LL-L "Grammar" 2011.03.16 (05) [EN]

Wed Mar 16 23:51:10 UTC 2011

=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 16 March - Volume 05
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
============================== =======================

From: Hellinckx Luc <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>

Subject: LL-L "Grammar"

Beste Ron,

You wrote:

 I wonder if any of you can come up with examples in which languages
developed the other way around, namely by acquiring more complex
morphologies with time. I personally can think of no such example.

Did Martin Luther not go that way with his Bible translation? I thought at
the time, the use of cases was on the way back, also in German, just like in
Dutch and English (especially the genitive). He decided though to remodel
German after Latin, which made the language more complex again...for
centuries and centuries.

I'm not sure, but maybe the same thing can happen anytime. If a certain
language acquires status (could be English these days), and language
architects in other (foreign) languages decide to "reformat" their own
language in order to make it sound more fashionable, you may very well end
up with a complex monster (even though English itself is grammatically
simple).

In short, methinks, internal evolution tends to lead to simplification,
whereas external influence necessitates two differing grammars to merge,
possibly creating lots of "exceptions".

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx, Halle, Belgium

----------

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

Subject: Language varieties

Thanks, Luc.

Interesting thoughts there, especially the alleged case of Luther
deliberately (i.e. artificially) reintroducing complexity to “elevate”
German so it could stand up to the complexity of Latin.

In theory then, a morphologically relatively complex “supreme” language
could motivate speakers of other languages that develop in the shadow of the
“supreme” language to aspire to similar levels of complexity “at home,” so
to speak. Did I get that right?

Do you think that this could be why German is morphologically more complex
than Dutch, Low Saxon and Scandinavian, the latter few not having undergone
artificial “Latinophile intervention” of the Lutheran kind?

However, I am under the impression that under most circumstances language
contacts promote simplification. The Scandinavian languages are great
examples of this, if you compare them with Old Norse and Icelandic. It is
quite likely that this was triggered by massive Middle Saxon influences and
the eventual absorption of large numbers of Saxon speakers.

With regard to my response to Sandy’s point in the previous post, please let
me add the thought that these days we are unable to witness the birth and
early development of natural languages other than those whose geneses are
those of language contact, or “linguistic confluence,” so to speak.

Now, it may well be that in such cases we do get glimpses of early
“morphologicalizing” processes, such as in the numerous pidgins and creoles
of the world, most of which developed as a result of colonization. For
example, in Papua New Guinea’s English-based creole Tok Pisin
(Neo-Melanesian, http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/tokpisin-intro.php) you
can see how English-derived words are used to create grammatical markers and
also create a pronominal system that is more complex than the English one:

Past: *i bin* (< he been)

*Mipela i bin tok olsem. *(We spoke thus.)

Continuative: *i stap* (< he stop)

*Tripela i slip i stap. *(The three of them are sleeping.)

Perfective: *pinis* (< finish)

*Mi i lusim ki pinis. *(I lost the key.)

Future: *bai* (< by and by)

*Em bai ol i go long rum. *(They will go to their rooms.)

* *

*Singular*

*Dual*

*Trial*

*Plural*

*1st exclusive*

*mi*
(I)

*mitupela*
(he/she and I)

*mitripela*
(both of them, and I)

*mipela*
(all of them, and I)

*1st inclusive*

-

*yumitupela*
(thou and I)

*yumitripela*
(both of you, and I)

*yumipela* ~ *yumi*
(all of you, and I)

*2nd*

*yu*
(thou)

*yutupela*
(you two)

*yutripela*
(you three)

*yupela*
(you four or more)

*3rd*

*em*
(he/she)

*tupela*
(they two)

*tripela*
(they three)

*ol*
(they four or more)

[*mi* < me, yu < you, *tu* < two, *tri* < three, *pela* < fellow, *ol* <
all, *em* < him]

However, I strongly suspect that this use of initially foreign words for
grammatical marking did not arise out of a vacuum. Much rather, I believe
that the motivation was to replicate in this new intercultural medium
grammatical categories that existed within the native Melanesian languages,
categories that were considered essential in the cultures and thus in the
minds of the native population. In other words, mostly English-derived
vocabulary (with loans from German, Melanesian, Polynesian and Malay mixed
in) served to create a lingua franca that could perform all the fundamental
functions other known native languages could perform.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

Seattle, USA

=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
===========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20110316/60067917/attachment.htm>