Re: language shift ( it was Celts & Cimmerians)

Alex, re the information below.

You make it sound as if the abandonment of local languages was the
result of the choice by speakers of those local languages. It is
not so much a "letting go" of an indigenous language, as rather a
being "pulled away" from it.

In Australia, from the 1800's, any Aboriginal child found speaking
an Aboriginal language at school was punished. Similar things
happened in North America with "Indians" being educated in "white
schools", and even in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, where children
caught speaking Celtic languages were punished (usually by being
whipped!) It even happened in African schools and in Papua New
Guinea!

Eventually, the "Stolen Generation" of "half-caste" Aborigines in
Australia, were taken away from their native speaking parents and
forced into concentration camps (called "Native settlements") where,
under dormitory conditions and controlled by white supervisors,
again they were punished for speaking any language other than
English.

From what I understand, bith Canada and the USA had similar
institutions, and an attempt to force abandonment of native
languages.

Keep these policies up for a number of generations and it is not
surprising that we find a loss of language.

Regards

John

> People, IMHO a language dies out and it does not became abandoned.

You

> can not abandon a thing which is within you, that is a fact. The

use of

> the word "abandon" here appears just as metaphor and nothing more.

But

> since here are such analysts which are comparing language with

trousers

> one has to take a closer view to their examples. Examples for
> "abandoning" a language have been given from modern times as

follow:

>
> - aborigine tribes in New World which are using English instead of

their

> old language
> - emigrants from all the part of the world which entering in a

foreign

> society, they "abandon" their language too.
> - it was showed here that English has it's progressive and very

massive

> influence on the actual languages.
> - trough analogy with the actual situation in the New World, there

is

> made up the explanation for the language shift of the old

population's

> language conquered by Roman Empire to the actually Romance.
>
> Is there the need to speak about "the job" of a language? I guess

there

> isn't. The job of any language -short said- is to make the

comunication

> posible. Now to the mentioned points:
>
> 1) Aborigine tribes which are using English instead of their own
> language:
>
> the question is why are these people letting their language to die

out?

> They don't. Their language is not anymore making the job a

language is

> destined for . I don't think it is necessary on this list to show

how

> these aborigines in New World are becoming less as number, got
> overwhelmed, separated themselves, tried to integrated themselves

in the

> new society, having a less contact with each other, the new

generations

> having a progressive loosing of their culture , not being strong

enough

> for building an enclave in the big mass of new comers for creating

the

> necessary nucleus to keep their language, etc. I guess we don't

need

> these explanations since they are well-known. The mss media which

exists

> nowadays is too not to under-estimate when we talk about a new

language

> reaching even the very inaccessible area of a region.
>
> 2) Emigrants entering a new society:
>
> -here cannot be a discussion about "how does a language die out"

with

> this kind a persons. Here is the same principal argument for the

dead of

> a language: the language does not make the job destined for ; the

old

> language of the new comer is not used, not learned, it will die

out.

>
> 3) Influence of English on actual languages
>
> this is a fact which cannot be denied . What kind of influence is

this?

> Is a lexical influence and nothing more. Just loaning words which
> describe things which have been not know before. The examples

given by

> Glen in the computer field are the best examples for a such

influence.

> Everyone has to agree that no language here loan any flexion

particles

> from English, neither these language will make derivatives of an

loaned

> English word " a la English"; the words are imported and

accommodated

> with the specific of the language where the word has been

imported. A

> lexical influence does not mean a language shift. Even if there

are 50%

> of imported words which are used in another language, this is

still no

> language shift.
>
> From 1) and 2) there are some questions which we have to take a

look at.

> In the New World, there are by now 500 years beginning with the

time the

> new comers "conquered" the aborigines and these aborigines live

together

> with the new comers. The society and the possibilities of the new

comers

> is by far more able to impose it's language as ever the Roman

Empire

> should have been able to do. Thus, one has to ask as follow:
>
> - any "new language" appeared in the geographical space where these
> aborigines are living?
> - have been there traced morphological, phonological and structural
> changes which happened to the language of the aborigines due the
> influence by the language of the new comers?
>
> The answers for such questions will handle with provable facts and

not

> with more or less based suppositions and due these answers one

should

> understand the long time effects which appear due the influences of
> languages on each other.As for beginning of the discussion about
> languages being abandoned and such stuff, I guess any commentary

should

> be useless by now.
>
>
> Alex