LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 24.JAN.2001 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 24.JAN.2001 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
 =======================================================================

From: Ian James Parsley [parsleyij at yahoo.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 23.JAN.2001 (01) [A/E]

john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk] wrote:

> "The conclusion that English has become simpler cannot, of course,
be
> accepted. Languages, if anything, are evolving toward greater rather
than
> lesser complexity ... Languages develop cyclically from "morphology
with few
> grammatically functional word order rules" to "word order with few
> morphological rules" and back again, with sound change being the
causal
> factor throughout."
>
> "First sound change grinds off the morphology and thus forces the
grammar to
> respond by substituting word order rules in order to counter the
threat of
> ambiguity. Next sound change degrades the positionally fixed
independent
> function words of the language into a new morphology, which makes
the word
> order rules redundant and leads to their loss, And so on
indefinitely."
>
> Unfortunately there is no indication of the timescale of this cyclic
process
> and only a couple of examples based on Latin are cited.

I must confess I have a number of problems with Venneman's ideas,
although it is difficult to discount them completely. The problem here
is an obvious one, the lack of examples. There are, of course,
examples of prepositions eliding with nouns (e.g. Dutch 'thuis'), but
I really do wonder about the cyclical process.

I should clarify that I was saying that there is a *morphological*
tendency towards *regularization* (not always quite the same as
'simplification'), which results in fewer irregular verbs and the loss
of case distinction. Of course, syntactically this often means word
order becomes more rigid.

My problem with Venneman's idea comes with the idea that marking words
become unclear. I would suggest the evidence is that where there is a
danger of marking words (usually prepositions) becoming unclear, they
are 'relengthened' as I stated in a previous posting. This, it could
be argued, constitutes a 'complication', but there is still the
tendency towards 'regularization'. So, for example, the word 'about'
(in the sense of 'au sujet de') is often replaced these days by the
shorter 'on' ('Reflections on my time in Belfast, talks on the peace
process etc.). However, forms such as 'regarding', 'concerning',
'relating to' and so on are becoming ever more common, much to the
chagrin of many writers who prefer the 'simpler' shorter forms.
However, these longer forms again merely constitute the natural
process of linguistic change. I'm not sure there is any evidence that
the result will be a remarking of words in English. English hasn't
necessarily become simpler, but it has become more regular, at least
morphologically.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of us will be around to see a
conclusive answer to this debate!!

> I have recently noted, on TV and radio, a tendency to mis-use
prepositions.
> I have just heard "He devoted a lot of time for me", where the
normal usage
> is "to me". Can we imagine this as the start of a phenomenon whereby
> prepositions will be reduced in number, perhaps to a single one,
then
> disappear, leaving a need for a morphological device to restore
clarity?

Again, I wonder about this. Conversely, we now tend to say '1-0 to
United' rather than '1-0 for United', which seems to have gone the
other way around. I would be interested to see statistics
on/about/relating to the disappearance (or otherwise) of prepositions.
'Double' forms such as 'upon' and 'into' are gradually being lost, but
that doesn't mean a reduction in the number of core prepositions. But
I must say, it's not something I've ever really considered.

> itself there were (or weren't!) "-n"s missing from dative plural
nouns. I
> conclude that although the morphology of German apparently makes it
possible
> to compose very long and complex sentences, transmission errors
ultimately
> destroy the sense.

That would, in the end, lead to more requirements for a rigid word
order (as in English). Certainly on a recent trip to South Tyrol I
noticed the dative-plural 'n' missing regularly, even in official
government documents.

Of course, we mustn't dismiss common sense in all of this. The English
'give it me' and 'give me it' mean the same thing, for example!

Best regards,
Ian.

----------

From: Stefan Israel [stefansfeder at yahoo.com]
Subject: Grammar

Ron wrote:

> Incidentally, _salt_ is also listed as an adjective in
> English, but it is said that it is "not gradable" and appears
> only before nouns, e.g., "salt water," "salt cod."  How can
> you tell that it is an adjective here and not the first
> component of a compound noun?

I'd have to think that the grammarian who called "salt" here an
adjective hadn't thought the matter through.  It's acting
strictly like a compound noun.  Compare it with "a very key
point" (aurgh, I can't remember who pointed that example.)

> I *have* heard a few times in England and Australia people
> using _salt_ as a true adjective in the sense of "salty"
> (e.g., "the water is salt").  I assume it is rare and perhaps
> archaic.

hm, or is it (or was it) short for "the water is salt (water)".
But my Old English dictionary does show _sealt, salt_ as an
adjective: "oth thone sealtan mere" 'up to the salt sea'.
Alongside it was _sealten_, which potentially could lose the
-en during Middle English (compare participles like
drunk/drunken), giving two established adjectives.  Would anyone
say "this water is very salt"?

Stefan

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================