| Author |
Message |
Des Small
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
aloe@rev.net (The Green Troll) writes:
| Quote: | Spanish and Italian are supposed to be mutually intelligible. Are they
dialects of Latin, or separate languages?
|
Yes.
Des
has set follow-ups
--
"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the
International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had
close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian
and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Green Troll
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
Mark Barratt <mark.barratt@enternet.hu> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bb3b6e2177a1cf29896ac@news.individual.net>...
| Quote: | Ethnologue (see
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=VLA> disagrees
with you. Whilst agreeing with you that "Vlaams" is commonly used
in Flanders to refer to the standard language (I.e. Dutch), the
site itself uses the name for the language spoken in West Flanders,
Zeeland (Netherlands) and parts of France, which it distinguishes
as a separate language.
|
Other than the portion of Flanders nearest linguistically-related
England, what other part of France speaks Vlaams?
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/geography> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Green Troll
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote in message news:<2quo5pF13ti8lU1@uni-berlin.de>...
| Quote: | Speaking Macedonian was banned for a while in Greece, and a few Serbs
and Croatians still like to claim that it is either the same as their
language or that it is Bulgarian.
|
Did Alexander the Great speak Macedonian, or only Greek?
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/couchpotato>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Green Troll
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote in message news:<2qphvbF12f6h8U2@uni-berlin.de>...
| Quote: | Maybe you've only heard Glaswegian. If so, then you may be correct, but
most Scots are intelligible - some of the Highlanders speak, if
anything, more clearly than some of us.
|
I remember hearing Highlanders speak in "The Story of English" on PBS.
I was led to believe that Gaelic-speaking Highlanders learn standard
English in school rather than Lowland (Lallans) Scottish. If so, their
"clear speech" (as perceived by English speakers like me) is not a
dialect of Scottish at all.
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/couchpotato> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Green Troll
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
michilin@shaw.ca (Michilín) wrote in message news:<414f32fb.4074508@news>...
| Quote: | It did and furthermore there have been other changes over the
centuries in Irish, whereas Scottish Gaelic (in line with my theory
about colonists hanging onto the old ways in order to preserve the
culture) has preserved the older grammatical and speech patterns,
thereby making it as the Irish say, "old" Irish.
|
When a colony is established by a mix of people from throughout the
old country, the language in the colony becomes homogenized (a process
called 'leveling'). Since 500, divergent dialects have sent waves of
change across Ireland. In the Scottish Highlands, the development of
dialects was set back and damped. Thus, Scottish Gaelic now seems
archaic.
Likewise, Icelandic is still close to Old Norse.
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/norway> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yog-Sothoth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:16 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
Goat like "The Green Troll" <aloe@rev.net> while grazing in
<5f6363d3.0409280419.4b7e786c@posting.google.com>, made the following
shapes:
| Quote: | Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote in message news:<2quo5pF13ti8lU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Speaking Macedonian was banned for a while in Greece, and a few Serbs
and Croatians still like to claim that it is either the same as their
language or that it is Bulgarian.
Did Alexander the Great speak Macedonian, or only Greek?
|
Same language. Macedonian was an ancient Greek Dialect before it got
consolidated into the Koine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michilín
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2004 05:48:41 -0700, aloe@rev.net (The Green Troll) wrote:
| Quote: | michilin@shaw.ca (Michilín) wrote in message news:<414f32fb.4074508@news>...
It did and furthermore there have been other changes over the
centuries in Irish, whereas Scottish Gaelic (in line with my theory
about colonists hanging onto the old ways in order to preserve the
culture) has preserved the older grammatical and speech patterns,
thereby making it as the Irish say, "old" Irish.
When a colony is established by a mix of people from throughout the
old country, the language in the colony becomes homogenized (a process
called 'leveling'). Since 500, divergent dialects have sent waves of
change across Ireland. In the Scottish Highlands, the development of
dialects was set back and damped. Thus, Scottish Gaelic now seems
archaic.
Likewise, Icelandic is still close to Old Norse.
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/norway
|
In fact we know because they exist today that the development of
divergent dialects happened in Scotland, but all are based on the
original Irish the colonists brought with them to Scotland; the
closest to Irish being the dialect of the island of Islay, the
physically closest major Scots Gaelic-speaking centre to Ireland.
Michilín |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michilín
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2004 05:30:19 -0700, aloe@rev.net (The Green Troll) wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote in message news:<2qphvbF12f6h8U2@uni-berlin.de>...
Maybe you've only heard Glaswegian. If so, then you may be correct, but
most Scots are intelligible - some of the Highlanders speak, if
anything, more clearly than some of us.
I remember hearing Highlanders speak in "The Story of English" on PBS.
I was led to believe that Gaelic-speaking Highlanders learn standard
English in school rather than Lowland (Lallans) Scottish. If so, their
"clear speech" (as perceived by English speakers like me) is not a
dialect of Scottish at all.
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/couchpotato
|
Quite correct. They are bilingual in Gaelic and English. Most have
some difficulty understanding Scots, but then so do many city-dwelling
Scots who now speak English with a Scottish accent plus an occasional
Scots word thrown in (whose ancestors were Scots speakers),
Michilín |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:24 am
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:52:29 +0800, Robert Bannister
<robban@it.net.au> wrote:
| Quote: | Anti-imperialist wrote:
I could not understand "Trainspotting" and neither could anyone in my
family. And we all did our best. Scots is separate language.
Maybe you've only heard Glaswegian.
|
'Trainspotting' was set in Edinburgh, and the cast used Edinburgh
accents and dialect. None of that Weegie stuff.
For the cod-Glaswegian that Surrey residents write to the BBC about
(either demanding subtitles or that it be taken off the air for not
being English) you have to watch 'Rab C. Nesbitt'.
Giles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
June R Harton
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
"The Green Troll" <aloe@rev.net> wrote in message
news:5f6363d3.0409280419.4b7e786c@posting.google.com...
Here, troll, let the ancients answer you:
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E
/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Antony*.html
For fair use only
" On the following day Antony feasted her in his turn, and was ambitious to
surpass her splendour and elegance, but in both regards he was left behind,
and vanquished in these very points, and was first to rail at the meagreness
and rusticity of his own arrangements. Cleopatra observed in the jests of
Antony much of the soldier and the common man, and adopted this manner also
towards him, without restraint now, and boldly. For her beauty, as we are
told, was in itself not altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those
who saw her; but converse with her had an irresistible charm, and her
presence, combined with the persuasiveness of her discourse and the
character which was somehow diffused about her behaviour towards others, had
something stimulating about it. There was sweetness also in the tones of her
voice; and her tongue, like an instrument of many strings, she could readily
turn to whatever language she pleased, so that in her interviews with
Barbarians she very seldom had need of an interpreter, but made her replies
to most of them herself and unassisted, whether they were Ethiopians,
Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes or Parthians. Nay, it is said
that she knew the speech of many other peoples also, although the kings of
Egypt before her had not even made an effort to learn the native language,
and some actually gave up their Macedonian dialect."
De Fortuna Alexandri by Plutarch
Loeb Classical Library, 1936:
"But after Philip's end, when Alexander was eager to cross over and, already
absorbed in his hopes and preparations, was hastening to gain a hold upon
Asia, Fortune, seizing upon him, blocked his way, turned him about, dragged
him back, and surrounded him with countless distractions and delays. First
she threw into the utmost commotion the barbarian elements among his
neighbours, and contrived wars with the Illyrians and Triballians. By these
wars he was drawn from his Asiatic projects as far away as the portion of
Scythia that lies along the Danube; when, by sundry manoeuvres, he had
subjugated all this territory with much danger and great struggles, he was
again eager and in haste for the crossing. Again, however, Fortune stirred
up Thebes against him, and thrust in his pathway a war with Greeks, and the
dread necessity of punishing, by means of slaughter and fire and sword, men
that were his kith and kin, a necessity which had a most unpleasant ending."
De Fortuna Alexandri by Plutarch
Loeb Classical Library, 1936:
"But Virtue was by his side and in him she engendered daring, and in his =
companions strength and zeal. For men like Limnaeus and Ptolemy and =
Leonnatus and all those who had surmounted the wall or had broken =
through it took their stand before him and were a bulwark of Virtue, =
exposing their bodies in the face of the foe and even their lives for =
the goodwill and love they bore their king. Surely it is not due to =
Fortune that the companions of good kings risk their lives and willingly =
die for them; but this they do through a passion for Virtue, even as =
bees, as if under the spell of love-charms, approach and closely =
surround their sovereign.=20
What spectator, then, who might without danger to himself have been =
present at that scene, would not exclaim that he was witnessing the =
mighty contest of Fortune and Virtue; that through Fortune the foreign =
host was prevailing beyond its deserts, but through Virtue the Greeks =
were holding out beyond their ability? And if the enemy gains the upper =
hand, this will be the work of Fortune or of some jealous deity or of =
divine retribution; but if the Greeks prevail, it will be Virtue and =
daring, friendship and fidelity, that will win the guerdon of victory? =
These were, in fact, the only support that Alexander had with him at =
this time, since Fortune had put a barrier between him and the rest of =
his forces and equipment, fleets, horse, and camp.=20
Finally, the Macedonians routed the barbarians, and, when they had =
fallen, pulled down their city on their heads."
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Green Troll
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
"allan connochie" <allan@EASYNET.CO.UK> wrote in message news:<41599fc5@news.greennet.net>...
| Quote: | I agree that racist posts
as such are unwelcome in any group as are posts where people are throwing
obscenities.
|
There ought to be at least one newsgroup for people who want to trade
vicious insults. Otherwise, they contaminate the others.
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/couchpotato> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Green Troll
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
Yog-Sothoth <Allotrios@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bc3748566eac2b698ad9a@news.demon.co.uk>...
| Quote: | Macedonian was an ancient Greek Dialect before it got
consolidated into the Koine.
|
They must be related in the same way as Old Prussian and a Prussian
dialect of German.
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/couchpotato> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Green Troll
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote in message news:<2quo5pF13ti8lU1@uni-berlin.de>...
| Quote: | Speaking Macedonian was banned for a while in Greece,
|
What was the penalty?
How many Greek law enforcement officers could distinguish it from
Bulgarian or Serbo-Croatian?
How did tourists deal with the law?
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/freedom> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Green Troll
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
"allan connochie" <allan@EASYNET.CO.UK> wrote in message news:<4158c933@news.greennet.net>...
| Quote: | For various
reasons the upper echelons of society became heavily anglicised and stopped
speaking Scots.
|
Why didn't Scots become a prestige tongue in 1603, as had Norman French in 1066?
| Quote: | Scots
however is now considered an official minority language by the Scottish
Parliament, the British Parliament and the European Union. Other minority
languages officially recognised from when Britain signed the charter were
Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gealic, and Ulster Scots. Last year Cornish
joined the list.
|
What would it take to get similar status for Norn?
-- Spud <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/couchpotato> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Edgey
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language? |
|
|
aloe@rev.net (The Green Troll) wrote in message news:<5f6363d3.0409300024.63d51f82@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | "allan connochie" <allan@EASYNET.CO.UK> wrote in message news:<4158c933@news.greennet.net>...
For various
reasons the upper echelons of society became heavily anglicised and stopped
speaking Scots.
Why didn't Scots become a prestige tongue in 1603, as had Norman French in 1066?
Scots
however is now considered an official minority language by the Scottish
Parliament, the British Parliament and the European Union. Other minority
languages officially recognised from when Britain signed the charter were
Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gealic, and Ulster Scots. Last year Cornish
joined the list.
What would it take to get similar status for Norn?
|
Having native speakers would help.
Alan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in