the meaning of "genetic relationship"

[Roger Wright]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
Dr Baltuch was sceptical of the following:
 
>>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.
 
But this seems right, surely.
 
>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".
 
Yes, indeed it did.
 
>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?
 
This used to be assumed, yes, but unfortunately research into the
evidence (rather than the theory) hasn't supported it. Indeed, it seems
probable that these "substratum" effects were lessening as time went on,
and the Latin of the Roman Empire showed less such divergence at the end
of the Empire than it had at its start. Considerable evolution, of
course, but not such divergence as to disturb communication, and quite
possibly convergence. Mutual intelligibility over a wide area seems
(from the historical evidence) to have applied for several centuries
after that. (Mutual intelligibility does not mean total similarity, of
course). So, since I agree with Professor Dyen here, I wouldn't want to
refer to "French" till long after the initial Gaulish-Latin-learning
scenario envisaged above.
        If we want to blame the emergence of French onto non-Latin
speakers (and most of us don't), then Franks are a better bet than
Gauls; if we wish to use Romance as a case study, almost any Romance
language is a better example than French (which is a special case for
several reasons).
 
> Why worry about "speakers"
>in the first place? I thought a linguistic relationship could be defined
>as a relationship between *systems* without worrying about the details
>of the transmission.
 
Because we are talking about real people here, that's why.
                                                                RW