Re: THEORY: Long and short vowels association.
- 2013/7/4 BPJ <bpj@...>
> Then I must have misremembered which areas of Finnish whichI have to say that I didn't know about this feature before. The diphthong
> didn't diphthongize. My wife, who is from north of Rovaniemi,
> has monophthongs at least (stylistically) variably
> for */ee öö oo/. When I ask for a word she'll usually use
> diphthongs, but when she actually speaks to her relatives
> she will use monophthongs.
realisation is certainly reinforced in higher registers by the standard
language, but having monophthongs for the original */e: o: ø:/ should
definitely be a secondary development. Otherwise I haven't heard of any
Finnish dialects that wouldn't have diphthongs for the old long mid high
vowels (even the dialect survey I have doesn't include any such
information) and the Lappi dialects are of relatively young origin stemming
from dialect forms that certainly did have diphthongisation here. On the
other hand there are a lot of other secondary developments of both the
opening and the i/y/u final diphthongs from around the country.
Thanks for this bit of interesting information.
For further examples of long vowels breaking into diphthongs, Tundra
Yukaghir has partially turned /e: o: ø:/ into /ie uø uo/. Very similar to
the stuff discussed above but certainly totally unrelated.
>I could imagine that the same sort of thing might have occurred early inIIRC, the composer of El Cid was convinced he was writing Latin, although his
>Romance languages, only to be later obliterated by nationalism.
>Nonetheless, it's not so much that writing is meant to be in a different
>language, but that it should be reserved for a "higher" language. I think
>Christophe's point is that writing in French or other Romance languages at
>that time might be viewed the same way as writing in Ebonics would be to
>many Anglophones today -- they consider it a vulgar and degenerate form of
>the "pure" language, and thus reject the idea of serious writing in it.
reasons may have been as much "this is literature and not trash, therefore it
must be Latin" as any linguistic criteria - the etymologies of Isidore of Seville
don't inspire much confidence. The pre-1976 distinction in Greek between
Katheravousa (sp?) and Demotic seems to be similar, although fuzzier. Even in
English, when I compose a business letter or write something academic, I use
a higher register than when I'm talking to one of my Scouts who's a 6th grader.
Now, I must concede that my colloquial register is not much lower than my
academic one, but that's because my default vocabulary is relatively high.
Indeed, as one Ancient Egyptian said, "I know the language of the land; I do
not speak like a common man; my speech is not full of "pa's"".
Once I'm done with update of my conlang Siye, you will be able to see that
the Simayamka and the Guild of Scholars are keenly aware of such
distinctions - the "Moonies" advocate the (irregular) use of the ergative suffix
-na on a nominative-accusative pronoun mu- for disambiguation of the nominative
and accusative, while the majority of the Guild decries this usage as vulgar
and tolerates the ambiguity, at least in independent pronouns. Even in regular
nouns, the authorization (i.e. recognition of new cases) can take years.
And if you use an authorized case in a contract, that is possible
grounds for invalidation.