Ed, (01)
I recommend the following book on clashes among languages and
their spread across the world over many centuries: (02)
_Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World_
by Nicholas Ostler, Harper Collins, 2005. (03)
You can browse through the book on Amazon or bn.com and buy it in
paperback for $14.44 from either one. (bn.com still gives you free
shipping on orders over $25.) You can also read a review at
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/mar/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview3 (04)
As Ostler shows, there are many different reasons why one language
replaced another, but there are also some common features. Among them
is similarity in structure -- usually because they evolved from a common
ancestor not too long ago. For example, Arabic spread quickly with
Islam, it influenced many languages, but it did not replace them all. (05)
In fact, the only languages that Arabic replaced belong to the Afro-
Asiatic family. That includes the Semitic languages of the near East
and the languages across northern Africa. The Arabic writing system
was adopted for Turkish, Persian, Urdu, Kurdish, and many other
languages. But Arabic never replaced those languages. (06)
Latin belongs to the Italo-Celtic family. Those languages were more
similar to one another two thousand years ago than they are today.
Therefore, it was easier for Celtic speakers to adopt Latin than
for speakers of Germanic, Greek, or Semitic languages. (07)
> You may be right that Japanese gave up some of its native linguistic
> practices and Chinese didn't, but I think that was as much about
> culture as about linguistics. (08)
The writing system was very significant. You could call it part
of the culture or an aspect of the language. (09)
If the Chinese had an alphabetic system (such as pinyin) a few
millennia ago, that might have caused their many dialects to
diverge into distinct languages long ago. An alphabet would also
make it much easier for them to borrow words from other languages.
Whether that would be good or bad is a separate issue. (010)
> As you noted, 'takushi' is linguistically more economical than chu-zu-qi-che (011)
Actually, Chinese speakers normally use the generic word 'che' (vehicle)
whenever the context is sufficient to determine the kind of che: (012)
Call me a che. (taxi)
I'm waiting for the che. (bus) (013)
The context may involve characteristics of the speaker: (014)
I parked my che around the corner. (bicycle, motorcycle, or car) (015)
This option makes Chinese very economical. The full form is rarely
needed, but it can be used to clarify a misunderstanding. * (016)
> The Chinese language is older (017)
All languages are equally old. But some are more stable than others.
Among the modern Indo-European languages, Lithuanian is the most stable
-- in the sense that its word forms and syntax are the closest to the
hypothetical reconstructions of Proto-Indo-European. (018)
> I think you will find that the usage of Germanic and Romance coinage
> mechanisms is still quite robust in English. (019)
Just look at the word forms: 'insurance' and 'influence'. The
choice of -ance vs -ence depends on whether the infinitive of the
corresponding Latin verb ends in -are or -ere. (020)
That's a clue that those forms were borrowed from Latin when people
still studied Latin. Today, they are just memorized by rote -- or
corrected by some friendly (or not so friendly) spelling checker. (021)
EJB
>> "Qui ne comprend pas la culture ne comprend pas la langue." (022)
HAK
> I agree. (023)
So do I. And so does Ostler. I recommend his book. (024)
John (025)
* PS about 'full form': A friend of mine, the linguist Frank Anshen,
was teaching a course on sociolinguistics at the University of Hawaii. (026)
He remarked that ethnic slurs in most languages have guttural sounds,
such as G or K. But in Hawaiian, the ethnic slur for white people
is the word 'haole'. (027)
Whereupon a young Japanese woman from the back of the room said,
"But Professor Anshen, what about the full form?" (028)
Frank innocently asked, "Oh, what is the full form?" (029)
Answer: "F--king haole." (030)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (031)
|