 |
 |
On Wed, 29 May 2002 14:24:49 -0700, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I assume you're just being argumentative# Io assumo tu sia giusto argomentativa >They're both Indo-European languages, Sono entrambe lingue Indo-Europee, >they're syntactically similar compared to say Japanese. sono sintaticamente simili comparate allo Giapponese. And because Latin e poiche' il Latino >and French e il Francese were for centuries the vehicles for scholarship and law furono per secoli i veicoli di scolastica e legge >the similarities are most apparent in texts like (that of ) Robin's, le somiglianze sono maggiormante apparenti in testi simili a quello di Robin, learned terms in English have tended to termini colti in inglese tendono a >be latinate essere latini (hi, brother-in-language, why do you hate so much your mother in law?) erminia >Because of its long connection to mainland Europe English adopted words >from Latin and the Romance languages. But it treats them syntactically as >if they were native. That's why for instance the imperfect in Latin >or Romance languages is marked by endings containing a v or b and in >English it isn't. > >As to word order, both English and Romance languages independently lost >most of the case endings of nouns that characterize, on the one hand, the >other Germanic languages, and on the other Latin; that loss limits the >possibilities for word placement. There remain, as your text demonstrates, >significant differences in the ordering of noun-adjective combinations and >pronouns. > >It's a question of different morphologies. > >Linguists classify languages according to their core syntax and vocabulary. >Despite its multitude of borrowings English remains Germanic. > >You might want to take a look at Grimm's Law. > >Mark > >At 09:38 PM 5/29/2002 +0100, you wrote: >>On Wed, 29 May 2002 18:21:06 +0100, Robin Hamilton >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >there's no way anyone can deny that -- >>NON C'E'MODO DI NEGARLO -- >> >>but the impact is on the level >>MA L' IMPATTO E' SUL LIVELLO DEI >> >> >semantic borrowing. >>PRESTITI SEMANTICI. >> >>It (to use an old-fashioned term) "enriches" the >> (PER USARE UN VECCHIO TERMINE) "ARRICCHISCE' LA >> >> >language. >> LINGUA. >> >>But this doesn't mean that Latin >>MA QUESTO NON SIGNIFICA CHE IL LATINO >>and French stand in any sort of >>E IL FRANCESE STIANO IN UNA SORTA DI >> >> >genetic or 'paternal' relationship to English. # >>RELAZIONE GENETICA O PARENTALE CON L'INGLESE >> >> >>(oH, NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!) >> >> >> >>Scandinavian, where, for a >>LO SCANDINAVO, LADDOVE, PER UN >> >relatively long period, >>PERIODO RELATIVAMENTE LUNGO >> >> >>you have a +closely+ related linguistic community >>S'E' AVUTA UNA COMUNITA' LINGUISTICA STRETTAMENTE CORRELATA >> >co-existing with English, >>CO-ESISTENTE CON L'INGLESE >> >> had, it's been argued, a much more profound influence >> HA AVUTO, E' STATO ARGOMENTATO , UNA MOLTO PIU' PROFONDA INFLUENZA >> >in the reduction a grammatical classes. >>NELLA RIDUZIONE DELLE CLASSI GRAMMATICALI..... >> >> >>(SO, NOW PLEASE, PROVIDE ME WITH A SIMILARLY CLOSE TRANSLATION IN SCANDINAV >>OF THE ABOVE ENGLSIH SENTENCE THAT CLOSELY I HAVE RENDERED IN ITALIAN - >>BOTH FROM A SYNTHACTICAL POINT OF VIEW AND A SEMANTICAL ONE... >> >> >>AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THE RESEAMBLANCES WITH ITALIAN - AND LATIN - ARE >>FRIGHTNIGLY EVIDENT.....HERE >> >> >>ERMI >> >> >> >> But even there, where >> >there's an impact on syntax rather just vocabulary, it probably simply >> >accelerated changes that would have taken place anyway. >> > >> >[OK, I'll qualify that -- Latin impacted syntactically on English in the >> >prohibition of the double negative as an intensive form, and the split >> >infinitive. Recently (if you accept the OED) the prohibition on the split >> >infinive has been reversed. But "No, nay, never, no nay never no more" is >> >still unacceptable in Received Standard English. But it still exists in >> >lots of non-RSE varieties of English.] >> > >> >> (I was merely using capital letters only to distinsguish my replies from >> >> your statements...not to shout at you, sorry) >> > >> >No problem. >> > >> >> what do i mean with Shakespeare's historical english? exactly the >>language >> >> that was spoken in England at the time of Shakespeare >> > >> >I +still+ have trouble with "the language that was spoken in England at the >> >time of Shakespeare". The idea that one English was spoken then, rather >> >than a variety of Englishes. Especially that "exactly" <g>. >> > >> >> and that Shakespeare helped canonize. >> > >> >There's a better case (such as it is) to be made for the King James Bible >> >fulfilling this role. It was much more widely read, at least early on, >>than >> >Shakespeare, and more "authoritative". Shakespeare only becomes the >> >(official) central figure that he is with Garrick and the 18thC >> >institutionalisation of his work. >> > >> >> The same as with Dante, no more no less. >> > >> >Which is where the parallel with Dante breaks down, I think. Dante was >> >revered much more immediately. Nobody (later) dismissed the crudity of >> >Dante's language in the fashion that Dryden (unexceptionally for his time) >> >slagged-off the language in Shakespeare's plays. >> > >> >> erminia (waiting for my hair to grow long again overnight during our >>usual >> >> Sabat). >> > >> >Luck!! >> > >> >Robin You invite me to a wedding of terms: