakespeare did not refer to “Sports Illustrated” when he mentions a “magazine”.
2. “Ich tue vielleicht den Sack aufschneiden” is not an “option”, not even in a grammatical sense. That’s a sentence you would only tolerate coming from a toddler, but it just isn’t German even if all the single words are correct.
3. How to proof that the Phoenicians were in Germany and/or Denmark to teach us idiots good Phoenician grammar? One of the Phoenician Gods was called “Baal”. And one of our Germanic Gods was called “Balder”. Not exactly compelling if you consider that the Phoenicians as well as the Gotes had hundred of Gods and it would be more astounding if there were not two of them with similar names
Show Less
LibraryThing member JBD1
A brisk overview of a few interesting, if in some cases quite vague, theories about the development of English. Color me, at least partially, unconvinced. McWhorter's writing for a very general audience here, and it shows: a bit more rigor and fewer exclamation points would go a long way.
LibraryThing member Smiler69
McWhorter's short book is obviously aimed at the public at large and in the audio version at least, he is a narrator who is engaging and fun and obviously doesn't take himself too seriously, which kept me going even the more arduous bits (I've always had a hard time with grammar). He uncovers some
A noteworthy reminder for the modern reader is the fact that language was transmitted purely orally and on the fly, with no formal schooling in existence and was almost never put in writing, with the bulk of the population being illiterate, besides which written and oral versions of languages were often vastly different (for example, Latin exclusively in many Mediterranean countries for written matter, and Arabic, even to this day different in daily speech and printed matter).
He also goes over quite a bit of ground in this section about the use of "unnecessary do" in the modern English language, as in "do you think this is a good idea?" It took me a while to understand this concept, because we use (unnecessary) 'do' so much in our regular speech that we don't even think about it, but it seems no other Germanic languages use it this way.
The end section was of particular interest to me, because having studied in grade school in Israel, I learned how Hebrew was a semitic language which at one point evolved from Phoenician, and here McWhorter makes the argument that even the proto-Germanic language, from which modern languages such as English, German and Dutch evolved, through the sea travels of peoples such as the Phoenicians, probably had similar influences as well.
An overview more than anything, but fascinating in parts.
Show More
links in the English language which are surprisingly overlooked by most linguists, among others, the connection between the spoken languages of the Celts as well as the Welsh and Cornish who had populated Britain before the invasion of the Germanic tribes, pointing out that not only words, but grammar itself was influenced by these origins. Why historians have ignored these particular linguistic connections is anyone's guess, and he advances some theories which are interesting. A noteworthy reminder for the modern reader is the fact that language was transmitted purely orally and on the fly, with no formal schooling in existence and was almost never put in writing, with the bulk of the population being illiterate, besides which written and oral versions of languages were often vastly different (for example, Latin exclusively in many Mediterranean countries for written matter, and Arabic, even to this day different in daily speech and printed matter).
He also goes over quite a bit of ground in this section about the use of "unnecessary do" in the modern English language, as in "do you think this is a good idea?" It took me a while to understand this concept, because we use (unnecessary) 'do' so much in our regular speech that we don't even think about it, but it seems no other Germanic languages use it this way.
The end section was of particular interest to me, because having studied in grade school in Israel, I learned how Hebrew was a semitic language which at one point evolved from Phoenician, and here McWhorter makes the argument that even the proto-Germanic language, from which modern languages such as English, German and Dutch evolved, through the sea travels of peoples such as the Phoenicians, probably had similar influences as well.
An overview more than anything, but fascinating in parts.
Show Less
LibraryThing member vpfluke
This is an excellent book on the history of English and the surprising influences that have occurred. McWhorter contends there are a number of grammatical oddities that make English really unique. The first is the extensive use of the meaning "do", where some form of the word "do" is freqently
Another area, and much better recorded in other language histories is the influence of Old Norse prepositions on English, starting in the north of England where the Vikings first landed.
McWhorter spends a chapter trying to dispose of the Sapir-Whorf hypotheses, which states that a language and its grammaticali construction has a great influence on thought. Most professional linguists do not spend time on this, so he is obviously speaking to a more lay audience on this issue. What he doesn't tease out well is how many people who are bilingual will find one language has specific expressions that are a whole lot better than the approximation in the other language. So, it is easy for a person to jump to the conclusion that language really does influence thought. This book was written in 2008, and the work of the linguist Dan Everett had not taken firm hold. This is where a small Amazon language, Piraha, seems to flout many rules of how the rest of the world uses language.
I will say that I am glad that McWhorter does not use any of the Chomskyan generative grammar apparatus, as that would have been a distraction.
Show More
inserted into Englsih sentences and not just for questions or helping the sentence be negative. Like "he did do this" beyond "he did this". McWhorter posits this comes from the WElsh, which is the only other language with this construction. When the Angles and Saxons settles in England they spent a lot of time intermingling and the meaningless do is one of the exchanges between the two. Another construction English has is having the progressive present (i.e. adding -ing all the time). The Welsh language had much less influence. The amount and type of interchange when languages are in contact are unpredictable.Another area, and much better recorded in other language histories is the influence of Old Norse prepositions on English, starting in the north of England where the Vikings first landed.
McWhorter spends a chapter trying to dispose of the Sapir-Whorf hypotheses, which states that a language and its grammaticali construction has a great influence on thought. Most professional linguists do not spend time on this, so he is obviously speaking to a more lay audience on this issue. What he doesn't tease out well is how many people who are bilingual will find one language has specific expressions that are a whole lot better than the approximation in the other language. So, it is easy for a person to jump to the conclusion that language really does influence thought. This book was written in 2008, and the work of the linguist Dan Everett had not taken firm hold. This is where a small Amazon language, Piraha, seems to flout many rules of how the rest of the world uses language.
I will say that I am glad that McWhorter does not use any of the Chomskyan generative grammar apparatus, as that would have been a distraction.
Show Less
LibraryThing member annbury
Short but very interesting historical look at English -- not an overview, but a specific consideration of the ways in which English grammar has diverged from that of the other Germanic languages. This, McWhorter proposes, reflects the underlying influence of Celtic. What happened to the Celtic
Show More
language(es) presumably spoken by most of the inhabitants of Britain at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasions is a tantalizing question that most histories of the language brush over. McWhorter doesn't; his argument is interesting, but I still wonder if Celtic could have had that much grammatical impact with so little impact on the lexicon. Show Less
LibraryThing member spounds
Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue is a quick little book about English and how it got the way it is. I enjoyed the emphasis in this book on the evolution in grammar and not just of word origins. I was never very good at studying languages, no so much because of the vocabulary (well, there was that),
An other thing I enjoyed were the editorial comments that McWhorter added just for the audiobook version of the book. I don't think there were a lot, but they were interesting.
McWhorter spends a lot of his time defending his theories of how changes to English came to be. I really don't have a dog in any of those fights, so I wasn't sure how those with opposing views would contradict him, but I thought it was interesting that he brought the fight to the attention of the masses. Was he hoping to get acceptance of his ideas by getting the general public behind him?
All in all an interesting book. Recommended.
Show More
because I never seemed to be able to make sense of the grammatical rules. McWhorter does a good job comparing grammatical constructions across languages and I wonder if I had studied language more like that if I would have been able to retain more. (Probably not, but I can dream.)An other thing I enjoyed were the editorial comments that McWhorter added just for the audiobook version of the book. I don't think there were a lot, but they were interesting.
McWhorter spends a lot of his time defending his theories of how changes to English came to be. I really don't have a dog in any of those fights, so I wasn't sure how those with opposing views would contradict him, but I thought it was interesting that he brought the fight to the attention of the masses. Was he hoping to get acceptance of his ideas by getting the general public behind him?
All in all an interesting book. Recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member crazybatcow
It's pretty much exactly what you'd expect: a bit of a background on why English is the kind of language it is. Not particularly surprising or novel, but it was interesting enough to pass the time. English seems to be different from it's "related" languages and the author is quite, err, let's say
Show More
adamant (rather than ranting) about the Celtic impact on English. Yes, he does admit that traditional scholars disagree and offers his own "evidence" but it isn't this disagreement with the establishment that got a little annoying but his repetitive "digs" on the subject. Show Less
LibraryThing member TheDivineOomba
There is a quote, I forget who said it, or where It came from, but it essentially goes like this "Thomas Jefferson built this addition, but we don't actually know if he ever went into it because he never wrote about it in letters". If anyone knows who said this, or the actual quote, please let me
This is what this book is about. How the language most likely changed, but you can't depend on the writing because only a few people could write, and the writing was in a formal way, not spoken by the common people.
Its interesting. Mr. McWhorter definitely has the academic arrogance going on - where he can dis other Linguists in the field while at the same time praising him for due diligence.
Its a good book, it will leave you thinking about languages and how they can change over the years, even taking on aspects of a neighboring language if the situation is right. Its also a fairly easy read - you don't need to know how grammar works to be able to read this book.
Show More
know.This is what this book is about. How the language most likely changed, but you can't depend on the writing because only a few people could write, and the writing was in a formal way, not spoken by the common people.
Its interesting. Mr. McWhorter definitely has the academic arrogance going on - where he can dis other Linguists in the field while at the same time praising him for due diligence.
Its a good book, it will leave you thinking about languages and how they can change over the years, even taking on aspects of a neighboring language if the situation is right. Its also a fairly easy read - you don't need to know how grammar works to be able to read this book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kutsuwamushi
John McWhorter is one of the most successful popularizers of linguistics. He writes in an entertaining and accessible style, and makes passionate arguments for changing the way you view language. He does not write as in depth as some other popularizers, but on the other hand, he's a breeze to read.
Show More
A good choice for someone who has not read much linguistics before. Show Less
LibraryThing member kylljoi
As a Lit. major... I geekgasmed for this book. the casual tone of McWhorter makes the details of the research utterly memorable.
LibraryThing member obtusata
I listened to the audio book version, read by the author. On the whole, it was interesting, but it turns out I'm not as interested in language as I had expected, so the low rating is more because of my pack of interest. Some of the jokes fell flat for me, but it was clear that the author was very
Show More
passionate about the topic. I think some interested in language or social history would probably love it. Show Less
LibraryThing member cjrecordvt
A wonderful overview of the reasons that English is a truly fascinating language, both diachronically by itself, and synchronically in light of its neighbors.
LibraryThing member jjmcgaffey
Fascinating. As he says (and says, and says), most "how did English get to be the language it is" books focus primarily on vocabulary and how Germanic Saxon and Romantic Norman French crossed to produce our odd language. And then he points out that borrowing vocabulary is not even unusual, but the
Show More
way English grammar works is unique. It's not Germanic, it's not Romantic - it has some features that it shares (only) with Celtic languages, specifically Welsh and Cornish, but even there it doesn't match exactly. He goes through the likely history of the language, and discusses how these grammar changes didn't show up in the written language and have therefore been largely invisible to etymologists and linguists studying the development of English. Another section discusses the illogic of prescriptivist rules, comparing some of the things we insist on today (it's Sam and I went to the store, not Sam and me...) to earlier requirements that sound just silly now. He also goes into the Sapir-Whorf theory that grammar influences/controls perceptions - mostly to argue that it's nonsense - and presents a theory that Old Norse, before the Vikings came to England, was already modified...by Phoenician. Lots of neat ideas, not a lot of supporting evidence (for good reason, he argues), a very enjoyable voice. I think I'll be looking up some of his books on various Creoles - I'd like to hear more from him. Show Less
LibraryThing member LisCarey
John McWhorter gives us another lively, fascinating, informative look at language, especially the English language.
English is an offshoot of North Germanic, and in some ways those connections are obvious. In other ways, English is a bit weird even by North Germanic standards--and one section is
But the main focus is English, and English has it's own weird traits. We often talk about all the vocabulary English has borrowed, or stolen, from other languages. McWhorter points out that all languages take useful vocabulary where they find it, and English is a bit unusual in having encountered so many different languages so early in its development.
What makes English different from other North Germanic languages and their descendants is grammar. One of the grammatical oddities of English is what linguists call "meaningless do." As in, "Do you know her?" "Do you want to go to the pool?" It's a word that is doing no grammatical work at all, and there is no equivalent in most Indo-European language, and specifically not in the Germanic languages most closely related to English. We use it many times a day, and never think it sounds odd, but it is odd. Where did it come from? Note: McWhorter is not a big fan of the theory that changes in a language "just happen" that purely by chance resemble structures in other, unrelated languages that happen to be nearby.
There's a similar construction in a couple of languages Old English had a lot of contact with, though, and McWhorter lays out the evidence in, I think, convincing detail.
The other notably weird thing about English compared to its relatives is the nearly-complete loss of the case endings all the other Germanic languages have. McWhorter also thinks the standard explanation for this is mistaken, and makes a very good case for his alternative explanation.
There's a lot more to this book, but these are some of the highlights. It's enjoyable, informative, and a really good listen.
Recommended.
English is an offshoot of North Germanic, and in some ways those connections are obvious. In other ways, English is a bit weird even by North Germanic standards--and one section is
Show More
devoted to making clear how very much the Germanic languages departed, early on, from the norms of essentially all the other Indo-European languages. He also gives us his theory as to how this happened.But the main focus is English, and English has it's own weird traits. We often talk about all the vocabulary English has borrowed, or stolen, from other languages. McWhorter points out that all languages take useful vocabulary where they find it, and English is a bit unusual in having encountered so many different languages so early in its development.
What makes English different from other North Germanic languages and their descendants is grammar. One of the grammatical oddities of English is what linguists call "meaningless do." As in, "Do you know her?" "Do you want to go to the pool?" It's a word that is doing no grammatical work at all, and there is no equivalent in most Indo-European language, and specifically not in the Germanic languages most closely related to English. We use it many times a day, and never think it sounds odd, but it is odd. Where did it come from? Note: McWhorter is not a big fan of the theory that changes in a language "just happen" that purely by chance resemble structures in other, unrelated languages that happen to be nearby.
There's a similar construction in a couple of languages Old English had a lot of contact with, though, and McWhorter lays out the evidence in, I think, convincing detail.
The other notably weird thing about English compared to its relatives is the nearly-complete loss of the case endings all the other Germanic languages have. McWhorter also thinks the standard explanation for this is mistaken, and makes a very good case for his alternative explanation.
There's a lot more to this book, but these are some of the highlights. It's enjoyable, informative, and a really good listen.
Recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AstonishingChristina
Short, pithy, fun to read. And I now know a bit more about linguistics and how it works.
LibraryThing member francoisvigneault
I love McWhorter, fantastic, layperson-friendly explorations of linguistics... His books in general are highly recommended.
LibraryThing member akblanchard
Linguist John McWhorter makes his case that English is an oddball among Indo-European languages because it has absorbed so many unexpected grammatical influences, including Welsh, Cornish, and maybe even Phoenician. He presents himself as a renegade among serious students of language, and I am
Show More
unable to gauge to what extent the ideas he presents are accepted by others in the field. An interesting book, to be sure, but perhaps not the first—or only—title that should be read on the topic. Show Less
LibraryThing member KittyCunningham
Pedantic and tedious
LibraryThing member wordsampersand
A short, fairly easy read. McWhorter essentially gives his mission statement for the work on the last page: here are some underground, indie stories on why English is the way it is. He's winsome in his approach, and his sense of humor really helps keep the book moving. And as for his arguments?
Show More
Well, I can't argue with them, nor do I want to after what I read. (Judging from Amazon reviews, however, many are willing to argue with him.) Show Less
LibraryThing member libwen
I found this discussion of the actual history of the English language delightful. This was not a surprise, as I have enjoyed other books by Mr. McWhorter, as well as the podcast he inherited, "Lexicon Valley." Anyone looking for a compelling, insightful, and eminently readable argument for how
Show More
English developed could do no better than Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue. Show Less