The Neolithic Hypothesis (Standardization)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/2/99 4:00:25 AM, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

<<-- official documents were written in it, and scholars sometimes 'talked'
in it....There were no Latin-speakers in medieval Europe, only speakers of
French, Italian, German and so forth who acquired Latin as a second, learned
language.  And not very many of them, since it was an overwhelmingly
illiterate rural society.>>

Everything you've said above is either incorrect or unprovable - except for
the point that Medieval Latin was probably always a second language. (EB
White disagreed.)  You have not and probably cannot find a single primary
source that limits Latin in the way you would like.  But there are plenty
that contradict you.

Even someone like William of Nassyngton (1300's), an advocate of English over
Latin and French, clearly states that Latin is spoken by the educated, the
lawyer, the foreign merchant and at court - his point is while "only some
speak" Latin and French, everyone  - even "the lewd" - speak English.  On the
other hand, Welsh or Scottish - or scholars, for that matter- aren't even
mentioned.

[ Moderator's comment:
  Wales was not conquered by the English until the 14th Century, so Welsh would
  not be of concern to a 14th Century Englishman, Scottish--whether you mean
  Scots or Gaelic--even less so.  However, *all* of the examples of speakers of
  Latin are drawn from the educated classes, so your point is unproven.
  --rma ]

There were many reasons Latin was spoken and sometimes extensively in the
middle ages. The need for a common language in international diplomacy, law
and trade was an obvious one.  Another one was that the early native tongues
of Northern Europe were simply inadequate in communicating reliably in
detail.  This was unambiguously spelled out in the mid 800's by Otfrid - one
of the first to produce a written text in west Germanic - in a letter to
Liutbert, Archbishop of Mainz.  Otfrid points out that the Frankish of the
time lacked not only vocabulary,  but was "uncultivated and undisciplined",
where for example two negatives in a sentence do not make a positive:

"... This language, you see, is considered to be
 country, because by its own speakers it has never been polished in writing
 nor by any art at any time. Indeed, they do not even memorize the stories
 of their forbears, as many other peoples do, nor do they embellish their
 deeds or life for love of their worth.  On the other hand, if, though rarely,
 this does happen, they expound rather in the language of other peoples, that
 is, Latin or Greek."

<<...who acquired Latin as a second, learned language.>>

But a language none the less.

[ Moderator continues:
  A second language differs greatly in internal processing from a first, and is
  used *consciously*, unlike a first.  Thus, change in a second language will
  be different in kind from a first language.
  --rma ]

<<And not very many of them, since it was an overwhelmingly illiterate rural
society.>>

And totally illiterate before the arrival of Latin.  But yes there had to be
quite a few or they would have stayed illiterate - since they had to be able
to use the Latin alphabet and transpose its sounds to become literate.  But
in any case we can be sure there were certainly hundreds of thousands more
than the 70 speakers that can constitute a "language" in New Guinea.

<<The existance of a standardized spelling has not, to put it mildly, stopped
this; and the changes continue and will continue.>>

Here! Here!   But that's aside from the point - the point being that writing
helps to regularize sounds and pronounciation - if it didn't, we'd know
nothing about past languages - since all we know about them is from writing.

<<all spoken languages undergo change in every generation.  Take a look at
English.  English spelling was highly phonetic when the orthography was
standardized. People actually pronounced "knight" as "k-ni-gcht", not "nite",
and so forth.>>

So therefore the following comparison by you is meaningless, because those
spellings are not to be trusted.  Same with your comparisons of OCS and
Polish.
<<Avestan:  tam amavantam yazatem
Sanskrit:  tam amavantam yajatam>>
<<<<<< a meaningless comparison due to the rampant changes language goes
through "every generation"!!!>>>>

I wrote:
<<You are under the impression that a disciplined language of limited
distribution is not an language.  The distinction you are making isn't
rational.>>

JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:
<<-- unfortunately for you, it's a distinction that can be found in any
elemenatary linguistics texbook.>>

I'm not sure you even noticed what the distinction was.  And I'm afraid
you'll have to give me a cite for any textbook that contradicts what I wrote.
 I've looked and I can't find one.

In a message dated 4/1/99 4:01:28 AM, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:

<<<<-- once a language is no longer used and learned by children from their
parents, it fossilizes because it's not subject to the usual pressures of
linguistic change.  The pace of change in it slows down dramatically.>>

I wrote:
<<Look what you are saying here.  If kids learn language from their parents,
then that language changes.  All of creation disagrees with you.  Getting it
passed on from your parents is supposed to be what passes it on unchanged.>>

[ Moderator continues:
  What he said is that languages learned naturally, which is to say as first
  languages, change in ways that differ greatly from languages learned by
  intentional schooling.  And *of course* languages change when children learn
  them from their parents--this is one of the tenets of historical linguistics!
  --rma ]

JoatSimeon at aol.com replied:
<<--- all spoken languages undergo change in every generation.>>

So QED mothers are the cause of change in language.  And the reason Latin
doesn't change is because it isn't taught by mothers.  All of creation still
disagrees with you.

[ Moderator's conclusion:
  You are being argumentative for the sake of argumentation.  Mothers are not
  the cause of language change, children--well, young people--are.  And the
  reason that Latin does not change is that children do not learn it in the
  same way that they learn their first languages.
  --rma ]

Regards,
Steve long