the meaning of "genetic relationship"

[Isidore Dyen]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
I wonder how you think languages continue in exicstence if not through a
succession of native speakers. Do y;ou think that Latin continued as a
spoken language to be considered on a par with French through Church or
medieval Latin? Do you think that linguists do not make d distinction
between a language that has first or native speakers as being alive and
one that is dead, that is, has no native speakers? Can genetic linguistics
be regarded as applying to artificial languages? To dead languages after
death? I am looking forqward to your replies. ID
 
 
 
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Jacob Baltuch wrote:
 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Isidore Dyen wrote:
>
> >The reason interrelated languages are treated as wholes is that each
> >represents a separate continuation of the original unitary language via a
> >succession of native speakers, their separation occurring at the moment
> >the last cross-pair of mutually intelligible speakers had vanished.
>
> What do "native speakers" have to do in all of this? As far as I know
> it is not likely that Latin developped into French "via a succession
> of native speakers". If the first generation of Gauls who adopted Latin
> did not have Latin nannies isn't it likely that the starting point of
> French was a form of Latin spoken by non-native speakers? Then you've
> got a break in the succession right there. Why worry about "speakers"
> in the first place? I thought a linguistic relationship could be defined
> as a relatioship between *systems* without worrying about the details of
> the transmission.
>