Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!peernews.demon.co.uk!storcomp.demon.co.uk!philip
Subject: Re: The logic of "and" and "but"
References: <600434857wnr@shappski.demon.co.uk> <D4H6vo.JIK@world.std.com>
Reply-To: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 23
X-Posting-Host: storcomp.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 00:11:55 +0000
Message-ID: <793757515snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <D4H6vo.JIK@world.std.com>
           jcf@world.std.com "Joseph C Fineman" writes:
> True, articles are largely redundant, and many languages do without
> them.  However, the invention is an old one (Hebrew & Greek had
> definite articles in antiquity), and it is noteworthy that tho
> IndoEuropean had no articles and Latin was conservative in that
> respect, both the Germanic & the Romance languages have come up with
> both definite & indefinite articles.

What you write seems to imply that they independently acquired def. and
indef. articles. I doubt if this was the case. The syntax of Romance and 
Germanic languages is IMO too similar to have arisen by chance - eg the
way French and German form perfect tenses.

The western Roman empire was conquered by Germanic barbarians, who 
subsequently learnt Latin and generallly tried to behave like Romans. 
I expect that when they half-learnt Latin they incorporated aspects of 
Germanic syntax into their speech, which accounts for some of the 
similarities.

-- 
Phil Hunt...philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
Majority rule for Britain!
