Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Pronunciation of "r" - again?

You fellows really seem to be ganging up on me.  I seem to have hit a raw nerve.  I hope I didn't come across as attacking the English language, because that is not what I meant to do, being a lifelong anglophile.

"Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

At 8:18:46 PM on Sunday, October 9, 2005, Andrew Jarrette
wrote:

[...]

> david_russell_watson <liberty@...> wrote:

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette
>> <anjarrette@...> wrote:

> Only English among Indo-European languages has examples
> like these - where originally rhyming words have diverged,
> with no apparent reason.

MHG bruoder, muoter > NHG Bruder, Mutter

There are several partial changes like this in the passage
from MHG to NHG, though I'd have to do some digging to track
them down; it's not something that I keep at the top of my
head.

But bruoder had "d" and muoter had "t" - though I acknowledge they are near-rhymes.  Another is NHG Futter from OHG fuotar - but here the -ar stands for originally consonantal r that became syllabic in final position, unlike bruoder which always had a vowel before the r (but also unlike muoter which nevertheless developed like fuotar!).

>>> Plus spellings like "ough" with its myriad pronunciations.

>> But as I wrote before, a spelling system is not a >
>> language. The only justification you have in citing >
>> English spelling is the manner in which it, having >
>> fossilized, is a reminder of past sound changes in >
>> English, not as a linguistically atypical feature itself
>> > of the English _language_.

> But English spelling is atypical among Indo-European
> languages. No other Indo-European language has a spelling
> system that is as inconsistent and exception-rich as does
> English.

But as David has now pointed out twice, this has nothing to
do with the English LANGUAGE.  The writing system is a
separate matter altogether.

 

-- I always thought language had both a spoken variety and a written variety, but both called "language".

>> Properly, you should cite only those sound changes which
>> > you consider atypical, not the spelling system that
>> merely _happens_ to reflect and remind us of some of
>> those changes.

> But I am recounting all aspects of English that make it
> nonconforming among Indo-European languages.

This isn't one of them, since -- once again -- it isn't an
aspect of the English LANGUAGE.

 

-- I beg to differ.  I have never heard anyone say that when one is writing English he is not using "language" or "a language".

[...]

>>> Moreover the fact that it's called "English" though at
>>> least 60% of its vocabulary is French or Latin, if not
>>> more, though I am aware that languages such as Albanian
>>> and Farsi also have a high foreign content.

How much of the French lexicon do you think is Frankish in
origin?  And what on earth has the name of the language to
do with anything linguistic?!

 

-- I don't know how much of French is Frankish in origin, do you?  Is it more than 50%? 

 

-- The name "English" tells us something of where the language originated and who originally spoke it.  Because it is named "English", we know it was not originally spoken by the Franks, yet the Franks have contributed a greater portion of our vocabulary than the Angles.

Andrew