On Wed, 29 May 2002 14:24:49 -0700, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
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
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 )
le somiglianze sono maggiormante apparenti in testi simili a quello di
learned terms in English have tended to
termini colti in inglese tendono a
(hi, brother-in-language, why do you hate so much your mother in law?)
>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
>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.
>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.
>>It (to use an old-fashioned term) "enriches" the
>> (PER USARE UN VECCHIO TERMINE) "ARRICCHISCE' LA
>>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
>>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
>>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
>> 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
>> >infinive has been reversed. But "No, nay, never, no nay never no more"
>> >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
>> >> your statements...not to shout at you, sorry)
>> >No problem.
>> >> what do i mean with Shakespeare's historical english? exactly the
>> >> that was spoken in England at the time of Shakespeare
>> >I +still+ have trouble with "the language that was spoken in England at
>> >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
>> >fulfilling this role. It was much more widely read, at least early on,
>> >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
>> >slagged-off the language in Shakespeare's plays.
>> >> erminia (waiting for my hair to grow long again overnight during our
>> >> Sabat).
You invite me to a wedding of terms: