Re: [tied] Re: Creole Romance?
- 30-06-03 13:15, tgpedersen wrote:
> Collapse of the noun paradigm. You might argue that the loss of thoseWhat about other categorial simplifications, such as the collapse of the
> past tenses that are not based on the -l- participle in East and West
> Slavic is 'creole-like' in the Pedersenian sense (love that word,
> Holger sends his regards too, but suggests to avoid confusion it be
> written Pe'ersenian, which is OK since Fynsk, as should be well known
> in linguistics, is the language the angels speak sundays to please
> Our Lord), but then Polish has fused those forms with the inflected
simple/complex distinction in adjectival declension, or the loss of the
dual number? New preterite endings from the cliticised copula are a
relatively recent development, preceded by several centuries during
which Polish had an analytic "passé composé" only. The imperfect and the
aorist became extinct very early. (Of the complex tenses, the pluperfect
has already dropped out of everyday use.)
> I guess what I'm saying is that 'creole-like' = 'user-But restoring learnability and getting rid of excessive complexity are
> friendliness' or learnability, the co-extensionailty stemming from
> the fact that this is why the language was invented (or 're-built')
> in the first place.
ever-present factors in linguistic evolution, even in the absence of
significant external forces. That's what analogical change is all about.
Take Polish masculine noun stems with a final velar, where the Slavic
palatalisations gave rise to Old Polish alternations such as /g/ : /Z/ :
/dz/ (e.g. nom.sg. <wróg> 'enemy', loc. <wrodze>, voc. <wroz.e>). These
have now been eliminated by selecting different (non-palatalising)
inflectional endings (Modern Polish <wróg>, <wrogu>, <wrogu>, respectively).
> And this is also why English is such a success,We're in the middle of this year's entrance exams in Poznan. The day
> once enough people mumble to obliterate any difference between acc.
> and dat., there's no need for memorising 'durch, für, gegen ...'
> (take the acc.) any more.
after tomorrow I'll start interviewing the candidates in the oral
examination. Alas to those who mumble in order to cover up the
deficiencies of their English! 'Enough of your creole, young man!' :-Z
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@s...>
> At 5:58:59 AM on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:That Luther's bible didn't have considerable prestige in the
> > --- In email@example.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@s...> wrote:
> >> At 8:01:33 AM on Monday, July 7, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:
> >>>>> BTW the languages of the records of the North German
> >>>>> cities switch from Low German to High German within
> >>>>> the scope of twenty years in the 16th century. At the
> >>>>> same time as the Hanse finally declines. Don't tell me
> >>>>> there's no connection here.
> >>>> Of course there's a connection, though that's obviously
> >>>> not the only reason.
> >>> And the other ones are?
> >> The most obvious is the influence of the Luther bible.
> > The Luther bible was published in two translations, a High
> > German and a Low German one. There was no particular need
> > to adopt the High German instead of the Low German one.
> I'm aware that Low German translations continued to be
> published into the 16th century. The fact remains that
> Luther's version did have considerable prestige in the
> Protestant North. To claim otherwise is to ignore the
> facts. (Note that I do not ignore the significance of the
> decline of the Hansa.)
Protestant north? Unfortunately I never claimed such a thing.
> >>>>> given alternative political developments, -eren mightHe can't put everything into a preface.
> >>>>> have survived in English, and the merchant would now
> >>>>> stand condemned (and also by you) as the speaker of a
> >>>>> corrupt, French-influenced substandard dialect that
> >>>>> didn't make it.
> >>>> Not by anyone who knew anything about the history of
> >>>> the language. Both plurals are native to OE, and the
> >>>> fact that we have <egg> instead of *<ay> or the like is
> >>>> due to Norse influence, not French.
> >>> I said _alternative_. Contrafactual history.
> >> I know what you said. Your comment makes sense only if
> >> you were talking about an alternative history that
> >> diverges from the real one *after* the merchant and the
> >> wife had their little contretemps, one in which a
> >> southern dialect prevailed; in such a history the
> >> merchant's <egges> is still due to Norse influence.
> > Now you get it.
> No. Possibly *you* have only just now understood what I
> wrote before. Possibly *you* have only just now understood
> the implications of what *you* wrote before. Apparently you
> don't realize this response and your last are inconsistent,
> though I suspect that to save face you will now offer some
> implausible interpretation of your previous one, as you do
> >>> You can't infer anything from a non-contradiction, and
> >>> we both know that. I'm saying this story doesn't
> >>> disprove my theory.
> >> That is significantly weaker than your original claim
> >> ('You might even interpret ...'), for which the story
> >> contains about as much evidence as for the claim that the
> >> moon is made of green cheese. In any case the story is
> >> *at best* irrelevant to your theory:
> > To be read as 'you might even get away with
> > interpreting...' (since this piece of evidence won't
> > contradict it).
> If that's how you intended it to be read -- and I have my
> doubts -- that's what you should have written.
> >> The rest of the prologue further emphasizes the diversity
> >> of dialects and Caxton's perplexity at having to choose
> >> among competing usages. Had your market standard existed
> >> on any wide scale, it would have been an obvious choice,
> >> worth mentioning if only to explain why something else
> >> was chosen.
> > Obviously it was the one Caxton chose. And it might have
> > been so mmuch used in the North as to become the standard
> > there.
> Completely ignoring his failure to mention such a thing,
> despite his obvious interest in such matters.
> <shrug> You're entitled to your religion, I guess. I'm notYes, you keep saying that.
> going to argue it any further, at least not on this