Comparing languages. Examples [gothic-l]

[cstrohmier at YAHOO.COM]

Dear Keth,
       I was moved by the plight of your poor tree:  Please accept my 
condolences.
Sincerely,
Cory

--- In gothic-l at y..., keth at o... wrote:
> Hi Cory !
> 
> I thought some more about these problems, while going to sleep
> last night!  I should like to compare it to a tree in the garden.
> Since mine have grown too tall, blocking the view, and also the 
> neighbor complaining, you can imagine that I want my tree to
> be exactly 3 meters tall. I then cut off all branches at exactly
> this altitude. Thus, the top of the tree is now entirely horizontal.
> (and then I smear some tar on - but that's not the topic ;)
> 
> The branches of the tree are of course the various languages
> and the distance between the branches tell us how far the
> different languages are removed from each other. Altitude
> represents time, and the horizontal cut represents a synchronous
> comparison.
> 
> However, there is no logic inherent in the matter that
> dis-allows us to compare different languages at different times.
> If a language, for instance, is isolated on some island, and
> its development in consequence is retarded, it may actually 
> make more sense to compare different languages at different times.
> But if that is done, a reason ought to be given. Some explanation
> of why one wants to compare different languages at different times
> and what kinds of conclusions one hopes to be able to obtain from
> such comparison. Thus, it is my opinion that the "default" 
> comparison level must be the synchronous level (equal time 
comparison).
> 
> Another approach that may be more general and hence "better" in 
> some sense, is the topological approach. Here time has no bearing
> on the problem at all. The only thing that counts here are the
> branch points, i.e. such historic moments (events) at which it
> is possible to say: "yes, now this one language has clearly
> split into two languages". On my garden tree, this corresponds
> to a point where one branch splits into two.
> 
> A family of languages may now be described enirely in terms of
> its branch-points, where one totally disregards the length of
> the relevant time-intervals, and ONLY describes the tree in
> terms of its bifurcations. In that way one obtains a timeless
> and purely logical description of how the languages are related.
> 
> It is my understanding that the latter method is the one used
> by Francisc in his analysis. (but you'd have to ask him, of
> course) I regard his method as superior to mine, because he
> is able to decribe the differences in a purely logical fashion --
> in a timeless fashion.
> 
> There are then only two processes that describe the development
> of the language tree. One is the innovations, and Two is the
> disappearance of archaic features. "Archaic feature' do not
> have to be 'old' in the sense of time or duration. But perhaps
> one can say that they are such features as survive a couple of
> bifurcations.
> 
> Of course one soon sees that the analogy with the tree in the garden
> cannot be fully maintained. It is nevertheless a picture that may
> be helpful to obtain an overwiew of the different possibilities
> of development that may happen. The growth of a language is a 
> continual process of the arisal of new features and a disappearance
> of old ones.
> 
> Well, maybe you knew al this  :)
> I just thought it might be fun to write down some of the thoughts I 
had.
> 
> 
> 
> >Hi Keth,
> >        Looked at from that point of view, your objection is well 
taken, and I
> >agree with your points in the technical context in which you 
placed them,
> >but I wasn't attemping a scientific comparision.
> >        Your methodology would seem to limit comparisons with 
Gothic to a small,
> >contemporary portion of the runes, making other 
information "irrelevant";
> 
> That is true. We lack contemporary material from neighboring 
languages.
> Nevertheless, runologists have done exactly that, and compared the 
grammatical
> suffixes of the oldest runic inscriptions with those of Gothic.
> Ottar Grønnevik has written about this, and on this basis he 
divides the
> development of Proto-Nordic into 3 levels (I & II & III). He says
> Gothic corresponds to the second level. For myself I can "explain" 
this
> by saying that because the Goths were constantly on the move, 
constantly
> meeting new peoples, and thus constantly receiving new impulses, 
their
> language changed faster than the language "back home" (in Scanza or 
Gothiscanza
> as the case may be). Thus level II occurred somewhat later in the 
North 
> than with Gothic. And thus, this is in agreement with what Francisc
> said about the language of the oldest runic inscriptions of ca. 200 
AD
> and some centuries forward in time  (level I), belongs to a more 
archaic
> level of Germanic than Gothic does.
> 
> 
> >however, what is irrelevant to one methodology may be quite 
relevant to
> >another.  Your methodology would also seem not to take into 
account the
> >problem of comparing texts of different Germanic languages, where 
the
> >writer in Language A has two equal synonyms available, one with a 
cognate
> 
> Well, when I translated from German to Dutch, I *always made sure 
to choose
> the Dutch word that had the same etymology as the German word. *Only
> when this was not possible, did I choose a different word, since I 
thought
> this was the fairest way to compare. (otherwise you might get the 
result,
> in the case of English, that it is a romance language, whereas we 
know
> it is not).  Thus in the case of German/Dutch, when I came 
to "heute"
> (=today), I could not find a Dutch word with the same etymology,
> and thus I wrote "vandaag" (=today in Dutch), and counted this word
> as one of the differences between the two languages. Of 
course "heute"
> *may also be related to *Tag. But since this isn't obvious to a 
normal
> user of the language, I count "heute" as different from "vandaag".
> 
> 
> >in language B, and one without.  If the writer in Language A 
chooses the
> >synonym that does not have a cognate in Language B, the two 
languages
> >will seem further apart than they actually are, which could 
seriously
> >skew the results of a comparison; for example, Gothic has two 
words for
> >"father":  "atta" and "fadar"; Old High German has "fater."  Bishop
> >Wulfila wrote:  "Atta unsar"; the Old High German scribes 
wrote:  "Fater
> >unser."  The texts seem far apart.  Yet Bishop Wulfila could have
> >written:  "Fadar unsar,"  and the presence in Middle High German 
of the
> >word "Etzel" (from Gothic Attila, meaning "Little Father") may 
point to
> >an Old High German form of "atta", which may have dropped out as a 
result
> >of the scribes choosing "Fater."  In any case, a comparision of the
> >actual texts would make the two languages seem further apart than 
what
> >they actually are.
> 
> Yes, I agree with that.
> Conider it as if you are grading exams, and you always try to give 
the
> examinand the benefit of the doubt. But of course if words become 
so 
> "far fetched" that they are hardly used any more, I think one ought 
to 
> choose the newer and more widespread word. But such choices are 
always
> subjective. That's why I compared it to grading examinations.
> 
> Any way, I actually said nothing about the relationship of Gutnic
> to Gothic. The only thing I wanted to point out was that Gutnic 1350
> is VERY close to Icelandic 1350. Which of these has more in common
> with of Gothic I am unable to say. But of course Sophus Bugge's
> remarks show that Gotlandic *may have been somewhat closer to 
Gothic,
> but if it was, it was *so little that even the genius of Sophus 
Bugge
> was not able to say so with much certainty, and thus all he could
> do was to hand over certain research proposals to those specialist
> who might follow later, and be able to devote more time to the 
question.
> Of course Sophus Bugge was one of the great language experts of his 
day.
> His 1867 critical edition of the "Sæmundar Edda" still holds the
> position as the basic reference work today, alsmost 150 years later.
> 
> With best regards
> Keth
> 
>  
> 
> >Sincerely yours,
> >Cory       
> >
> >On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:54:05 +0200 keth at o... writes:
> >> Hi Cory!
> >> Thank you for your reply!
> >> My objection is methodological:   :)
> >> You compare 3 samples from 3 related languges at vastly
> >> different points in time. Since modern German is direct 
descendant
> >> of Old High German, but separated by a thousand years, it does 
not
> >> belong in the comparison. Gothic from ca.350 AD  with Old High 
> >> German
> >> from ca. 950, is also a wide separation.
> >> 
> >> In my examples I did something entirely different.
> >> I compared Gutnish (by an example sentence) from ca. 1350
> >> with Icelandic, also from ca. 1350.
> >> 
> >> Then as a control I also compared modern German with modern 
Dutch,
> >> because those are living languages today and many people who
> >> have visited both countries are intrigued by the question how
> >> close they are. Well, in my opinion Dutch and German are not
> >> *very close. Because a speaker of one of the two languages does 
not
> >> automatically understand the other language. It takes a while to 
> >> become
> >> accustomed. That is different between f.ex. Norwegian and Danish
> >> which are virtually the same language. Or even Swedish.
> >> Modern Icelandic is, however, considerably further away - 
because 
> >> the
> >> languages have drifted apart over the last 700 years. And it is 
the
> >> Scandinavian languages that have done most of the drifting.
> >> But if you have chance to ask an Icelander how close he feels
> >> that Old Gutnic is to Icelandic, then that would, I think, be 
the 
> >> best test
> >> that one could devise. Because only a very seasoned user of one
> >> of the two languages that are being compared, can directly "feel"
> >> how far the languages are apart. And that is, in my opinion,
> >> that which counts.
> >> 
> >> Best regards
> >> Keth
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> >GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> >Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> >Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
> >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> >
> >
> >You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a 
blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/