C'est regrettable — surtout sur un site de langues — d'en arriver à qualifier ainsi l'emploi (même infinitésimal) de la langue maternelle de son interlocuteur. Si tu éprouves des difficultés à comprendre le français, tu peux solliciter une traduction. Mais je dois avouer que criminaliser l'usage d'une langue par le biais d'un procès d'intention est un bien piètre expédient.
Pour répondre à ta question, les raisons qui me poussent à croire que ton affirmation est non pertinente avant que d'être éventuellement fausse, c'est son caractère résolument vague qui interdit toute analyse un tant soit peu sérieuse. Si tu avançais des éléments positifs et vérifiables pour étayer ton opinion, on pourrait prendre la peine de les examiner avant de te soutenir ou de te contredire. Mais jusqu'ici tu te retranches derrière des généralités, qui pour être maintes fois ressassées n'en sont pas véridiques pour autant.
C'est regrettable — surtout sur un site de langues — d'en arriver à qualifier ainsi l'emploi (même infinitésimal) de la langue maternelle de son interlocuteur. Si tu éprouves des difficultés à comprendre le français, tu peux solliciter une traduction. Mais je dois avouer que criminaliser l'usage d'une langue par le biais d'un procès d'intention est un bien piètre expédient.
Pour répondre à ta question, les raisons qui me poussent à croire que ton affirmation est non pertinente avant que d'être éventuellement fausse, c'est son caractère résolument vague qui interdit toute analyse un tant soit peu sérieuse. Si tu avançais des éléments positifs et vérifiables pour étayer ton opinion, on pourrait prendre la peine de les examiner avant de te soutenir ou de te contredire. Mais jusqu'ici tu te retranches derrière des généralités, qui pour être maintes fois ressassées n'en sont pas véridiques pour autant.
I believe I grasp the gist of what you said above. I would request a translation but I doubt I would be awarded one.
Basically, you are asserting that my argument lacks substance, because it is far too vauge and generalized, rather than point-specific, so you suggest that I cite details in my argument, from which we can draw a vertiable discussion. If this is not what you are saying in essence, then please provide a translation so we are on the same page.
In response, I cite this key statistic as a start:
Lexical Similarities:
French-Italian: 89%
French-Spanish: 75% _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
In response, I cite this key statistic as a start:
Lexical Similarities:
French-Italian: 89%
French-Spanish: 75%
To which I reply that a 6-point gap in "lexical similarity" is at best a bad worn-out joke : you haven't defined what you called lexic and similarity. Even if you had, you'd still be wanting a method to select "words" eligible to comparison with respect to "similarity" : are Es <ácido desoxirribonucleico>, It <acido desossiribonucleico> & Fr <acide désoxyribonucléique> "similar" or should we first consider the "dissimilarity" of Es-Fr <ADN> compared to It <DNA> ? Now that specific problem can be dismissed (and solved) because of the low frequency of use for both acide désoxyribonucléique & ADN in non-marked registers. But if you take Es <síndrome de inmunodeficiencia adquirida>, It <sindrome da immunodeficienza acquisita> & Fr <syndrome d'immunodéficience acquise> together with Es <SIDA>, Fr <sida> <SIDA> & It <AIDS> — all "words" being more frequently used than acide désoxyribonucléique & ADN —, the same kind of problem remains. Not to mention the impossibility to make an "exhaustive" "inventory" of all "words" for any of the three languages.
A 14 point difference in vocabulary is very significant if you ask me. It shows that French vocabulary has a lot more in common with Italian vocabulary than that of Spanish. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:51 am Post subject:
greg, what specific developments in languages would be considered in determining whether the diachrony of one language is similar that that of another?
Porthos wrote:
The diachrony of French is also more similar to that of Italian than Spanish.
Current lexical similarity aside, what did you base this statement on?
A 14 point difference in vocabulary is very significant if you ask me. It shows that French vocabulary has a lot more in common with Italian vocabulary than that of Spanish.
Sorry : it was a 14-point difference indeed, not 6. But it's risible all the same. And it doesn't show anything because you haven't explained how this "study" was conducted. So I'll do it for you.
Ethnologue.com
The percentage of similarity is determined by comparing a standardized set of wordlists and counting those forms that show similarity in both form and meaning. Percentages higher than 85% usually indicate a speech variant that is likely a dialect of the language being compared.
Answers.com
Lexical similarity can be used to evaluate the degree of genetical relationship between two languages. Percentages higher than 85% usually indicate that the two languages being compared are likely to be dialects.
Objections :
1/ The "study" compares santardised sets of wordlists. So this is not about lexical similarity or dissimilarity between French and Spanish. It's about similarity or dissimilarity between sets of wordlists assumed to be translated in French and Spanish.
2/ Despite the above-mentioned integral default affecting synchronic "comparison", the "method" purports to deliver diachronic — and even genetical (!) — information. This is a farce ! In particular 1/ for languages (as English) which have been enduring massive transformation through lexical borrowing (from non-Germanic sources in the case of English, a Germanic language, as you know) — 2/ for any language that resorted or is still resorting to Greco-Roman neology to coin new words.
3/ According to those idiotic definitions, French is likely to be a dialect of Italian and it is plausible that Italian is a French dialect. Unless both are dialects of Franco-italian or Italofrench.
4/ Now we know that French is lexically more similar to German (29 %) that it is to English (27 %).
Deborah wrote:
greg, what specific developments in languages would be considered in determining whether the diachrony of one language is similar that that of another?
That's a titanic question you're asking Deborah and I don't have the answer. However, Old Oïl & Old Oc are thought to have gone their separate ways earlier than Old Castilian and Old Tuscan did. Since none of the speakers of the languages mentioned is still living to be recorded, assumptions are based on *SCRIPTA* found. Michel Banniard, a linguist, claims Oïl Romance (Northern Romany) "emerged" during the second half of the 8th century. Then "came" Old Oc (Central Romany) in the first half of the 9th century. Old Castilian (Southwestern Romany): second half of the 9th century. Old Tuscan (Souheastern Romany) : first half of the 10th century. Actually Banniard groups Old Tuscan with Old-Gallo-Italic languages (Central Romany, which includes Old Occitan & Old Catalan too), which is why (among other reasons like the possible "emergence" of Protogascon around 600) some elements of that approach may be subject to caution. In addition, all dates refer to when vertical orocommunication (in religious contexts : preaches, sermons etc) between Latinophone élites and Romanophone masses was close to impossible. However, if the hypothesis that Old Oïl & Old Oc "emerged" earlier than other Romance languages (at least in their respective written forms) were true, it would suggest that periodisation alone would suffice to differentiate diachrony A from diachrony B.
This is no substantiated answer of course, at least as far as diachronic processes per se are concerned. But those are so complex, massive and took place during such a long time that I cannot answer your question satisfactorily. Extralinguistic factors (like the gradual disindividuation of what was once a Latinophone area, Romania continua, into contrasted Romanophone territories) may explain why diachrony A differs from diachrony B or alternatively why you could consider one single diachrony AB for a certain period of time.
Now, more linguistical factors may be retained : late persistence of bicasual declension (Oïl & Oc), phonological evolutions, conjugation getting periphrastic¹ etc.
¹ For instance Late Orolatin <cantare habeo> {I will sing} is thought to have become LOL<cantarayo> later. See It <canterò>, Es <cantaré>, Oc <cantarai> & Fr <chanterai>. The original periphrase for future has now been synthetised in Italian, Spanish, Occitan & French. However, Eastern Romany's Late Orolatin had <cantare volo> {I will sing} (like some bits of Northern Romany : Rumantsch). Now you get <cînta-voi> or <voi cînta> in Romanian (still analytic = periphrastic).
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:35 am Post subject:
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Deborah wrote:
greg, what specific developments in languages would be considered in determining whether the diachrony of one language is similar that that of another?
That's a titanic question you're asking Deborah and I don't have the answer.
Thanks a million! The information you provided was more than I was hoping to get. Before, I had very little idea what sort of comparisons would be made, and now I have some idea.
greg, what specific developments in languages would be considered in determining whether the diachrony of one language is similar that that of another?
Porthos wrote:
The diachrony of French is also more similar to that of Italian than Spanish.
Current lexical similarity aside, what did you base this statement on?
I don't know for sure. But I based my assumption on the fact that the point at which they arrived today, should give us some insight as to how they evolved, since we have the original (vulgar Latin) and the modern form (French, Spanish, Italian) from which to compare. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Not exactly so. The point at which they arrived today gives you a hint as to what they have eventually developped into — not as to how they evolved at all. To assess the latter, you need diachronic data — evenly spread across 1.500 years, ideally — because the period considered is measured in centuries (roughly fifteen and even more if you note that some linguistic processes that led to Old Romance were already working in Latin and Early Latin).
The "original" isn't Vulgar Latin — as opposed to Classical Latin. The original is Orolatin and more specifically Late Orolatin. Late Orolatin itself was a diasystemic living language subject to change and variation just like any other human language is. Both innovation and conservatism were affecting Late Orolatin without the diasystem lost its unity nor complexity. Scriptolatin, too, endured the same conditions except it wasn't quantitatively as widespread as Orolatin for most of Late-Antiquity Latinophones were analphabetic and/or illiterate. That quantitative difference, combined with sociolinguistic factors related to power and prestige, explains why 1/ some changes and/or innovations took more time to be ratified by Late Scriptolatin compared to Late Orolatin — 2/ some changes and/or innovations already ratified were consciously and deliberately rejected from Late Scriptolatin (and later Mediolatin) so that the "integrity" of the written language could be "restored".
Bear in mind the false friends between Scots and English.
Mind the fauls freens atween Scoats an Inglis.
I doubt ye ken hoo unco this leid is fae Inglis bit ye dinnae waunt tae ken at is richt.
It's interesting to see your views on the Scots language. A language in its own right or a dialect...
For me, it is a language. It's just too different from English to be considered a dialect. I've lived in Scotland all my life and I know the Scots language. A lot of people do not understand me when I speak in Scots.
Even English-speaking tourists are left scratching their heads in Scotland after hearing locals talking in a "strange dialect".
Deek yer skon an dinna greet wi eens o aal skelp yis, eejits! Jist ye gae an houk yer tatties! _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
I doubt ye ken hoo unco this leid is fae Inglis bit ye dinnae waunt tae ken at is richt.
My attempt at translating the above: "I doubt you know how uncouth this language is for the English, but you don't want to know what is right."
How was that translation?
Quote:
Deek yer skon an dinna greet wi eens o aal skelp yis, eejits! Jist ye gae an houk yer tatties!
What does the above mean?
And are you writing in your own personal orthography????, because most regional dialects do not have a standard spelling system, and this may be the case with what you are presenting as Scots. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I doubt ye ken hoo unco this leid is fae Inglis bit ye dinnae waunt tae ken at is richt.
My attempt at translating the above: "I doubt you know how uncouth this language is for the English, but you don't want to know what is right."
How was that translation?
No guid, aam feird...
(= not good, I'm afraid)...
Porthos wrote:
Quote:
Deek yer skon an dinna greet wi eens o aal skelp yis, eejits! Jist ye gae an houk yer tatties!
What does the above mean?
You tell me. You claimed in your earlier posts that Scots is nearly 100% mutually intelligible in the written form.
It's impossible to make a quick judgement of a language/dialect based on just a few sources because there is more to it than just that. Culture has a lot to do with it because then the vocabulary is influenced (ie. how words are used in idiomatic expressions, etc.). Another thing is grammar which is different from English. Scots has emphatic personal pronouns which English lacks, Scots also have the emphatic form of the verb "to do" which English lacks, and Scots still uses -en(s) to pluralise nouns (shue [shoe] = shuin [shoes]; ee [eye] = eens [eyes]). Scots grammar is a bit similar to Dutch, for example, Scots says "I am at" (lit.: I am that) as a confirmed reply whereas English says "I am". And the use of "-ing" (spelled as "-in" in Scots) in Scots is different from how it is used in English, etc.
Porthos wrote:
And are you writing in your own personal orthography????, because most regional dialects do not have a standard spelling system, and this may be the case with what you are presenting as Scots.
Not so much personal. You're right that there is no standard spelling system in Scots so when written down they are spelled as how the speakers perceive they are pronounced. However, there does seem to be two unofficial spelling systems employed by the Scots speakers depending on the region in which they're residing because there are two major dialects of Scots: Lallans (spoken in the south) and Doric (spoken in the north-east). _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
Last edited by Daniel on Fri May 11, 2007 7:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
It'll ne'er be a leid* till King Jamie comes hame....
(* Scots for "language")
Just being a bit picky but the word "ne'er" isn't Scots. It's English. The Scots word is "nivver".
This sort of assumption is sad because a lot of people seem to think that because the 'v' is not found in certain Scots words whereas it is in English, it means that the Scots speakers have omitted this sound.
In fact, linguists who studied and researched the Scots language have proved that this letter hasn't been omitted because it was never there in the first place! For example, the Scots word for "over" is "ower" and because English speakers make the mistake of assuming that they've omitted the "v" which was never there in the first place they write the apostrophe in the word so that it's "o'er" to reflect this anyway.
The same goes for the Scots verb ending "-in" (greetin = crying: past tense "grat" = cried) where people assume that the "g" is omitted when in fact it was never there in the first place. Again with "wi" (with) which is not spelled with an apostrophe. _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
I doubt ye ken hoo unco this leid is fae Inglis bit ye dinnae waunt tae ken at is richt.
I suspect you know how different this language is from English but you don't want to accept this. ??
Daniel wrote:
Deek yer skon an dinna greet wi eens o aal skelp yis, eejits!
I know that to deek/deke is used in some English dialects as well — does it mean something like 'to show'? I recognise some of the other words (like 'eejits' = 'idiots'), but I'm not sure that I could translate it.
Daniel wrote:
Jist ye gae an houk yer tatties!
Just go and dig your potatoes up! ?? (probably not, LOL).
I have since learned that "fae" means "from", so my translation would have been something more like Benjamin's had I known that.
I propose (if you're willing) that you post an audio of yourself speaking to us in the local English dialect, and one in Scots, to see how different the two really are.
Is Scots a native language for you, or did you learn it later on in life? Did the peers you grew up with speak it in the household?
And I've noticed in many direct translations from English to Scots, that Scots seems to simplify the vocabulary, using more every-day words, while English will use a Romance word like "influence". _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I doubt ye ken hoo unco this leid is fae Inglis bit ye dinnae waunt tae ken at is richt.
I suspect you know how different this language is from English but you don't want to accept this. ??
Daniel wrote:
Deek yer skon an dinna greet wi eens o aal skelp yis, eejits!
I know that to deek/deke is used in some English dialects as well — does it mean something like 'to show'? I recognise some of the other words (like 'eejits' = 'idiots'), but I'm not sure that I could translate it.
Daniel wrote:
Jist ye gae an houk yer tatties!
Just go and dig your potatoes up! ?? (probably not, LOL).
:|
You're actually correct in both translations. Expert! _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
I propose (if you're willing) that you post an audio of yourself speaking to us in the local English dialect, and one in Scots, to see how different the two really are.
I can't. I'm Deaf and so my speech isn't that great... I can speak but not the best.
Porthos wrote:
Is Scots a native language for you, or did you learn it later on in life? Did the peers you grew up with speak it in the household?
My grandparents in Edinburgh speak a form of Scots but it's badly influenced by English... I picked up a lot of vocabulary from them though. My dad sometimes speaks in a dialect of Scots whenever he feels like it but mostly speaks standard Scottish English.
So I grew up with that (standard Scottish English), not Scots (which I picked up from others later). My native language is BSL.
Porthos wrote:
And I've noticed in many direct translations from English to Scots, that Scots seems to simplify the vocabulary, using more every-day words, while English will use a Romance word like "influence".
Well, Scots does have a significant number of French and Latin loanwords like "malgre", and "ashet" (which don't exist in English) and this shows that Scots assimilated different Romance words from English.
_________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
