At 1:01:24 PM on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, tgpedersen wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
[...]
>> Note that the drastic reduction in inflection isn't even
>> close to being sufficient evidence for such a conclusion;
>> at most it's reason to raise the question.
> Sez who? Can you back up that with facts?
You're the one making the extraordinary claim; support it,
if you can.
>> Certainly the history of English is clear enough:
>> unbroken transmission,
> Germanic invasion? 1066? Give me a break.
If you can't do better than magical incantations, you need a
break.
>> with no creole in sight, let alone a precursor pidgin.
> How do you think Hengist & Horsa or William communicated
> with the natives?
OE looks like a perfectly ordinary WGmc. language, fancy
inflections and all; no sign of a Brit.-Gmc. creole.
How William communicated with the natives is of no real
importance. What is obvious is that the bulk of the
population continued to speak their various dialects of
English, which were transmitted in the usual way.
You might also bear in mind (1) that the loss of inflections
had demonstrably begun before the Conquest and was a
predictable consequence of various sound changes, and (2)
that the OE inflectional system persisted longest in the
south, where French influence was strongest.
Or you could simply read the following, from 'earlier
occurrences of this neverending thread', especially the
starred posts:
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/20220>
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/20518>
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29057>
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29059>
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29111>*
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29115>*
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29166>*
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29207>
Brian