From: tgpedersen
Message: 14381
Date: 2002-08-19
>doubt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 1:07 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Check out What is Ogam -- Noh-oh-oh! Don't!!
>
>
> Let me be, for a moment, the devil's advocate here. There's no
> that the practice of scribes in various monasteries or of theof
> chancelleries of rulers has played a large role for the
> general "look" of languages, cf. the "practical", functional look
> Czech and Dutch vs the more "impressive" look of Polish and German.a
> One might of course argue that this is mere surface, which has
> nothing to do with the _spoken_ substance of the language; but
> consider the concrete situation: you are the head of the clerks of
> monastery or chancellery and your scribes ask you: how should wehow
> write this or that? As mr X from M or as mr Y from N pronounces it?
> In the end you can't, in that situation, free yourself from
> arbitrariness: it is to be written that way because I say so. In
> many cases, when we refer to a paricular document as holy writ and--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
> proof that this is how they spoke then, are we just repeating the
> whims of a dozen people?
> There's much reason in what _you_ are saying, Torsten, but thatisn't what Edo Nyland understands by "creating" the languages of
>I know the ideas of mr. Nyland and I agree with you. Call it a gut
> Piotr
>
>