LL-L "Language contacts" 2003.09.15 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 15.SEP.2003 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: James Fortune <jamesrfortune at hotmail.com>
Subject:

Sandy,
You wrote:

"When it says a "link" I take it they menat a "correlation" (a good example
of obfuscation by choosing the Germanic-looking rather than the Latinate
word, so the article demonstrates the invalidity of its own premise :)"

I agree, and I also take your point that a deliberate attempt to conceal the
truth or confuse the audience is more important than the origin of the
words. However, I think that the article did indicate a fairly clear
correlation between the origin of the words and the apparent clarity of the
sentence. Whether this was a deliberate attempt to confuse, or merely a
consequence of the choice of words, who can say?

Are there other examples of languages that have dual roots, that have also
developed this kind of split? Are the forms of English used around the world
the same, or have differences crept into the balance on latinate and
germanic roots?

Best,
James.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language contacts

James,

I have never considered English to have dual roots.  Granted: Romance
influence is very strong, even structural, but in my opinion it is nothing
more than that: strong influence.  If we thought of it in terms of multiple
roots, we would have to apply this categorization to numerous languages in
the world, not only to creoles and languages with various substrates, but
also to many Turkic languages (with heavy Arabo-Iranisan influences), to
Japanese and Korean (Korean with heavy Chinese influences), to Swaheli
(Bantu with heavy Arabic influences) and many more.  English is basically
and overwhelmingly Germanic in all aspects, irrespective of foregn
influences.

BTW, Evert, *all* languages get mixed to one degree or other, because no
language remains in isolation.  This may go against the grain of ppurism,
but it is a fact we must accept, and we must see the results in their own
right.  I have never come across an "ugly" language variety in my life,
whatever the circumstances may be.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language contacts

Hi all

Evert wrote
"The mixing of latin and germanic words makes texts
like a mingling of
beer
and whine. Personally I like wine; I also like beer. I
don;t like it
mixed.
I like latin languages; I also like germanic
languages. Mixing it makes
them
both ugly."

Well you're entitled to your opinion. The thing is
English vocabulary is mainly non-Germanic. The biggest
input coming from Norman French. To write a purely
'Germanic' English is almost impossible and makes the
language rather dull as it would mainly comprise
'functional' words. However, I do agree that the use
of 'Latinate' words just to sound educated, or to
exclude others is unnecessary and should be avoided.

Evert also added
'A language has some underlying structure, logic,
spirit, sound scheme,
you
name it. Because English has two underlying roots
(latin and germanic),
it's
writing system has become weird. When you learn an
english word, you
have to
learn two words actually: the written one and the
pronounced one :-)'

Agreed that when learning an English word you do tend
to have to learn two words, but this is not due to the
mixture of Latin and Germanic that has made the
written system weird, but rather due to the
standardisation of the language being a long time ago
and the language having undergone some drastic sound
changes since and not having updated the spelling
system. The spelling system is roughly based on Norman
spelling conventions being applied to Middle English.
At the time it was quite 'phonetic'. If you read any
Chaucer the pronunciation is obvious (once the
spelling conventions have been learnt) much the same
way as German pronunciation is fairly obvious once the
rules have been learnt. But as I think I've said
before, the good thing about English spelling is that
everyone is at a disadvantage; it doesn't favour any
particular accent. I'd quite happily get rid of
differences between say 'meat' and 'meet', but for
some accents there is a difference in pronunciation
between these two words. Also some people could
happily get rid of a difference in spelling between
'paws' and 'pause', but as I pronounce them
differently I find different spellings perfectly in
order...

Loan words are an inevitable part in a language's
development. It always amazes me when British people
complain about the use of 'Americanisms' or Germans
complain about the use of English words where a German
word already exists. The German word will probably
still exist and maybe in 100 years the two words (the
German and English) might have developed to have
slightly different meanings - this will only make the
language richer. The same happened with English, so
that we get subtle differences between words like
'big' (poss from Scandinavian), 'great' (English) and
'large' (French).

I don't think English is a particularly ugly language
- ugly things can be said in English, the same as with
all languages, but a mixture of difference languages
doesn't seem to have harmed English too much.

Gary

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings 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.
=======================================================================