Linguistics Forum

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

 
View previous topic :: View next topic

Did the language of the Anglo-Saxons evolve into Middle English?
yes
( 70% )
 70%  [ 17 ]
no
( 12% )
 12%  [ 3 ]
it's hard to tell
( 16% )
 16%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 24

Author Message
boynamedsue
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 139
Location: High Brazil
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

grrh wrote:
Quote: I very much doubt that you would understand the speech of a Norman or Picard peasant of this period, though learning to do so would probably only take a few years of familiarity.

I would understand sime of it though...

Appalachian English is the most distant form of English yet everyone can understand it - at least in slow motion

Simply put, on what scale of intelligibility would you rate the Kentish or the Northumbrian dialect on one hand and ME on the other, compared to the Wessex dialect?


I've already covered this. I suspect that there was partial intelligibility between the most divergent dialects of AS. Perhaps more than there was in European Oil French in 1910, perhaps about the same. I suspect a Kentish peasant and a Northumbrian peasant would have been able to communicate if they tried very carefully to do so, but there would be lots of repetitions and misunderstandings. However, they would mostly not understand a conversation carried out at normal speed between two speakers of the other's dialect. That is how English was in 1800, and is a fairly normal state in pre-literate societies.

Appalachian English is far from the most "divergent" (something that is divergent must be diverging from something else, I'll take it that you mean from RP English) existing dialect of English BTW, I don't know where you got that idea from.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
MalFet
Chomsky


Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Posts: 2777
Location: Kathmandu / NYC
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:16 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

grrh wrote: No-one knows why it just came to evolve that way overnight…

English didn't evolve in any way overnight. Where did you possibly keep getting this strange idea? The fact that you can't reasonably characterize the mainstream view is the thing that makes it hardest to take you seriously.

grrh wrote: I still don't know why you keep addressing phonetics and never pay heed to lexical changes, grammar…

Well, for starters, I'm talking about phonology, not phonetics. I'm not just being pedantic here, as this is an extremely important distinction for the purposes of this conversation. Moreover, it's a distinction that would be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the underlying concepts. *ahem*

Beyond that, phonology is the gold standard in historical linguistics for some important reasons. But, I'm happy to talk lexicon or syntax if you want. For reasons that should be obvious, I'm not particularly interested in place names. But English's system of morpheme doublets (and occasional triplets) is a fabulous example of language change through contact. Modal constructions are a great example of areal spread of syntax features. What are your thoughts on these?

grrh wrote: None of those languages exactly metamorphed, nor did they transfigure from one day to the next (within a few decades).

If you feel confident telling us what didn't happen in the languages I listed above, I'm sure you won't mind telling us what did. Let's do Chambri. How would you characterize the relationship of Chambri to other Sepik river language groups? The data, on the surface at least, seems unusual.

grrh wrote: I reedited my last post

If that's in response to its looking like I had edited your post, I apologize for that. I accidentally clicked "Edit" instead of "Quote", and didn't notice until it had posted. I believe that I restored it to your original form, but apologies if not.

grrh wrote: Appalachian English is the most distant form of English yet everyone can understand it - at least in slow motion

Not even remotely true. Who told you this? You seem to be getting fed some choice flavors of crazy from somewhere. I'm sitting on a train in Manhattan right now, and I can hear — at this very moment — three varieties of English that are significantly, unambiguously more divergent from anything resembling an English standard than Appalachian dialects are. I wouldn't consider Appalachian English to be the most extreme form even just in the continental US. Not by a long shot.

Also, feel free to answer the question about feature assimilation or to the identify the audio clip I posted at any time. Wink Likewise, if you feel I'm not answering specific questions of yours, please spell them out in explicit terms.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
grrh
Chomsky


Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 367
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:39 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

The fact is that by and large the written dialects of "OE" were the same, with a slight difference btw Northumbrian (an Anglian dialect) and the Wessex and Kentish dialects (Saxon dialects).
It may seem apprehensive, but why is there any reason to believe that ethnicity and language aren't always - originally - linked together...
Example: I can understand that many identities adopted Latin at one point or that south Asians adopted Chinese, but originally there language was still their own... In Switzerland they don't speak Swiss, but is there any such thing as a Swiss ethnical identity. The isogloss runs hand in hand with the country's ethnic makeup...

I never insisted on the fact that Appalachian was the most divergent accent to standard language from England but I doubt you'll find many other variants that difer significantly more...
Many dialects exist within the American English but all Americans can make themselves understood to eachother, whereas none of them can understand any other language...

One thing I believe that never lies about a language is the sole impression one gets when hearing a foreign language.
e.g. all romance languages can be characterised by their lively sound pattern, so can Celtic ones: tight and restrictive, so can germanic ones (round open sound pattern - eventhough there are varieties within each sub-family: German is more rugged, Scandinavian tongues have a unique sound pattern although hard to define while English has a rounder, more open and milder sound pattern)

I don't have any online material to learn Chambri but I would suspect that its essential Sepik features are preserved.


If you read my post on a quote from THOBR then you will realise a stunning comparison with some canonical events...


Could you please reformulate your question regarding the audio clip?
_________________
"Nothing is more American than the languages of her first people"-Ryan Wilson
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
MalFet
Chomsky


Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Posts: 2777
Location: Kathmandu / NYC
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:00 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

grrh wrote: The fact is that by and large the written dialects of "OE" were the same, with a slight difference btw Northumbrian (an Anglian dialect) and the Wessex and Kentish dialects (Saxon dialects).

It's bizarre to me that you use the term ausbau, and yet don't seem to really be able to wrap your head around the difference between vernacular and scribal traditions. At a time when only a tiny fraction of the general population was literate, this distinction is critical.

grrh wrote: It may seem apprehensive, but why is there any reason to believe that ethnicity and language aren't always - originally - linked together...

This notion of one-language-one-culture is, in the history of thought, relatively new. It was first suggested in the 17th and 18th centuries in Germany by guys like Herder as part of emerging politics of nationalism. As an analytic, it's been demonstrated to be so incredibly problematic that nobody in their right might with a grasp of the literature would advocate it any longer. You may as well be arguing that empty space is filled with an essential æther, or that maggots come from meat. I'm not going to do service to the entire argument here, but the book Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson is a seminal discussion of the idea.

grrh wrote: I never insisted on the fact that Appalachian was the most divergent accent to standard language from England

Yes you did:
grrh wrote: Appalachian English is the most distant form of English yet everyone can understand it - at least in slow motion

grrh wrote: but I doubt you'll find many other variants that difer significantly more...

Well, you're wrong then.
grrh wrote: Many dialects exist within the American English but all Americans can make themselves understood to eachother, whereas none of them can understand any other language...

Where in America do you live? I assure you, the vernaculars of English are not all mutually intelligible. In any case, I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

grrh wrote: One thing I believe that never lies about a language is the sole impression one gets when hearing a foreign language.
e.g. all romance languages can be characterised by their lively sound pattern, so can Celtic ones: tight and restrictive, so can germanic ones (round open sound pattern - eventhough there are varieties within each sub-family: German is more rugged, Scandinavian tongues have tighter and more knife-cutting sounds while English has a rounder, more open and milder sound pattern)

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. These assessments are so painfully subjective that I don't know why you would ever suggest it in a scientific context. I find French to be tight and controlled, but German to be fluid and free. How much is my assessment worth to the scientific study of languages? Nothing, just like yours.

grrh wrote: I don't have any online material to learn Chambri but I would suspect that its essential Sepik features are preserved.

So you were just making things up when you made your claims about how the languages I listed changed then. Making claims about things you know nothing about? That seems sloppy.

grrh wrote: If you read my post on a quote from THOBR then you will realise a stunning comparison with some canonical events...

As I said, that passage you keep quoting grossly misrepresents the mainstream view. I'm not sure you would chose to understand a position by reading its critics. It's an incredibly naive way to do things.

grrh wrote: Could you please reformulate your question regarding the audio clip?

Sure. What language is it?
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
grrh
Chomsky


Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 367
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:39 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote: grrh wrote: Appalachian English is the most distant form of English yet everyone can understand it - at least in slow motion
among others then...

Quote: Where in America do you live? I assure you, the vernaculars of English are not all mutually intelligible. In any case, I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

On paper, they would - and at normal rate, all American dialects are mutually intelligible to one another...

Quote: This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. These assessments are so painfully subjective that I don't know why you would ever suggest it in a scientific context. I find French to be tight and controlled, but German to be fluid and free. How much is my assessment worth to the scientific study of languages? Nothing, just like yours.

I think there is a general consensus about the oral aspects of certain languages or language families; perhhaps you should share your thoughts on this topic to other linguists and any person with a knack feeling for oral languages... then again, obviously not on this forum... Crying or Very sad

Quote: So you were just making things up when you made your claims about how the languages I listed changed then. Making claims about things you know nothing about? That seems sloppy.

No, when you stated earlier on that these languages hadn-t undergone such a drastic change and when you directed me to a book with examples of slow - dismal language change.

Quote: As I said, that passage you keep quoting grossly misrepresents the mainstream view. I'm not sure you would chose to understand a position by reading its critics. It's an incredibly naive way to do things.

I know it's no incentive to you but I'd really recommend you read the book - and to others.

Quote: What language is it?

The language is English; but as I said, the trilled r along with some vocab are influences from A-S that would disappear a few centures later...
_________________
"Nothing is more American than the languages of her first people"-Ryan Wilson
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
MalFet
Chomsky


Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Posts: 2777
Location: Kathmandu / NYC
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:49 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

grrh wrote:
Quote: As I said, that passage you keep quoting grossly misrepresents the mainstream view. I'm not sure you would chose to understand a position by reading its critics. It's an incredibly naive way to do things.

I know it's no incentive to you but I'd really recommend you read the book - and to others.


I did read the book, at the beginning of this thread. Can you say the same about any of the David Crystal books, etc that have been recommended to you?

/checking out of this thread until grrh can define the basic terms in historical linguistics.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
grrh
Chomsky


Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 367
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:13 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Could you give us an old & modern version of Tzotzil or Chambri to see whether either underwent a strong evolution?


MalFet wrote: I did read the book, at the beginning of this thread. Can you say the same about any of the David Crystal books, etc that have been recommended to you?

/checking out of this thread until grrh can define the basic terms in historical linguistics.

Sorry, where did you say you had read the book? His book uses the scientific method.


MalFet wrote: This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. These assessments are so painfully subjective that I don't know why you would ever suggest it in a scientific context. I find French to be tight and controlled, but German to be fluid and free. How much is my assessment worth to the scientific study of languages? Nothing, just like yours


Quote: How does German sound?
A few international ( Polish, Japanese, Greek, Turkish, US, French, Indian from India and some other) views:
Aggressive, rather deep, to spit, barking, yapping, not melodic, rough, commanding, peremptory, not emotional, dashing, boring, expressive, cold, from body not from nose


Quote: Does English sound like its fellow Germanic languages? Though there is significant variation, all of the other Germanic tongues, both North and Western, all have the same "feel" to me, just as Romance languages (minus French) do. English seems to have lost some of the characteristic sounds, though, such as uvulars and trills. Does this make the language sound overall softer and less guttural?


Quote: English isn't gutteral- and this seems to cause a misunderstanding of what is a gutteral language. Most languages in Europe retain a gutter sound or 2 including French, German, Spanish...


http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t12748-0.htm
_________________
"Nothing is more American than the languages of her first people"-Ryan Wilson
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
boynamedsue
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 139
Location: High Brazil
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:09 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Absolutely the funniest discussion on this topic ever Very Happy

http://www.applied-epistemology.com/messageboard.htm

(click linguistics, then "7 words")

Quote: (Pulp History)Equally as interesting......... why are there so many English words in Welsh?? Words which the Welsh must surely have needed / used before the alleged arrival of the English......

examples:

English Welsh

Clear Clir
Brown Brown
Triangle Triangl
Square Scwar
Orange Oren
Cat Cath


A fine collection of English words. Shocked

Quote: (Pulp History)
Okay, so there are alternate words available...... are there alternate words for 'triangle' and 'square', other than 'triangl' and 'sgwar'??

If not it seems rather odd that the peoples and language who allegedly were responsible for the construction of megalithic structures did not have words for basic shapes, essential for trigonometry and design.


Yes, how could they have possibly have built megaliths without access to these quintessentially English terms?

But DPCrisp has a good answer:

Quote:
Maybe that's an argument for them coming from Welsh, not the other way around.

But bear in mind how long it's been since the megaliths... and that they're not particularly geometric* ... and consider that triangle and square refer to the angles: they might have had words referring to 3 and 4 sides and picked up new words with a new sense of geometry.

(Imagine drawing a triangular leaf and someone else saying "you call that a triangle?!")



So, it seems the geometric terms in English may have come from the Welsh speaking megalith builders after all.

I urge you to have a look over there, I'm not sure if it's a troll forum where you have to pretend not to recognise a photo of Karl Popper, or if they are serious, or both, but it really is a hoot.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
grrh
Chomsky


Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 367
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:36 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

ORMULUM:

Forrþrihht anan se time comm
þatt ure Drihhtin wollde
ben borenn i þiss middellærd
forr all mannkinne nede
he chæs himm sone kinnessmenn
all swillke summ he wollde
and whær he wollde borenn ben
he chæs all att hiss wille.

Most of it is understandable.


at boynamedsue:

Have you ever read Chaucer? It's >95% understandable. But I doubt this is due to Norman influence alone;

tell me how much latin words there are in this NE text and then make your own conclusions...

http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Aesop%27s_Tales/Mercury_and_the_Axeman
_________________
"Nothing is more American than the languages of her first people"-Ryan Wilson
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
boynamedsue
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 139
Location: High Brazil
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:03 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

No more than this:

1070: Her Landfranc se þe wæs abbod an Kadum com to Ængla lande, se efter feawum dagum wearð arcebiscop on Kantwareberig

Yes Old English is more different from modern English than Middle English was, but Middle English shares features with the second which it doesn't share with the first. We can literally see the evolution.

Your arguments are not based on anything, you just keep saying "I think this is similar", please don't post until you can come up with some concrete reasons based on individual linguistic features that you think support your argument.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
grrh
Chomsky


Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 367
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:56 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

If you cast your sights back on the timeline at the bottom of p19 you'll refresh yourself with the sequence of events...
_________________
"Nothing is more American than the languages of her first people"-Ryan Wilson

Last edited by grrh on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
lx
Chomsky


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 2705
Location: UK
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:58 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

grrh wrote: If you cast your sights back on the timeline at the bottom of p19 you'll refresh yourself with the sequence of events...
that text from 1070 is in OE, not in ME

Where does one end and the other begin?
You're talking like it's not a long steady continuation...
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
grrh
Chomsky


Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 367
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:17 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

pre-1066: the Anglo-Saxons rule England

1066-c. 1120: the A-S are overturned by the Normans; A-S trained monks continue to write up the yearly annals in Ænglisc but no further training in the language is given

c. 1120: A-S clerics retire...

from c. 1120: English speaking monks start to write in their own language - beginning of ME; but as their own language isn't yet a written one, they transcribe it as best as they can using Ænglisc characters, e.g:
"Þa the suikes undergæton ðat he milde man was and softe and god, and na iustise ne dide, þa diden hi alle wunder"
they then begin to write a lot more in other fields - Ormulum - (end of the famous gap period which runs from 1066 to this period) and then gradually abandon the Ænglisc traits in their writings - Chaucer.
_________________
"Nothing is more American than the languages of her first people"-Ryan Wilson
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
lx
Chomsky


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 2705
Location: UK
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote: Orm was concerned with priests' ability to speak the vernacular, and developed an idiosyncratic spelling system to guide his readers in the pronunciation of the vowels.


It's not their own language, it's the vernacular.
We've mentioned this point quite a few times before about how the Norman Conquest disrupted the writing traditions and then people started writing in the vernacular and less archaically, explaining the artificial jump that you see in differences, which you can't get your head around is not actually any big jump, just in writing traditions.

There's a grrh a few hundred years in the future who has found some legal documents and is convinced this represents a sub-culture of people who actually spoke like that, not able to grasp how writing is not representative of spoken language and what it means to retain archaic features in certain styles of writing.

There's also a futuristic BNS, Malfet and an Alxmrphi who are rolling their eyes in their space-hammocks with their floating self-typing computers on the moon.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
grrh
Chomsky


Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 367
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:55 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Only that some words are completely a-s and others are absolutely english - it's not as if all the words were a steady mix of both during that transition period. Some words were harder to transcribe than others so they were still written in a-s - for a while.

We've gone through this many times that no vernacular or dialect form can be so unlike its standard form - 0% unintelligible.

I would consider it as a native culture but not as a sub-culture...
_________________
"Nothing is more American than the languages of her first people"-Ryan Wilson

Last edited by grrh on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Jump to:  

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 47, 48, 49, 50, 51  Next

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum