From: tgpedersen
Message: 64692
Date: 2009-08-11
>After having written 'Apart from the fact that you don't create languages', and, later,
> At 6:20:31 AM on Monday, August 10, 2009, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 4:11:18 AM on Monday, August 10, 2009, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>> = Germanic spread due to the arrival into Germania in the
> >>>> 1rst c. CE of "Romanized Sarmatian deserters" who had
> >>>> largely forgotten their Iranic speeches, and used "some
> >>>> version of Latin for everyday purposes". (This is what
> >>>> enabled them to become leaders of the Germanic tribes and
> >>>> creators of the genuine Germanic languages.)
>
> >>> Apart from the fact that you don't create languages, at
> >>> most you make them literate languages by inventing an
> >>> alphabet and the rudiments of a grammar (from
> >>> observation of the spoken language), yes, that's what I
> >>> think happened.
>
> >> The idea that PGmc. developed from the speech of people
> >> who used 'some version of Latin for everyday purposes'
> >> doesn't pass the laugh test.
>
> > Did someone propose that?
>
> It is what you agreed to when you wrote 'yes, that's what I
> think happened'.
> > As for me, I proposed they switched to the local language.'they switched to the local language'. I think I will ascribe that accusation to sloppiness on your part rather than deliberate dishonesty.
>No, it's not. Someone is looking for nits to pick?
> >> By the way, it's rather obvious that George was using
> >> 'creators of' as a shorthand for 'the people whose speech
> >> developed into';
>
> > No.
>
> Oh, it certainly is -- unless one is deliberately looking
> for nits to pick.
> >> a language has a grammar irrespective of whether it's aI never claimed non-literary languages had no grammar. What is your point?
> >> written language or any attempt has been made to describe
> >> that grammar;
>
> > Yes. And?
>
> What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so I
> chose to point out *your* sloppiness.
> >> and one doesn't need an alphabet to have writing.Linguistics 101. And?
>
> > You are thinking of some type of ideographic writing like
> > Hieroglyphs etc.
>
> There is no such thing as ideographic writing. Egyptian and
> Mesopotamian hieroglyphics are basically logosyllabic.
> Besides this and alphabetic scripts there are also syllabic
> scripts (Cherokee), abjads (Arabic), abugidas (Sanskrit),
> and featural scripts (Korean).
> > True. And how is that relevant?Someone is looking for nits to pick?
>
> See my last comment but one.
> >> As long as I'm wasting my time, what evidence do you'Medieval studies' tells us medieval sources should be interpreted different from other sources in that one should never assume there is a genuine oral tradition behind the information they bring. Math does not use that type of discrimination.
> >> imagine to have been suppressed?
>
> > Snorri etc.
>
> >> If you say 'Snorri's', you're merely displaying your
> >> continued profound ignorance of medieval studies.
>
> > I tried to make sense of all those attempts at imparting
> > some other purpose to those sources other than the
> > straightforward one of of passing on oral traditions, but
> > it really got so complicated.
>
> Rather like trying to do physics while giving up on making
> sense of mathematics because it's so complicated.