Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: Plurals
Message-ID: <D143Jr.6A0@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <19DEC94.11813889.0031@music.mus.polymtl.ca> <D12qsH.FqL@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <19DEC94.18886466.0035@music.mus.polymtl.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 13:45:24 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <19DEC94.18886466.0035@music.mus.polymtl.ca> Alexander Kiefer <KA00@music.mus.polymtl.ca> writes:
>In article <D12qsH.FqL@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>In article <19DEC94.11813889.0031@music.mus.polymtl.ca> Alexander Kiefer <KA00@music.mus.polymtl.ca> writes:
[re languages borrowing words from their ancestors]
>>>I think that usage of "loanword" is too general and misleading.
>>
>>Why?  How is borrowing a word from Latin into French different from
>>borrowing a word from English or Arabic?  It is a different language.
>
>Because of the dialect continuum.

Does the dialect continuum imply that every word of Latin is by virtue
of this fact also a French word?

Let's take an example.  The Latin word _catena_ `chain' was inherited
by French, and, having undergone a series of regular sound changes, it
assumed the form _chai^ne_.  Then at some point someone felt he needed
a term for `information chain'.  He found the word _catena_ in a Latin
dictionary, gallicised it slightly, and _cate`ne_ made an appearance.
How is that different from the case of a Latin word making its way
into a language less closely related or unrelated to Latin?

The same for _cha~o_ vs _plano_ `flat, smooth' in Portuguese,
<sonA> vs <svar.na> `gold' in Hindi, ...

>The case of religious terms was mentioned. Clergy might have
>been a subgroup exempted from language transformation.

Then why not say that this subgroup is simply using a different language
for professional purposes?  Dialect continuum notwithstanding, are not
Russian and Church Slavonic recognisably different languages, each
having its own grammar and lexicon?

>>>That the word doesnt undergo transformation is not a necessary reason
>>>for it to be a loanword.
>>
>>I'm sure you mean `is not necessarily a reason'.  Maybe not, if you
>
>Why a language like that? Merely for a difference of opinion?

I didn't intend to sound confrontational.  Let's make that `if one can
explain ...' or `if we can explain ...'.  I was simply wondering if
your proposal didn't raise more questions than it answered.  Now,
however, I see that things can indeed work as you say, although I
continue to think that they can also work as I say.  :-)

>>can explain how and why the word has escaped transformation [...]

[...]

>I merely point out, that what was considered Old Church Slavonic or
>Latin were certain legalized dialects of the particular language.

Even if that is so (although I'm not prepared to accept it; it seems
to imply that all Slavic languages, or all Romance ones, are dialects
of one another), can words not be borrowed from one *dialect* into the other?

-- 
`Release Jesus wi this mob hangin aroon?  Nae chance!'  (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
