Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Creole Romance?

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... that ... I got the distinct impression that the s-plural is Northern, thus Low German. Otherwise, you d have to ask the author, whose name I forgot. And
    Message 1 of 139 , Jul 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > >_had to_ be from French. Through the text you got the impression
      that
      > >there was a moral-sociological question hidden here: s-plurals are
      > >_bad_ and whoever introduces them into German is also _bad_.
      >
      > How come? There are lots of German words with the s-plural (both
      > in Hochdeutsch and in all Dialekts).

      I got the distinct impression that the s-plural is Northern, thus Low
      German. Otherwise, you'd have to ask the author, whose name I forgot.
      And those s-plurals are all French or other foreign loans, if not
      loans from Low German, oder?


      >And then there is no other way of
      > saying e.g. die Müllers, die Schmidts, die Maiers, die Hubers, die
      > Schröders, die Fischers.

      That's generally considered to be a genitive s.

      Torsten
    • tgpedersen
      ... That Luther s bible didn t have considerable prestige in the Protestant north? Unfortunately I never claimed such a thing. ... He can t put everything into
      Message 139 of 139 , Jul 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@s...>
        wrote:
        > At 5:58:59 AM on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:
        >
        > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.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.)


        That Luther's bible didn't have considerable prestige in the
        Protestant north? Unfortunately I never claimed such a thing.


        > >>>>> given alternative political developments, -eren might
        > >>>>> 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
        > below.
        >

        > >>> 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.
        >

        He can't put everything into a preface.

        > <shrug> You're entitled to your religion, I guess. I'm not
        > going to argue it any further, at least not on this
        > go-round.
        >

        Yes, you keep saying that.

        Torsten
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.