From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 24281
Date: 2003-07-08
>>> BTW the languages of the records of the North GermanThe most obvious is the influence of the Luther bible.
>>> cities switch from Low German to High German within the
>>> scope of twenty years in the 16th century. At the same
>>> time as the Hanse finally declines. Don't tell me
>>> there's no connection here.
>> Of course there's a connection, though that's obviously
>> not the only reason.
> And the other ones are?
>>> given alternative political developments, -eren mightI know what you said. Your comment makes sense only if you
>>> have survived in English, and the merchant would now
>>> stand condemned (and also by you) as the speaker of a
>>> corrupt, French-influenced substandard dialect that
>>> didn't make it.
>> Not by anyone who knew anything about the history of the
>> language. Both plurals are native to OE, and the fact
>> that we have <egg> instead of *<ay> or the like is due to
>> Norse influence, not French.
> I said _alternative_. Contrafactual history.
>>>>> You might even interpret the story to mean that asNo, just a reductio ad absurdum.
>>>>> late as in Caxton's time, people in England used one
>>>>> language at home and another, more regular one in the
>>>>> market.
>>>> Whether any of them did or not, there's nothing in
>>>> Caxton's story that suggests such an interpretation.
>>> And there's nothing to contradict it.
>> There's nothing in the story to contradict the notion
>> that the moon is made of green cheese; would you care to
>> draw that inference as well?
> Cheap shot.
> You can't infer anything from a non-contradiction, and weThat is significantly weaker than your original claim ('You
> both know that. I'm saying this story doesn't disprove my
> theory.
>> To the minimal extent that the story says anything aboutThe rest of the prologue further emphasizes the diversity of
>> the matter, it points in the opposite direction. Clearly
>> neither the merchant nor the wife was acquainted with
>> both forms of the 'egg' word.
>>> The problem with your analysis is that you see languageEvidently.
>>> development as something autonomous, while I see it as
>>> driven by other factors.
>> I see both, of course. This is not a problem. That you
>> see only the other factors *is* a problem.
> That I don't see the 'autonomous factor' is a problem? I
> don't get it.
>>> Thus you would have more linguistic diversity on the('I'm *sure* these pieces will fit together if I just push
>>> market, and more motivation to use a 'least common
>>> denominator' language to communicate (as Scandinavians
>>> do).
>> The timing doesn't work: the Hanse are too late.
> I know they were present during the Peasant's revolt, my
> brother did a paper on a report ot it back to the HQ at
> Marienburg (Malbork(?)). Otherwise I'd have to go for
> Flemish traders then.