Dating the final IE unity

[Stanley Friesen]

At 12:49 AM 2/1/00 -0700, Dr. John E. McLaughlin wrote:
>[Stanley Friesen replied]

>> Language replacement usually involves a prolonged period of bilingualism.
>> ...

>Not necessarily.  Witness what has happened in the Americas, especially in
>the western United States.  Until the 1890s, the Native American languages
>were spoken predominantly by monolinguals.  Over the next 50 years, the
>boarding school system took children away from their parents and made them
>speak English exclusively.

Admittedly there is wide variation in the extent of bilingualism, and the
rate of replacement.  But even here I bet those children, at least those
that had already learned to speak, became effectively bilingual!

[This is an extreme case - for instance, even at their most oppressive the
Romans never went this far].

>While Stanley's scenario may be the case in some parts of the world at some
>times, it is not the only scenario.

I would say it is the *majority* scenario.  Forcible replacement of that
sort is rare.

>Language use is determined, by and large, by local power.  If it is more
>locally advantageous to use Language A rather than Language B, then Language
>A will survive and B will dwindle.  As local power changes, B may be
>revived.  However, if the relative power of A is much greater than B, B will
>simply die.

I believe that is more or less what I have tried to indicate - but the
power need not be strictly military.  It is mainly a matter, as you say, of
what is locally advantageous to the people.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com