Re: Creole Romance?

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

> At 8:01:33 AM on Monday, July 7, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > And the other ones are?
>
> The most obvious is the influence of the Luther bible.

The Luther bible was published in two translations, a High German and
a Low German one. There was no particular need to adopt the High
German instead of the Low German one.

>
> >>> 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.
>
> > I said _alternative_. Contrafactual history.
>
> I know what you said. Your comment makes sense only if you
> were talking about an alternative history that diverges from
> the real one *after* the merchant and the wife had their
> little contretemps, one in which a southern dialect
> prevailed; in such a history the merchant's <egges> is still
> due to Norse influence.
>

Now you get it.

> >>>>> 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?
>
> > Cheap shot.
>
> No, just a reductio ad absurdum.
>
> > You can't infer anything from a non-contradiction, and we
> > both know that. I'm saying this story doesn't disprove my
> > theory.
>
> That is significantly weaker than your original claim ('You
> might even interpret ...'), for which the story contains
> about as much evidence as for the claim that the moon is
> made of green cheese. In any case the story is *at best*
> irrelevant to your theory:
>

To be read as 'you might even get away with interpreting...' (since
this piece of evidence won't contradict it).

> >> 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.
>
> The rest of the prologue further emphasizes the diversity of
> dialects and Caxton's perplexity at having to choose among
> competing usages. Had your market standard existed on any
> wide scale, it would have been an obvious choice, worth
> mentioning if only to explain why something else was chosen.
>

Obviously it was the one Caxton chose. And it might have been so
mmuch used in the North as to become the standard there.

...

>
> >>> 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.
>
> > I know they were present during the Peasant's revolt, my
> > brother did a paper on a report ot it back to the HQ at
> > Marienburg (Malbork(?)). Otherwise I'd have to go for
> > Flemish traders then.
>
> ('I'm *sure* these pieces will fit together if I just push
> hard enough!')
>

> Forget the Hanse. The <-s> plural has been 'stealing' nouns
> for a very long time. In the second continuation of the
> Peterborough Chronicle (~1154) I notice for instance <neves>
> 'nephews' for classical OE <nefan>, <nadres> 'adders' for OE
> <næ:dran>, <for ure sinnes> 'for our sins' for OE <for u:re
> synna>, <mid deovles> 'with devils' for OE <mid deoflum>
> (nom.pl. <deoflu> or <deofol>), and <mid suilce dædes> 'with
> such deeds' for OE <mid swilcum dæ:dum>, just in the annal
> for 1137. The Ormulum (late 12th c.) offers similar
> examples, e.g., <wordess> 'words' (OE zero-plural neuter)
> and <sinness> 'sins' (OE e-plural feminine), though Orm also
> uses <word> and <sinne>.
>
> And long before that, in OE proper, masc. i-stems like
> <wine> 'friend' show up with analogical nom.pl. <winas>
> beside inherited <wine>.
>

And you similarly find loss of dat. pl. in Jyske Lov of 1241 too
(less in the contemporary Skånske Lov). Which illustrates my point:
these 'creolised' dialects had been in existence before they were
chosen as the 'de jure' language standard.

Torsten