LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 24.JAN.2001 (07) [D/E]

[Ian James Parsley]

Folk,

Stefan Israel [stefansfeder at yahoo.com] wrote:

> Tocharian (an Indo-European written language
> in what is now Western China 500-700 AD) got rid of its
> inherited nominal endings and developed another new set derived
> from postpositions  by 500 AD.

Interesting. Is it possible to tell, however, whether there was a
stage in between when syntax (or more precisely 'word order') became
all important?

> Creoles in their creation strip off morphology in a single
generation.

Again, this seems to indicate evidence of morphological
'regularization' (often akin to 'loss'), but not necessarily the other
way around.

> phonological change is deregularizing the regular verbs:
> keep/kept, bend/bent, set/set, hear [hir]/heard [hrd] (is this
> irregular in Scots?).  Some varieties of English tend to drop
> final -t and -d: that phonological erosion will force new
> changes in the grammar.

Now that *is* true, but I still wonder whether the changes will be in
the form of 'new morphology'. I suspect actually that this would force
English to develop a tendency towards using the perfect formation
more.

> Compare the forces of phonological erosion and of regularization
> to geology: erosion wears down old mountains; tectonic and
> volcanic processes thrust different ones up, both going on, at
> varying rates, all the time.  Complexity tends to get shifted
> around.

I agree with this. But again, does it a new 'mountain' of new
morphological endings develop, or are we talking simply about
complexity shifting to other areas of grammar? In other words, is the
development purely cyclical?

> And the extended prepositions you mention keep arising: "on"/"up
> on top of", "behind"/"in back of", etc., plus non-compounds like
> "concerning", "regarding", etc.  The play of erosion and
> retinkering never stops, does it.

My point exactly - but much better made!

Best wishes,
Ian.