Big Doopie
BANNED
...It's not the main reason why Dutch speakers are better at English than Francophones though...
that would be because of their vastly larger brains.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
...It's not the main reason why Dutch speakers are better at English than Francophones though...
While English is seen as a German language, English is considered a bridge language between roman and german languages. About 60% of it's vocabulary heralds from French and Latin.It is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of linguistics can tell you this. It's not the main reason why Dutch speakers are better at English than Francophones though, you're right about that.
While English is seen as a German language, English is considered a bridge language between roman and german languages. About 60% of it's vocabulary heralds from French and Latin.
While English is seen as a German language, English is considered a bridge language between roman and german languages. About 60% of it's vocabulary heralds from French and Latin.
While English is seen as a German language, English is considered a bridge language between roman and german languages. About 60% of it's vocabulary heralds from French and Latin.
Yes, i'm not debating that.Yes but one thing is vocabulary, a different thing is grammar.
Where Dutch is really not that close to English either. French is even further away though, I would say.
Yes, I was born and grew up in the heart of Brussels. Plus in the schools English was just becoming a very interesting idea, but was not taught (at least not in my school). I had previously already learned English but not Flemish or more precisely Dutch. But you're right, Remco probably defends himself in Spanish as well...not sure about German.
That's mostly because English has a huge vocabulary. Lots of words that were once used by Shakespeare and never again, and lots of scientific or biological terms, most of which were borrowed from French or Latin. But if we're talking about the actual grammar and structure of the language, and about function words that you use in everyday speech, English is a Germanic language... like Dutch.While English is seen as a German language, English is considered a bridge language between roman and german languages. About 60% of it's vocabulary heralds from French and Latin.
Again, it is not. In terms of understanding a language, in terms of being able to communicate, vocabulary is much more important than being able to use correct grammar. And that common vocabulary is definitely not obsolete as you claim. In fact, let's use that previous sentence as an example. The words "terms, language, communicate, important, correct, grammar" are all quite similar in both English and French. Disproving your claim.That's mostly because English has a huge vocabulary. Lots of words that were once used by Shakespeare and never again, and lots of scientific or biological terms, most of which were borrowed from French or Latin. But if we're talking about the actual grammar and structure of the language, and about function words that you use in everyday speech, English is a Germanic language... like Dutch.
In other words, the English that is used by Remco Evenepoel is closer to Dutch than to French
Wouldn't necessarily agree, I think your argument is a bit too simplistic.Again, it is not. In terms of understanding a language, in terms of being able to communicate, vocabulary is much more important than being able to use correct grammar. And that common vocabulary is definitely not obsolete as you claim. In fact, let's use that previous sentence as an example. The words "terms, language, communicate, important, correct, grammar" are all quite similar in both English and French. Disproving your claim.
What this thread needs is more pointless arguments. Great stuff.
Necessarily, agree, argument, simplistic.Wouldn't necessarily agree, I think your argument is a bit too simplistic.
Look, it's all perfectly fine you want to contradict the entire scientific field of linguistics, but it's also funny if you then produce the most basic sentence you could come up with, 'me go store buy bread', without noticing the irony that it's a sentence containing no French or Latin words. That's the point: the basics of English are Germanic. Everything ornamental tends to be French or Latin. What's so difficult to understand about that?Again, it is not. In terms of understanding a language, in terms of being able to communicate, vocabulary is much more important than being able to use correct grammar. And that common vocabulary is definitely not obsolete as you claim. In fact, let's use that previous sentence as an example. The words "terms, language, communicate, important, correct, grammar" are all quite similar in both English and French. Disproving your claim.
Me go store buy bread. Although that sentence is grammatically wrong it makes your head spin, it is perfectly understandable. If however you lack the vocabulary, but are able use correct grammar, you will be able to make beautiful sentences but nobody will know what you mean. You might be able to say: "I need to go to the barbershop to deliver my child". But nobody will understand you need to go to the store to buy bread.
2012: Guy in the stands shouts: "Steffi, will you marry me?" - Steffi: "how much money do you have?" And the guy named Sky had money...Bet the 2023 Tour will have more minutes of ITT than the Vuelta Evenepoel won. Realistically I think the mountain stages of the 2023 Tour are actually better for him than those in most Tours. The Tour also hasn't had more than 60km of ITT since 2013, and only has had it twice since 2008.
I can only think of one Tour catering to a foreign rider and noone wants to see a 2012 route again.
This the thread's 600th page so it gets it own special guest topic. This time it's Remo's linguistic skills and perhaps on the 700th page we'll analyse how much of his childhood diet was influenced by traditional Flandrian or Wallonian dishes and what effect that each has on a rider's performance. Here's to 100 more.
Clearly you missed the point, or rather, you seem to be wanting to miss the point in order to take my point out of context to look smart. The point was that you don't need grammar to understand what is being said in most cases, as long as you understand the vocabulary. I'm not contradicting the field of linguistics, but it seems you are. It is a fact that English and French vocabulary are largely intertwined. It is, as i said, for that reason that English is not seen as a regular German language but a bridge language. Unlike what you seem to believe, this is not something i'm making up. That means that it borrows from both Roman as well as German languages, the voc from the Roman side as opposed to the grammar. What's so difficult to understand about that, Youngest? I've studied latin for 6 years. Sentences of half a page long where you need to dissect every word in order to see it is an adjective that relates to a word 3 lines up, is not something we see often in everyday life in modern languages, and especially not in modern English. That means the importance of grammar in order to understand and be understood, has taken a back seat.Look, it's all perfectly fine you want to contradict the entire scientific field of linguistics, but it's also funny if you then produce the most basic sentence you could come up with, 'me go store buy bread', without noticing the irony that it's a sentence containing no French or Latin words. That's the point: the basics of English are Germanic. Everything ornamental tends to be French or Latin. What's so difficult to understand about that?