Re: Volcae and Volsci

> > > Looking at the
> > > "I be, you be, he be" type of verb morphology,
> > > Afrikaans does seem to be closer to either Gullah or a
> > > basilectal form of AAVE.
> >
> > Actually it's
> > ek is, jy is, hy is, ons is, julle is, hulle is, vs.
> > ik ben, jij bent, hij is, wij zijn, jullie zijn, zij
> > zijn,
>
> Yes, but it follows the pattern of AAVE "I be"

I was trying to introduce the next subject. Da. er, Sw. är is the ON
3sg.; the other Scand. verb forms are too.

> > the general rule is that the Dutch verb stem is used
> > ek hoor, jy hoor, hy hoor, ons hoor, julle hoor, hulle hoor, vs.
> > ik hoor, jij hoort, hij hoort, wij horen, jullie horen, zij horen,
>
> "hear"?, not the same thing as hoer? ;p

You got that right.

> > except when the stem ends in a vowel, the the Dutch infinitive is
> > used
> > ek sien, jy sien, hy sien, ons sien, julle sien, hulle sien, vs.
> > ik zie, jij ziet, hij ziet, wij zien, jullie zien, zij zien,
> >
> > Now, that seems natural enough. But:
> >
> > This is Danish:
> > jeg er, du er, han er, vi er, I er, de er,
> > jeg hører, du hører, han hører, vi hører, I hører, de hører,
> > jeg ser, du ser, han ser, vi ser, I ser, de ser,
> > Swedish:
> > jag är, du är, han är, vi är, ni är, de är,
> > jag hör, du hör, han hör, vi hör, ni hör, de hör,
> > jag ser, du ser, han ser, vi ser, ni ser, de ser,
> >
> > WTF?
>
> Jag talae igge Dansk.

WTF is actually English?

> >
> > Until early 20th century, Danish and Swedish had separate forms in
> > the plural, and Swedish had a special, otherwise unknown form in
> > the 2pl:
> > Danish:
> > jeg er, du er, han er, vi ere, I ere, de ere,
> > jeg hører, du hører, han hører, vi høre, I høre, de høre,
> > jeg ser, du ser, han ser, vi se, I se, de se,
> > Swedish:
> > jag är, du är, han är, vi äro, ni ären, de äro,
> > jag hör, du hör, han hör, vi höra, I hören, de höra,
> > jag ser, du ser, han ser, vi se, I sen, de se,
> >
> > But there was always confusion, documented back to Jyske Lov of
> > 1241; Oehlenschläger, the initiator of the Romantic Period in
> > Danish literature started his breakthrough poem 'Guldhornene' with
> > De higer og søger
> > i gamle bøger
> > ...
> > and this rule was one the educators had to 'enforce' as witnessed
> > by its almost simultaneous official disappearance in Danish and
> > Swedish.
> >
> > Now what happened to the Scandinavian languages that made them go
> > through a historical process that led to a result similar to that
> > of Afrikaans?
> > Cf verb inflection in Old Norse
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse
> >
> >
> > Torsten
>
> Yes, good question BUT are you suggesting that every language with
> no or little verb morphology is the result of creolization?

Well, at least those with a documented history showing reduction of
verb inflection.

> Is Chinese the result of a TS + Tai-Kadai creolization?

I don't think we can prove Old Chinese had verb inflection.

> Is Bengali the result of an IA + TS + Mon Khmer creolization?

Sounds reasonable.

> etc.

I think for a language to lose 'redundant' or 'unnecessary'
inflection, it must go through a stage of adult learning; that
corresponds historically to a conquest, or the like.


Torsten