LL-L "Morphology" 2005.11.14 (08) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

14 November 2005 * Volume 08
=======================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2005.11.14 (05) [E]

Exactly, and I think the loss of diminution in certain Germanic languages
is an example of this change from complex to simple.
Having special suffixes for diminutives is of course more complex than not
having them, or use paraphrasing with "small..." etc.
As you'll know, there are even more complex ways of diminution than
suffixing, e.g. in Arabic:  umm = mother, umayma = dim. of mother,
where <ay> is put between the two m's, and <a> as female suffix behind it.
I once met an Egyptian woman with Umayma as first name, so lit. she was
called "little mother".
Ingmar

Reinhard schreef:
>>Jonny, it's a commonly held false assumption that grammars change from
>simple to complex. Actually, we observe more of the opposite. Geramic had
a>complex system before and in the absence of contacts with Latin.
>
Jonny schreef:
>Dear Ingmar,you wrote:
>> Should we conclude from this that the fact that German has six different
>> forms here, "ich bin, du bist, er ist, wir sind, ihr seid, sie sind"
>> is Romance or Slavonic influence?
>I think so, because it's obviously very close to Latin, like the greater
>part of the whole German/Dutch/English grammar. The difference to the
>Scandinavian languages could result from less Roman influence there.

----------

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2005.11.14 (05) [E]

Hi, beste Ron,

you wrote:
> Old Saxon, Old Norse/Norwegian/Icelandic and Old Swedish, at the very
> least,
> had no contacts with Latin.
A beaten track, I fear. All of them had contact, of course, just more the
one and less the other. It even occurred in (proto-Germanic-) times before
Latin came as a result and kind of summary of mediterranian languages. (Have
a look, for example, at the famous 'Bernsteinstraße'- even in the times of
500 a.c. and earlier).
Have another look at the great influence of LS within the just good 300
years of the Hanse to the Scandinavian languages
.
Languages today and earlier always had been influenced, changed and even
dominated by people's interests to enlarge their prosperity- and that went
about trading, and very fast.

Saxon soldiers ('Söldner', partly, but sclaves also) had a good reputation
in the army of the Roman Empire before there was anything written down about
their true language by any Franconian monks, *g*. They came back, perhaps,
with some new but logical and catchy phrases (the same happened to Europe
after WW II), cultures and ways of life.
Why shouldn't some grammatical stuff (not too far away from their own,
originated types, I'd like to conceed), very suitable to make communication
easier, have been in their 'Rucksack'?

'Auwei geschrien'- these damn'd hobby-lists ;-)!

Allerbest

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm

----------

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

Hey, Jonny!

Aren't you just a tad too obsessed with Latin influences?  Do you really 
believe that Latin -- and perhaps Greek as well, and maybe Sanskrit -- all 
the "great" (= written) Indo-European languages -- were originally the only 
"complex" ones, and other languages aquired "complexity" by way of contacts 
with these?  Why?!  What would be the incentive for that among Germanic 
peoples outside the Roman sphere at a time when they were still using runes, 
i.e., had not yet adopted the Latin script along with Christianity?  Do you 
really believe that a few traders and the odd (= rare) returning mercenary 
or slave would be able to change their native languages back home in such a 
way?

*All* Indo-European varieties -- inside and outside the Roman sphere -- have 
or had such complexity; e.g.,

Armenian 'to be':
1sg  sirem
2sg  sires
3sg  sirē
1pl  sirenk'
2pl sirēk'
3 pl siren

It is not as though these varieties copy the Latin suffixes.  They have 
developed their own, though within Indo-European there are great 
similarities, not necessarily due to the influences of one or more "great" 
(= written) languages but apparently due to a common, inherent Indo-European 
system, a very old one.  It is later that this comes to be simplified, as in 
English, Scots, Low Saxon and Scandinavian -- and *this* tends to be due to 
language contacts, not copied but apparently simplified due to necessity or 
circumstances when the language is being used or adopted by foreign 
speakers.  Icelandic and Scandinavian have not been apart for all that long, 
yet the Scandinavian varieties are vastly simplified, while Icelandic is 
virtually petrified in its complexity.  Why did Scandinavian varieties 
undergo such simplification?  Possibly because of heavy mixing with Saxons, 
Finns and Saami, among others.

Latin did have much influence through most parts of Europe, but not *that* 
much influence.  Certainly in Saxony and Scandinavia, if not elsewhere, the 
majority of speakers were "uneducated" peasant that never heard Latin and 
certainly didn't read it, since they couldn't even read their own languages. 
"Sophisticated" (affected) Latin-inspired styles and eventually dialects 
were used within very small social circles, circles that had hardly any real 
contacts with the peasants.  There was no public schooling.  After the 
arrival of Christianity, most peasants couldn't even say the _Pater noster_ 
or _Ave, Maria_ in Latin.  They weren't really supposed to, because the 
priesthood did everything of that sort, while they--deemed too stupid to 
understand anything of substance--showed up, crossed themselves, looked in 
awe at pretty pictures, gave some money or goods to the priests, said silent 
prayers in their own languages (since doing so out loud wasn't permitted), 
and all the while they heard the priests mumble and chant Latin gobbledigook 
that wasn't explained to them. How would you expect a language to take on a 
foreign-inspired complex morphology under circumstances like that?  Words? 
Yes -- words for new ideas and items that gradually trickle down to the 
slaving masses.  Morphology?  I say "No way, José!"

Servus teus,
Reinhard/Ron 

==============================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.
======================================================================