Re: Re[4]: Language (was: Re: African Languages (was: Re: Re[2]: [ti

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 58366
Date: 2008-05-04

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>>> So far as I can see, the invention of formal logic had no
>>> impact on the development of human language.
>> It led to the invention of science and scientific prose. A
>> detail.
> Scientific prose is merely a specialized *use* of language.
> (And I do not agree that the invention of formal logic led
> to the invention of science. Formal logic has very little
> to do with science; it belongs rather to mathematics and to
> philosophy.)

I once read interesting things about old Greek
and about the impact that the alphabet and the possibility of writing had on
the way people used Greek.
Gradually the usual erraticity of spoken language diminished.
I think you are completely unaware of that
because you erroneously take it for granted.
>>>> French and German are obviously languages that have been
>>>> consciously made to be what they are.
>>> They obviously are not.
>> You are generally well-informed so it's quite surprising
>> you wrote this.
>> French has nearly been invented out of nothing with the
>> deliberate purpose of replacing Latin.
> No. French developed out of Vulgar Latin by perfectly
> normal processes.
Old French developed naturally,
Middle French after say 1500 is massively artificial
and about everything is graphic-influenced.
Like the word son <fils>
the old pronounciation was [fi]
modern standard [fis] is graphic
les Etats-Unis : modern le-z- Etat-z- Uni
Littre wrote in the XIX century that the standard was
le-z- Etat Uni (without the middle -z-)
Once again a graphic influenced case
>> They created the Academie for that purpose :
> French had already started to diverge noticeably from Latin
> some 800 years before the Académie was founded. Far from
> creating a language, it has tried to arbitrate among
> competing possibilities (and has often been ignored). And a
> de facto official standard already existed in the 16th
> century.
You are really sinking below anything.
There was no standard at all.
I advise you to read a book about the history of French
Brunot makes sense.
Start with him.

>> You must be completely ignorant of modern history to write
>> there is no conscious intervention in all that.
> I didn't say that there had been *no* conscious
> intervention. Obviously there has been some, especially in
> the lexicon. But even those changes that originated in
> someone's conscious choice are propagated largely
> unconsciously.
> > Brian
Wrong again.
The grammar, the spelling, the pronounciation have been consciously
Once Again : read Brunot and you 'll have learned something.
All this has been propagated by school
and unsurprisingly, now that the school pressure has weakened
the general situation is highly messy.