On 03/06/2016 09:06 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
What is that to do with accents? Accents allow you to make the
distinction in spelling that you would otherwise only be able to hear.
Your example is the opposite of this.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/76558...eretheirtheyre

In Old English, there was 'þǽr', and their was something entirely
different. þaire was a loan word for 'their'. Throw out the accents and
you have two homophones; the spellings differ but the spoken word is the
same.

Meanwhile it kept the conjugation I am, you are, he is, they are
instead of the sensible Norwegian jeg er, du er, han er, de er.

I don't speak Norwegian so I don't know what your point is there.

While English dropped a lot of the complexity it kept a few oddities.
Old English is closer to modern German as far as inflexions and word
order. The Old Norse and Norman French influences led to changes.

Anyway, English managed to retain conjugation in person and number where
Norwegian dropped it mostly. So, for the present tense of 'to be',
you've got am, is, and are, depending on the person or number, where in
Norwegian, it's all 'er'. I er, you er, she er, etc.

Just another complexity for someone trying to learn English although
it's not as hard as some languages. I just find it interesting how far
the children of proto-Germanic have diverged. Probably the purest to its
roots is modern Icelandic which is basically Old Norse in a time warp.
Maintaining purity is easier if you're a little out of the way island.