Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!woodlawn!deb5
From: deb5@woodlawn.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: The whole language tree thing.
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <DFHy0A.2zE@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <DEIxrB.8J0@crash.cts.com> <AC8903309668A7FFD@158.152.71.11> <DFCC6o.9py@midway.uchicago.edu> <AC8B88F49668421EB@yarn.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 05:02:33 GMT
Lines: 125

In article <AC8B88F49668421EB@yarn.demon.co.uk>,
Paul Talacko <taka@yarn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <DFCC6o.9py@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>deb5@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff) wrote:
>>
>>I want to hear your definition of "Germanic" since it seems to differ
>>greatly from that espoused by most linguists. 
>
>I am not going to define Germanic, in fact the common definition seems fine
>to me.
>
This is a blatant contradiction of what you said earlier.

>>>BTW the fact that there are Romance words in other languages tradtionally
>>>labeled as Germanic only shows the validity of the revised model.
>>>
>>What revised model?  You've only presented a claim ("English is closer to
>>French than German") without any criteria or explicit methodology.  Even
>>the Nostracists have done that much.
>
>That is really stupid, let's all go in for some misrepresentation here.  In
>fact, what I am doing is turning the traditional model on its head and
>looking at things the influences on a language in other ways.  

You say I'm misrepresenting you.  Very well, explain how.  Refute my
criticisms, please.  I posted several pages of them, and you reply with
empty rhetoric like this.

>Validating the footnotes if you will.  

This is a good point:  footnoting some of your work would help validate
it.  You're certainly not the first person to challenge the genetic model.

>Deconstrucing the dominant paradigm, maybe.

Maybe.  But what good is it to deconstruct a paradigm and then not erect
anything to take its place?

>Look at it this way, to classify anyone's race is  stupid, the average
>German, if there be such a thing and I doubt that a lot, is a mixture of
>what? Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Gypsy, Roman, Dalmation, Illyrian, Turkish?
> Of course you cannot unravel the genes to find the pure race, so neither
>can you unravel a language, at least not a proper living one.

This is a completely irrevelant tangent.  Obviously, traits from these
populations are not mixed in remotely comparable proportions in the modern
German-speaking populations.  Neither is material (lexical, morphological,
syntactic, etc.) from these languages mixed in equal amounts in the modern
German language.  It makes perfect sense to try to "separate the strands"
and try to discover which features ones originated among which groups of 
speakers.  (I'll leave it for population biologists to speculate on the 
worthwhileness of trying to determine in which populations certain genetic 
traits took shape.)  Since language is always in flux, one can of course 
never "recover" any "pure ancestral tongue" this way, but to say that this 
makes all historical linguistics nugatory is irrational.  

>>In fact, I think the presence of Romance influence on German *undermines*
>>you new classification.  Your point was that French influence on English
>>had made it more "Romance" in character and less "Germanic".  However, 
>>Romance influence on German also makes it more "Romance" and less "Ger-
>>manic"--and, hence, more like English!
>
>No, no, no, made it *somewhat*, *a little* French in character, and not
>really Romance at that.

Maybe you need to go back to your earlier posts and clarify some of your
claims.
>
>The whole point I am making is that it is necessary ot look at all the
>factors affecting language, not only the traditional *genetic* precursers.

No one seems to disagree with you on this point.  I, for one, however, take
great issue with the disdain in which you hold certain branches of linguis-
tics and the models they've produced.  Were you capable of introducing valid
corrections for the shortcomings you identify, I'd be more willing to 
listen to you.

>Take the instance of changes in language, at one point, one has to address
>what causes langauge to change.  Take the example of Latin as it was
>carried across to the provinces.  As we know the languages that emerged are
>all quite different.  The factors causing the difference, must include the
>substrate language and also other factors, either so-called superstrate or
>the effect of neighbouring languages.

Excuse me, but who invented the concepts of "substrates", "superstrates", 
and "adstrates" if not historical linguists seeking to refine the genetic 
model.

>As for classification (now I am only postulating this) we could look at the
>fact that Western Europeans find it far easier to learn Western European
>languages than others.  One of the reasons it is easy is because of the
>similarity in vocabulary, as well as similar grammar we could postulate a
>WE group.  The characteristics of the group could be:
>- uninflected
>- use of prepositions (rather than postpositions)
>- noun, verb, adjective are considered seperate units
>- verb tends to come in second place.
>- high percentage of Latin and Greek borrowings

Sounds like you're suggesting a Western European Sprachbund.  Nothing that
hasn't been done before (and without rejecting the genetic model).

>Certain languages fall into it: English, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish,
>French, Italian and Spanish.  On the factors I have deliniated, I would
>argue that German also falls into the group. Slavonic languages do not
>because they are too inflected.

Ah, yes, the heavily-inflected Slavonic languages.  Like Bulgarian.

>The traditional IE model also plays a part, of course, but it is only one
>factor in a complex world always in flux, and far too much importance is
>presently placed on it.

I don't see this.  The current literature is filled with excellent works
on the effects of language contact:  borrowing, calquing, code-switching,
morphological influence, syntactic influence, constructed languages, etc.
I'm not sure who it is whom you are accusing of being obsessed with the
"traditional IE model."  The last glottochronologist, perhaps?



-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
