Ancestors

Toot

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-15 at 17:55

The English words 'no' and 'no' don't share a common ancestor. 'No', the opposite of 'yes', comes from Proto-West-Germanic *naiw (never), while 'no' as in 'no pain, no gain' comes from *nain (not any): it arose as a variant of 'none'.

'No' as opposed to 'yes' isn't related to German 'nein' and Dutch 'nee' either. Their only common part is 'n-', which comes from the Germanic negation particle *ne, also found in words such as 'not', 'neither' and 'never'.

Click the graphic to learn more:

1/

=> View attached media

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Descendants

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-15 at 17:55

2/

A short article on my Patreon (440 words) tells you more about words related to the ones depicted on the left side, such as 'either', 'naught', and German 'immer' (always):

https://www.patreon.com/posts/120053621

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-16 at 19:53

3/

Interestingly, 'no' (vs. 'yes') isn't related to Spanish 'no'.

English 'no' stems from *naiwan ("never"), as shown in my graphic above.

Spanish 'no' comes from Latin 'nōn', from Old Latin 'noinom' ("not one thing").

This means Spanish 'no' is related to German 'nein', from Proto-Germanic *nainan ("not one thing"), a distant cousin of 'noinom'!

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Uilliam Mac ᚒᚔᚂᚂᚔᚐᚋ on 2025-01-16 at 20:07

@yvanspijk Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic have no words for 'yes' or 'no' in response to a question.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from LiamGilmartin@mastodon.ie

Written by Meercat ✅ on 2025-01-15 at 18:12

@yvanspijk what? I did not expect this. I always thought they had something in common in their etymology

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from meercat0@mastodon.social

Written by Peter Brown on 2025-01-17 at 02:47

@meercat0 @yvanspijk English grammar comes from Welsh but vocabulary comes from many languages

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from peterbrown@mastodon.scot

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-17 at 08:20

@peterbrown @meercat0 No, English grammar was inherited from Proto-Germanic. That's why English is a Germanic language. The influences of Welsh on English have been practically non-existent, which specialists agree on.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Peter Brown on 2025-01-17 at 08:48

@yvanspijk @meercat0 you can’t say I am going in German.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from peterbrown@mastodon.scot

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-17 at 09:08

@peterbrown @meercat0 'Ich bin am gehen'. Dutch has 'ik ben aan het gaan'.

The English progressive tenses developed centuries after the arrival on the British Isles, when linguistic contact with the Celtic speaking peoples wasn't strong enough to cause grammatical changes. Contact has to be very intensive for that, a situation in which English would've been flooded with loanwords as well.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Peter Brown on 2025-01-17 at 09:44

@yvanspijk @meercat0 you’re not listening are you?

The underlying grammar, the syntax and various other elements highlighted in that chart are from Brythonic. The present continuous tense didn’t “arrive” from anywhere. It was already here - spoken throughout France throughout England and probably most of Scotland. Caesar commented before invading England that the language spoken on both sides of the channel was the same. The French call it Gaulish and the Welsh call it Welsh.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from peterbrown@mastodon.scot

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-17 at 09:48

@peterbrown @meercat0 It was there in Celtic - Welsh, Gaulish etc. - not in English. Old English was brought to the British Isles by Germanic colonists (Angles, Saxons, Jutes) and didn't have a progressive tense. This tense only started to develop many centuries after this arrival.

All of this can be observed in the texts.

If you don't want to see that English and the Celtic languages are two different things that only had occasional influences on each other, our discussion ends here.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Jörg Knappen on 2025-01-15 at 18:19

@yvanspijk

And its no, nay, never, no more

will I play the wild rover no more.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jk@nfdi.social

Written by P. S. F. on 2025-01-15 at 18:28

@yvanspijk I was wondering if the "no/non"* in romance languages are related to any of those words or if it is not related at all 🤔

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from prsfalken@mastodon.social

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-15 at 18:31

@prsfalken They are! They come from Latin 'nōn', from Old Latin 'noinom', which is 'ne' + 'oinom', literally "not one". So it's parallel to Proto-Germanic *nainan, which became German 'nein', Dutch 'nee' etc.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Nasyd100 on 2025-01-15 at 19:00

@yvanspijk

In Afrikaans there is also "geen", abbreviated to "g'n" for "none". Wonder where that comes from...

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from nasyd100@masto.ai

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-15 at 19:12

@nasyd100 From Dutch 'geen' < Middle Dutch 'negeen, engeen' < Old Dutch 'nehēn' < Proto-Germanic *neh ainaz (not even one).

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Nasyd100 on 2025-01-16 at 18:35

@yvanspijk

Thanks!

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from nasyd100@masto.ai

Written by Peter Brown on 2025-01-17 at 02:49

@yvanspijk @nasyd100 German kein which though it looks totally different actually sounds fairly similar

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from peterbrown@mastodon.scot

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-17 at 08:21

@peterbrown @nasyd100 That's because it has a similar origin: it comes from Old High German 'nih ein', which subsequently became 'nehein, enhein' > 'kein'.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Tyler on 2025-01-15 at 20:20

@yvanspijk this is so cool linguistics is such an interesting field

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tielor@mastodon.social

Written by ppscrv on 2025-01-16 at 09:49

@yvanspijk But no and no both come from Proto-Germanic ne ? So ne splits to naiw and nain which end up as no no?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ppscrv@mathstodon.xyz

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-16 at 09:54

@ppscrv As the infographic shows, *ne was only one of the two ingredients of *naiwaz and *nainaz. The other ingrediënts were *aiwaz and *ainaz. It's like the words 'forget' and 'forgive', which both contain the element 'for-'.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by ppscrv on 2025-01-16 at 10:45

@yvanspijk But is like Mr X has children with Ms A and with Ms B. Mr X would still be a common ancestor to Ms A's and Ms B's descendents. I think. But that is not how it works elements of language?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ppscrv@mathstodon.xyz

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-16 at 10:52

@ppscrv No, doesn't work like that in languages, because that would mean that all English words starting with 'un-' ('unravel', 'unwind' etc.) would have the same origin too. What's important is the stem, and even then, 'to forget' and 'to beget' are certainly related, but they don't have the same origin; all we can say is they're both derivatives of 'to get'.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by ppscrv on 2025-01-16 at 11:00

@yvanspijk I see. I think. Perhaps it looks tricky because ne and no are so short. And ne is possibly not even a stem at all.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ppscrv@mathstodon.xyz

Written by pady :coolified: on 2025-01-16 at 09:55

@yvanspijk

I wonder if other (Germanic) languages also share similar yep/nope forms of the yes/no words. German certainly has jap, jep, jop, jup in colloquial speech (and texting).

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hundertzwoelf@sueden.social

Written by Steinar Bang on 2025-01-16 at 11:21

@yvanspijk (I wondered were the English "Nay" was in this... and found it unexpectedly under Old West Norse...?)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from steinarb@mastodon.social

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-16 at 11:38

@steinarb Yes, it was borrowed from the Vikings. :)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Peter Brown on 2025-01-17 at 02:52

@yvanspijk @steinarb since the original Brythonic had no words for yes or no it is logical they would borrow these useful shorthand words from Norse or Germanic roots

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from peterbrown@mastodon.scot

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-17 at 08:18

@peterbrown @steinarb Actually, the people who borrowed it were speakers of Old English, who already had a word for "yes". In that period, the Celtic speaking peoples had already been driven back to the north and west of the isle, areas not under the Danelaw.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Peter Brown on 2025-01-17 at 08:47

@yvanspijk @steinarb the people didn’t move - they stayed where they were. And they carried on speaking their own language, absorbing words into it like skat (tax or penalty) . The word survives, changed slightly, as scot-free. 

We know they carried on speaking the same language because the grammar of English is still Brythonic. If they had changed language, there would be no present continuous tense in English but as we know, it is the most common tense.

=> View attached media

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from peterbrown@mastodon.scot

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-17 at 09:13

@peterbrown @steinarb I'm sorry, but the graphic you shared wasn't made by a linguist specialised in this matter. The do-periphrasis, like the progressive tense, arose very late. The grammar of English evolved from Proto-Germanic, as I said. Any scholar with knowledge of the history of English grammar agrees on that, and the information can be found in all books on the topic written by professional linguists. Let's stick to the facts here.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Peter Brown on 2025-01-17 at 09:40

@yvanspijk @steinarb ooooh, wasn’t made by a trained linguist. So it must be wrong.

Well, I’ve got news for you. Picasso wasn’t a trained artist.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from peterbrown@mastodon.scot

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-17 at 09:44

@peterbrown @steinarb

If you're not interested in linguistic insights, please do keep believing in what you believe, but don't bother people who do know what they're talking about.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Spacewizard! (Ed H) on 2025-01-16 at 20:26

@yvanspijk is it a coincidence that in American English the opposite of "yes" can also be "nah" but the quantifier can't be? ("you like to lift?" "nah, not really, but no pain no gain")

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from spacewizard@mas.to

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-16 at 20:31

@spacewizard It's not a coincidence, because 'no' and 'no' are still two different words with different uses. Words for 'no' (as opposed to 'yes') get variants in many languages, based on intonation and other nuances, but that doesn't go for determiners like 'no' as in 'no water'. For example, Dutch 'nee' has variants such as 'neu', 'nèè' etc.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Written by Søren Sandager Sørensen on 2025-01-17 at 08:29

@yvanspijk What is this based on, etymological dictoinaries or...?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sorensorensen@lingo.lol

Written by Yoïn van Spijk on 2025-01-17 at 09:04

@sorensorensen Yes, the Oxford English Dictionary, Philippa et al. (2003-2009), 'Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands' among others.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yvanspijk@toot.community

Proxy Information
Original URL
gemini://mastogem.picasoft.net/thread/113833653440504189
Status Code
Success (20)
Meta
text/gemini
Capsule Response Time
444.110338 milliseconds
Gemini-to-HTML Time
18.230188 milliseconds

This content has been proxied by September (3851b).