Re: Daci

From: tgpedersen
Message: 12755
Date: 2002-03-19

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:28 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Daci
>
>
> But a general remark: It seems to me you often use the argument
that since we can't conclude on linguistic grounds that something has
happened, then it would be unscientific to assume it did, and
therefore it didn't happen, also given pertinent extra-linguistic
evidence that it might have happened. Case in point: the possible
identity of the Getae and the Goths. (Trying to represent your
position:) If they spoke dissimilar languages we cannot entertain the
possibility that they might have been the same people (wholy or
partly) and therefore Jordanes is definitely wrong if he claims they
were.
>
> If there were any good evidence of any kind supporting tht claim, I
wouldn't be obstructive. But your argument was based on a collection
of linguistic _and_ extralinguistic implausibilities -- a real comedy
of errors resulting from the misidentification of accidentally
similar names (see also George's most recent posting). Sorry, but I
don't feel like discussing it all once again.
>
> >> What was once "pre-" may easily become "post-" (witness East
Scandinavian articles).
>
> > You mean North Germanic outside of West Jutland, I suppose?
Correct, if you think that the suffixed article started with -inn.
>
> Thanks for the correction. As for the suffixed article, it
_started_ with <h-> originally (ON <hinn, hin, hit>) but lost the
initial when agglutinated to a noun. The position of demonstratives
in early Germanic was predominantly (albeit not exclusively)
prenominal, and it was only in North Germanic that the fixed
combination *dagr-hinn > dagr-inn developed as an alternative to
<hinn dagr> and the enclitic began to function as an article.

Yep, that is the official version. I was wondering if the *dag-r-inn
(stem + case + definiteness) was not an intellectual restructuring
within North Germanic of something older based on *-H1on-
>
>

Languages (or their speakers) certainly don't "desire" change.
Anyone's first language is a historical given, not something that one
can shape and change if one so wishes. Some types of change are
common and can be regarded as natural, others are rare, but the most
commonly occurring ones don't necessarily "optimise" language
structure in any sense, or make the language more efficient, more
beautiful or more something-else (in terms of some global
directionality). The palatalisation of velars before front vowels or
weak-vowel deletion are examples of commonplace changes that can play
havoc with the morphology. People let them happen nonetheless and
don't seem to worry about the consequences -- even a royal decree
against sloppy pronunciation would not help :)

You are merely restating your position. And Danish has restored <sj> -
<sk>, even without royal decree. Worry about consequences may lead
to restoring paradigms.

>
>
> > As for gender disappearing, a few facts. In Dutch and in the East
North Germanic languages genders have been reduced to two: common and
neuter. In West Jutland genders have been reduced further to one, as
in English. But in parts of Jutland, there is a transitional
situation: grammatiacal gender has been replaced by functional
gender: common gender is used for countables <den hus>, neuter for
non-countables. Thus also partly in standard Danish: <den oel> "that
(bottle of) beer" vs <det oel> "that beer" (eg. spilled on the
table). In other words: Since the division masculine/feminine was
useless, it could be given up, but between speakers of various
Germanic dialects, parts of the distinction common/neuter could be
put to sensible use (eg the articles <den> vs. <det>) and therefore
did not disappear. In a situation where a non-Germanic substrate or
superstrate language was involved, the whole system collapsed, since
they would have clue as to what should be grammatically common and
what neuter gender, based on Germanic.
>
> Contact may accelerate change because it increases variation
(through code-switching, borrowing and various forms of cross-
language interference in the speech of bilinguals), but even
geographically isolated languages undergo change and experience
systemic collapses from time to time. It is also true that
linguistic "driftwood" (the junk produced by language change,
consisting of loose fragments of earlier structure) may become
recycled or exapted, and get a new life in a new function.

Yes, and? I provided an example of the disappearance of grammatical
categories being determined by their usefulness, whereupon you
restate your position.


What I have argued, however, is that there are no conservation laws
protecting grammatical categories and their functions, and that
speakers do not assess the "usefulness" of the present or future
structural state of their language in order to decide if they should
opt for or against language change.

You may argue, but given the nature of the matter, neither of us can
provide proof.


You don't seem to have much confidence in the speakers of the
language, do you? But given the mechanical nature of language wear
and tear, try to provide an estimate of when eg. Polish will have
lost its case endings to become as analytical as Bulgarian?

>
> >> You make phonological change sound like a kind of weathering,
doing things to people's language which they are powerless to
control. I don't believe that.
>
> Ever heard of enthropy?
Yes, in the context of physics.

The phonological form of morphemes and words typically decays with
the flow of time. The rate of erosion is uneven, but what's been lost
generally doesn't come back (except in special cases like spelling-
pronunciations, which can be regarded as sui generis loans from
written language). Articulatory strengthening is on the whole rarer
than lenition and assimilation. Do you think the French changed
[akwa], [augustus], [faktus] and [wi:ginti:] to [o], [u], [fE] and
[vE~] through some kind of conscious language engineering (or other
motivated behaviour) rather than mechanical lenition?

Mechanical? Rather sociological. For one reason or another, what used
to be considerered sloppy pronunciation may acquire high status.


This doesn't mean that languages move from perfection to corruption,
because morphemes can be combined in novel ways. As a result, new
structure emerges, restoring morphological complexity.

Yes, yes. Who and what are you arguing against now?
>
> Piotr

Torsten