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: