From: Rick McCallister
Message: 62967
Date: 2009-02-10
> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>You don't, but don't simplify things to the extent that you blot out everything else
> Subject: [tied] Re: s-stems in Slavic and Germanic
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 5:56 PM
> > > Please don't try to confuse the picture. The
> thing that wreaks
> > > havoc with a grammar is the learners being on
> top. For such a
> > > language to survive the contemptuous attitude of
> the strangers in
> > > control, there has to be a reversal of fate, with
> reversal of
> > > attitude as a consequence, like the Normans
> giving up their
> > > ambitions in France, or the Turkic peoples
> (Avars, Cumans etc.)
> > > being defeated in the Balkans.
> >
> > Torsten, if it were that easy, then Ruhlen would be
> doctrine.
>
> What is it you think I have in common with Ruhlen?
>Yes, but things were already headed in that direction anyway --e.g. the Balkan Sprachbund.
> > Keep in mind that Macedonia, Bulgaria and Albanian are
> on the line
> between Ancient Greek and Latin, and these were on top of
> various
> substrate.
> > Then Slavic comes in and Macedonia & Bulgaria is
> where they peter
> out, leaving a linguistic frontier with Byzantine Greek
> plus an
> undercurrent of pre-Romanian speakers, etc. Then the Turks
> come and
> complicate things even more.
> >
>
> True, but the creolization which is the loss of the noun
> flexion came
> about because those that mattered were Turkic-speakers, not
> native
> Slavic-speakers.
>
>
> Torsten