Re[6]: Language (was: Re: African Languages (was: Re: Re[2]: [tied]

At 4:37:41 PM on Sunday, May 4, 2008, fournet.arnaud wrote:

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

[...]

> I once read interesting things about old Greek and about
> the impact that the alphabet and the possibility of
> writing had on the way people used Greek. Gradually the
> usual erraticity of spoken language diminished. I think
> you are completely unaware of that because you erroneously
> take it for granted.

I have no idea whether it's true of ancient Greek;
considering the low rate of literacy at the time, it seems
unlikely. The existence of a late OE written standard
doesn't seem to have had much effect on the spoken
varieties: ME shows great dialect diversity right from the
beginning. This diversity didn't suddenly spring into
being; all that happened is that the old written standard
broke down, and people started writing according to the way
they spoke.

>>>>> French and German are obviously languages that have been
>>>>> consciously made to be what they are.

>>>> They obviously are not.

>>> You are generally well-informed so it's quite surprising
>>> you wrote this.
>>> French has nearly been invented out of nothing with the
>>> deliberate purpose of replacing Latin.

>> No. French developed out of Vulgar Latin by perfectly
>> normal processes.

> Wrong.
> Old French developed naturally,
> Middle French after say 1500 is massively artificial
> and about everything is graphic-influenced.
> Like the word son <fils>
> the old pronounciation was [fi]

Older, but hardly old. The development is

/fi:lius/ > /filjUs/ > /fil^ts/ > /fits/ > /fis/ > /fi/,

with restoration of /-s/ beginning in Paris in the 18th
century.

> modern standard [fis] is graphic

That's not clear. It also doesn't matter: a handful of
spelling pronunciations (which we also have in English)
don't make a case for a 'massively artificial' development.

[...]

>>> They created the Academie for that purpose :

>> French had already started to diverge noticeably from
>> Latin some 800 years before the Académie was founded.
>> Far from creating a language, it has tried to arbitrate
>> among competing possibilities (and has often been
>> ignored). And a de facto official standard already
>> existed in the 16th century.

> You are really sinking below anything.
> There was no standard at all.
> I advise you to read a book about the history of French

I've read (and understood) several, both linguistic and
sociolinguistic. As far as the written language is
concerned, a Parisian standard was in use for administrative
and commercial purposes in most of the northern half of the
Hexagon by the end of the 15th century.

The spoken language is of course another matter. During the
Sun King's reign 'bon usage' was defined by the Court;
subsequently what we might call the upper middle (or
business) class was probably the most important arbiter of
bon usage. Increasingly, however, this was associated with
the written language, and increasingly the spoken language
went its own way despite the best efforts of schoolteachers,
Academicians, and other would-be Canutes.

Brian