What do you think?
Rate this book
Language Workbooks
History of English
History of * covers the development of the English language from the 5th century to the present day
* contains a `mini-corpus' of texts, used for exercises and to illustrate points raised in the commentary
* introduces key linguistic concepts
* provides `discussion points' to generate debate
* involves readers in collecting and analysing their own data
* contains a `mini-corpus' of texts, used for exercises and to illustrate points raised in the commentary
* introduces key linguistic concepts
* provides `discussion points' to generate debate
* involves readers in collecting and analysing their own data
- GenresNonfictionLinguistics
114 pages, Paperback
First published July 3, 1997
2 people are currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
August 2, 2019Read it twice; once in 2008 when the irregularities of English were explainable after years in darkness, and once in 2014. If you want to know how English has this chaotic spelling system and irregular verbs and irregular plurals and more, you should read it along with David Crystal's Spell It Out: The Curious, Enthralling and Extraordinary Story of English Spelling
bough, cough, though, through, enough. . .
bough, cough, though, through, enough. . .
September 12, 2017
Pretty good, for what it was. I would never have picked up a linguistics book if it weren't on my reading list for uni, but I did quite enjoy this, because I love English. Whilst I'm MORE interested in poems and stories that take words and use them in ways that send goosebumps racing over my skin, that make my heart clench or my pulse race or my eyes fill with tears, ways that pull me into a world or a person and don't let me go, I'm also interested in the way those words work.
A couple of fun facts:
70% of English words come from other languages, mostly Latin and French. A lot of our Latin-root words are conceptual, to do with religion, learning or abstracts. By contrast, a lot of our more concrete words, relating to physical things, are Germanic in route. This is because Latin was the prestige language, used for religion, law and literature, whereas Germanic Anglo-Saxon language was used for the day-to-day.
Ever wondered why spellings are often so different to pronunciations? It's because the Romans invaded Britain and imposed their Roman alphabet on the original Celtic languages, which were not Romantic languages. So we were forced to come up with weird letter combos to represent sounds, unlike, say, Spanish, which is a Romantic language, wherein most sounds are represented by just one letter, and it's normally said the way it's spelt.
Cool, right?
This book raised an interesting question for me because it showed me that I'm a puritan and a liberal all at once when it comes to language. Why do I shrink from "reforms" such as removing apostrophes (the very notion makes me ANGRY, I HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT PUNCTUATION, OK?), and yet am very happy to use "potensh", "lol" and "whatevs" in conversation? And if anyone calls me out on my use of text speak irl (I say "irl" quite a lot), I say, "pfft! Language is fluid!"
So there's a dichotomy there. I don't have the answers.
What do you think?
A couple of fun facts:
70% of English words come from other languages, mostly Latin and French. A lot of our Latin-root words are conceptual, to do with religion, learning or abstracts. By contrast, a lot of our more concrete words, relating to physical things, are Germanic in route. This is because Latin was the prestige language, used for religion, law and literature, whereas Germanic Anglo-Saxon language was used for the day-to-day.
Ever wondered why spellings are often so different to pronunciations? It's because the Romans invaded Britain and imposed their Roman alphabet on the original Celtic languages, which were not Romantic languages. So we were forced to come up with weird letter combos to represent sounds, unlike, say, Spanish, which is a Romantic language, wherein most sounds are represented by just one letter, and it's normally said the way it's spelt.
Cool, right?
This book raised an interesting question for me because it showed me that I'm a puritan and a liberal all at once when it comes to language. Why do I shrink from "reforms" such as removing apostrophes (the very notion makes me ANGRY, I HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT PUNCTUATION, OK?), and yet am very happy to use "potensh", "lol" and "whatevs" in conversation? And if anyone calls me out on my use of text speak irl (I say "irl" quite a lot), I say, "pfft! Language is fluid!"
So there's a dichotomy there. I don't have the answers.
What do you think?
January 15, 2021
Read for History of English class.
Guess it's okay for what it is. Very straightforward, easy to understand. It doesn't ramble, doesn't do that thing where it gives you an answer to a question by going through every possible wrong answer first like so many other linguistics related books. What I don't understand is why some of these examples are just...as if the author insisted on them being problematic. There surely must have been a different relevant example in the english dictionary other than the n word. Some other dated things.
Guess it's okay for what it is. Very straightforward, easy to understand. It doesn't ramble, doesn't do that thing where it gives you an answer to a question by going through every possible wrong answer first like so many other linguistics related books. What I don't understand is why some of these examples are just...as if the author insisted on them being problematic. There surely must have been a different relevant example in the english dictionary other than the n word. Some other dated things.
June 9, 2015
Answered almost all of my questions about English. What a great book!
January 12, 2016
Next to useless but well written in all honesty.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews