Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread

[RedheadDane]

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.

Spoiler: Secret about English

 

[tobydawq]

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 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.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

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'm not debating that.

 

[Gratemans]

This all reminds me about of how weird English spelling / pronunciation is.
Did you know you could spell "fish" as "ghoti"?

Ghoti - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Andre]

I think this is from Britanica:


In the Middle Ages the language was called Dietsc, or Duutsc, historically equivalent to German Deutsch and meaning simply “language of the people,” as contrasted with Latin, which was the language of religion and learning. The form Duutsc was borrowed into English and gives modern “Dutch.” The official name of the language is Nederlands, or Netherlandic. In the Netherlands it is also called Hollands (Hollandish), reflecting the fact that the standard language is based largely on the dialect of the old province of Holland (now North Holland and South Holland).


The spoken language exists in a great many varieties. Standard Dutch (Standaardnederlands or Algemeen Nederlands) is used for public and official purposes, including instruction in schools and universities. A wide variety of local dialects are used in informal situations, such as among family, friends, and others from the same village (these exist in far more variety than does the English of North America). Standard Dutch is characterized grammatically by the loss of case endings in the noun.


In Belgium efforts were made to give Dutch equal status with French, which had assumed cultural predominance during the period of French rule (1795–1814). In 1938 Dutch was made the sole official language of the northern part of Belgium.


The use of Standard Dutch together with the local dialect is much more widespread among the people of the Netherlands than it is in Belgium. The dialects of the area bounded roughly by Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam are closer to Standard Dutch than are those of the other dialect areas.

Go Remco Go!!!...for the integrity of the thread

 

[Andre]

Does the Dutch language have roots from the term "Anglo-Saxon"? I may be way off here...Go Remco

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

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.

Maybe he uses Brusseleir?

 

[Andre]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQHux09wRqs

 

[Andre]

funny video...at 5:40 he starts to sing about a cyclist with a flat.

 

[theyoungest]

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.

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

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

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

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.

 

[red_flanders]

What this thread needs is more pointless arguments. Great stuff.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Good match at Catalunya. People demand a rematch.

P.S. At Giro i expect Evenepoel to have some edge in flat ITT-ing. So i guess Roglič shouldn't be able to use the same tactics as at Catalunya. One where does that take Roglič or Evenepoel. We'll find out soon enough.

 

[Monte Serra]

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.

Wouldn't necessarily agree, I think your argument is a bit too simplistic.

A good exploration of the topic is presented in a video by Langfocus, for those interested:

View: https://youtu.be/2OynrY8JCDM

 

[Carrick-On-Seine]

What this thread needs is more pointless arguments. Great stuff.

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.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Wouldn't necessarily agree, I think your argument is a bit too simplistic.

Necessarily, agree, argument, simplistic.
Nécessaire, agreable, argument, simple.

 

[theyoungest]

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.

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?

 

[Red Rick]

Might update title to "linguistics and occasionally Evenepoel thread'

 

[Tonton]

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.

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...

 

[Panda Claws]

If Evenepoel manages to win the Giro and do well in Liège there is a possibility of him having a current CQ score of over 4000 points which I believe would be a first.
He would need 1098 points from the Ardennes + Giro.
Probably the most realistic shot I have seen yet too. Note that Remco got 1020 points from last years' Vuelta.
(Of course he would probably immediately dip below 4000 after losing his 257 points from Tour of Norway but still)

Pogacar can theoretically reach 4000 after the Ardennes as well but he would need to pretty much win Dwars Door Vlaanderen, Ronde van Vlaanderen, Flèche Wallonne and Liège-Bastogne-Liège.

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

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.

It always comes down to paling in t groen.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

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?

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.

In any case, with most of it's vocabulary finding it's origin in Latin and French, the initial statement that English relates much more to Dutch than French, which is why French speakers have a harder time to understand the language, is simply not true.

But let's agree to disagree.

 

[Andy schleck]

The remco evenepoel is the next language forum.

 

[Tonton]

Vocabulary: like what? In french a forest is forêt, a small patch of trees is a bosquet. And isn't a forest...woods? Manger, mangiare, comer, comestible. An interesting one...

I agree that grammar is every bit as important. The whole subject is more complex than it seems, but thank goodness we have experts.

 

[Andre]

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.

you can get bread at the barber shop?