rate of language change

[Eduard Selleslagh]

-----Original Message-----
From: X99Lynx at aol.com <X99Lynx at aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 11:52 AM

>I wrote:
><< I read in D, Crystal that the loss of inflection in English has been
>closely connected with the bilingualism effected by the Danish invasions
>(CamEncyl Eng Lang p 32).>>

>In a message dated 4/17/99 7:26:13 PM, [Ed Selleslagh] replied:
><<That may be right, but how do you explain the same, and simultaneous,
>phenomenon in Dutch, a closely (geographically and linguistically) related
>language, which underwent only a very minor influence from the Viking
>invasions?>>

>Did the Norse or Danes settle in Frisia (or the correct location for Dutch to
>be effected?)  I'm only aware of raids, at least at the times of Charlesmagne
>and say Knut.

[ES]
So am I.

>The difference might be important, since the Danes did clearly
>settle in northern England.  Perhaps that explains it.

[ES]
I don't understand that: If the difference is important, the difference in
degree of loss of inflection should have been equally significant, quod non.

>I was really doing no more than citing Crystal and he does say it is only a
>theory.  But it would seem that you'd need a more permanent or constant level
>of interaction to need to "streamline" a language in this way.

[ES]
I fully agree, so I don't think Crystal was right about bilinguism being the
cause.

><<The rest of Low-German equally lost a major part of its
>inflection, in contrast with High-German...>>

>I don't know what explanations have been offered for this.  I don't know that
>the bilingual accomodation Crystal offers applies to this situation.  Though
>there were a lot of Danes to the north and Wends to the east that could have
>supplied the same kind of need for loss of complex inflections.

[ES]
Maybe, but only sufficiently to the north and in Frisian regions.

><<BTW, I don't know the answer.>>

>Same here.

[ES]
So, we're still stuck with the fact that only High German kept its complex
inflection more or less intact. Maybe we should rather look for an
explanation for THAT. Isolation in the Alpine region and then spread to the
sub-Alpine regions, as opposed to the open space of NW Europe and the very
mobile populations of N and NW Europe, at least in certain times, which
might even coincide with the split of High and Low German? Maybe Crystal is
right after all, albeit in some more complex way.  Any ideas or knowledge
(from anybody)?

Ed. Selleslagh