Re: Creole Romance?
> >_had to_ be from French. Through the text you got the impressionthat
> >there was a moral-sociological question hidden here: s-plurals areI got the distinct impression that the s-plural is Northern, thus Low
> >_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).
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 ofThat's generally considered to be a genitive s.
> saying e.g. die Müllers, die Schmidts, die Maiers, die Hubers, die
> Schröders, die Fischers.
- --- In email@example.com, "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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "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