Some think that the lack of an academy is one of the factors that led to the international success of English. It can be adapted quickly to local needs and new varieties can form spontaneously. Indian English and Singapore English are riddled with "mistakes" from a British, US, Canadian or Australian perspective, but they are true to their own rules which are often influenced by features of local languages. Of course, another factor was the colonial heritage, planting the language around the world. But the other likely beneficiaries from such a heritage -- Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch -- don't have academies either, do they? Apparently around the time of World War II the British and American governments agreed to work together to promote English as a world language, which led to a program including the establishment of Voice of America and expansion of the BBC World Service, so the status of English as a Lingua Franca (I love the irony in that ) is partly by design. But for the design to work the language had to be suitable, and the lack of an academy does seem to be part of that.
A quick google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola I've no idea if the lack of regulation made English what it is today -- I think the real process began somewhere in the ninth century when English began losing its horridly complex grammar because of Norse, but that's a bit of a stretch. I'm sure the simplicity of the grammar has something to do with its impressive usage across the world, which, I guess, can be said of Spanish and Dutch as well.
Ok, that's Spanish out of the competition, leaving Dutch and Portuguese as our rivals. There are lots of factors. Yes, the simplification of the grammar that Norse influence brought will have helped, but English is sort of in the middle in terms of grammatical complexity: much simpler than the Slavic languages, for example, but much more complex than Chinese. The hybrid nature of English has probably helped, at least within Europe, because native speakers of Latin languages and Germanic languages both find common ground. Then there are accidents of history. I understand that at one point in its history there was a vote in the USA over whether German or English should be the national language. Many of those of English origin arrogantly thought it was a foregone conclusion and didn't bother turning up for the vote; it only went in favour of English because of the Irish votes. If that vote had gone the other way I doubt English would have the status it has today.
Wow, that actually sounds fascinating. German is a great language. A bit too much Latin structure in it, but still worth learning. Too bad it hasn't evolved the way English has.
1066 arguably had the biggest impact, when French became the official language of the country. There were all sorts of changes, and a lot of new words, especially involving language and power. Interestingly, the reason we have pig and pork is that the English peasantry would prepare the 'pig', and the french aristocracy would eat the 'pork', so both words gained prominence- this is why food menus say roast pork, not roast pig.
Not really. 1066 had as much impact as the Norse invasion. 1066 accounts for the large Latin-based vocabulary, and ~800 for the simplification of grammar through contact between Old English and Old Norse, which had similar declension systems.
Less than most people think actually -- at least directly. There's very little Norman French in English. The French influence is mainly Parisian French, which came in much later through fashion, not invasion. Of course, the Norman invasion opened the route for the Paris fashion. The English language has such a rich history that it's probably not feasible to single out particular events as having the biggest impact (and anyway, nobody has mentioned the Angle, Saxon and Jutish invasions yet!)
Has anyone notice some people use "that" incorrectly in a sentence? I hate it when my essays contain too many "that" goofs in my writing. I'm not suprised to see more grammar errors in my writing.
Some sentences have the word "that" in it and it does not belong there. Here might be one: The reason why I'm droping out of school is that my grades are low. THe reason why I'm leaving school is because my grades are low.
The first isn't a grammatical error (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on droping and assume you have a problem with the p key on your keyboard). The conjunction that is legitimately used to join a subordinate clause to a preceding verb or its parts [...]. In every such that-clause the sentence out of which it is made or completed by prefixing that must be in the form of a statement, not a question, command, or exclamation. (Fowler's Modern English Usage.) As for what I take to be your proposed correction, sorry, but it's worse: [...] the border into redundancy is crossed if reason, why, and because all form part of the same sentence [...]. Replace because by that [...] (op. cit.) Even if you drop the why it looks to me to be dangerously close to the form Fowler (3rd edition) describes as follows: Though often defended, the type the reason is ... because (instead of the reason is ... that) aches with redundancy and is still as inadmissible in standard English as it was when H W Fowler objected to it in 1926. (op. cit.) Incidentally, the why is acceptable idiomatically, but only in informal writing. In formal writing the correct form would be "The reason I'm dropping out of school is that my grades are low." Well, semi-formal; I left the contraction alone.
Hasn't it? But I suspect that going into the evolution of German would be a digression too far for this thread.