Re: [tied] Re: Creole Romance?

At 7:14:29 AM on Saturday, July 5, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 5:41:23 AM on Saturday, July 5, 2003, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

>>> Perhaps this example can shed some on what I mean.

>>> This is from a preface Caxton wrote to a book he
>>> printed:

[snip <eggys> and <eyren>]

> BTW the languages of the records of the North German
> cities switch from Low German to High German within the
> scope of twenty years in the 16th century. At the same
> time as the Hanse finally declines. Don't tell me there's
> no connection here.

Of course there's a connection, though that's obviously not
the only reason.

>>> Note some of my favorite hobby-horses: The mercer, who
>>> is used to trading, uses plural -s, the wyfe is not
>>> indifferent but indignant that someone should speak to
>>> her using plural -s

>> This is a considerable misrepresentation of the passage.
>> The difference between <egges> and <eyren> goes far
>> beyond the nature of the plural inflexion. We are not
>> told that the wife was indignant at all; the merchant was
>> angry because his perfectly good English (from his point
>> of view) had been dismissed as incomprehensible French.

> Right, I should have re-read the story. But obviously, the
> merchant's English is only perfectly good in hindsight;

No. You should also have re-read what I wrote: 'perfectly
good English (FROM HIS POINT OF VIEW)' [emphasis added].
Both varieties were perfectly good from the points of view
of their respective speakers. And from my point of view,
for that matter: the wife's <eyren> was simply another
dialect, not a substandard usage.

> given alternative political developments, -eren might have
> survived in English, and the merchant would now stand
> condemned (and also by you) as the speaker of a corrupt,
> French-influenced substandard dialect that didn't make it.

Not by anyone who knew anything about the history of the
language. Both plurals are native to OE, and the fact that
we have <egg> instead of *<ay> or the like is due to Norse
influence, not French.

>>> You might even interpret the story to mean that as late
>>> as in Caxton's time, people in England used one language
>>> at home and another, more regular one in the market.

>> Whether any of them did or not, there's nothing in
>> Caxton's story that suggests such an interpretation.

> And there's nothing to contradict it.

There's nothing in the story to contradict the notion that
the moon is made of green cheese; would you care to draw
that inference as well?

To the minimal extent that the story says anything about the
matter, it points in the opposite direction. Clearly
neither the merchant nor the wife was acquainted with both
forms of the 'egg' word.

>>> I know that traditionally -s plural is considered a
>>> Northern thing,

>> Naturally: it is. And since the Northern dialects of Old
>> English lost word-final /n/, generalizing the <-es>
>> plural made good sense, especially after word-final schwa
>> also dropped.

> The problem with your analysis is that you see language
> development as something autonomous, while I see it as
> driven by other factors.

I see both, of course. This is not a problem. That you see
only the other factors *is* a problem.

> Thus in a total description of the historical situation
> (not just linguistic), Occam would be in my favor.

Ockham has nothing to say on the subject.

>>> but that's also where the markets (and Norse villages)
>>> were.

>> There were markets all over -- probably more in the
>> south, given the distribution of population. London was
>> the only city of any size even in the late 15th century.

> But the Northern markets is where the Hanse traders went
> to buy wool.

Not really. The wool ports were Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Hull,
Boston, Lynn, Yarmouth, Ipswich, London, Sandwich,
Winchelsea, Chichester, Southampton,
Melcombe/Poole/Weymouth, Bridgwater, Exeter, Plymouth, and
Bristol, of which only the first two are really northern.
In the early days of the Hanse Boston and Lynn were
extremely important; by ~1400. See
<http://www.le.ac.uk/hi/bon/ESFDB/wool.html>. And of course
the Steelyard in London was one of the four chief foreign
trading centres of the Hanse.

> Thus you would have more linguistic diversity on the
> market, and more motivation to use a 'least common
> denominator' language to communicate (as Scandinavians
> do).

The timing doesn't work: the Hanse are too late.

Brian