Re: Language Drift
- From: mcv <mcvmcv@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Jun 2006 09:25:56 GMT
In article <448dda0e$1_2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> you wrote:
mcv wrote:
Roger Connor <raconnor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I disagree that the written Shakespeare is more understandable - it too
in the original spelling form is difficult reading. And even in modern
spelling, the turn of phrase requires some knowledge of historical
context to make complete sense.
Have you ever tried reading medieval German, Dutch or French? Shakespeare
is _very_ readable in comparison.
BUT, the discussion was of the "drift" in languages, and I was using
English as the basis to "quantify" the said "drift".
In that case the spelling of many other languages drifted a lot more.
Also please note
that Shakespeare is NOT medieval or at most extremely late medieval-
early Renaissance.
You're right. I thought he lived in the 15th century, but it turns
out he was born well after the death of Charles V, the last of the
many dates that could conceivably mark the "end of the middle ages".
(Not being English, I wasn't bludgeoned to death with the history of
Shakespear in school.)
That may be bad, but at least it's between several different countries
or differences within a very large country. I live in a country the
size of Maryland, with 16 million people, and I can't understand some
people who were born only 200 km away.
And if you cross the border into Belgium, you get some of those
completely unintelligeible West-Flemish city dialects.
I'm not sure that numbers of speakers over the minimum required to keep
the language a "living" language makes a significant difference,
particularly given the situation of same general local. I take it that
the Dutch of Holland, German of the Western Marches, and the
German/Dutch of Belgium are quite different?
Flemmish (Belgian Dutch) on TV is very understandable. Sometimes Belgians
on Dutch TV get subtitles, but they're rarely necessary, and I have no
problem understanding Belgian TV. Some of their western city dialects,
however, could just as well be Klingon. Just like some rural Dutch
dialects. I no nothing about the little bit of German spoken in Belgium,
but I do know that the dialect of southern Limburg (our south-eastern
most province, bordering more on Belgium and Germany than on the rest
of the Netherlands) is a high-German dialect, meaning they say "ich"
instead of "ik", and stuff like that.
People living near the border tend to be a lot better at understanding
Germans than I am, but if they talk slowly and use simple sentences,
I can usually understand them too. But German is really a different
language, unlike the Dutch of the Netherlands, Belgium and Surinam.
A friend of mine who had spent 20 years in the military stationed in
Taiwan once told me that the various dialects of Chinese, Korean, and
Japanese were mutually unintelligible when spoken, but that their
writing conveyed the identical meaning to all. This would tend to negate
my assertion above about written language being a stabilizing factor.
It all depends on how strong the tie between the written and spoken
languages are. It's pretty strong in most European languages, slightly
weaker in English, and almost non-existent in east-Asian languages
and sign-languages. But those tend to have stronger semantic links.
(Especially sign language; I once heard that a deaf European can be
fluent at Chinese sign language in two weeks.)
mcv.
.
- References:
- Language Drift
- From: Lance Berg
- Re: Language Drift
- From: Jefferson
- Re: Language Drift
- From: mcv
- Re: Language Drift
- From: Jefferson
- Re: Language Drift
- From: Roger Connor
- Re: Language Drift
- From: mcv
- Re: Language Drift
- From: Roger Connor
- Language Drift
- Prev by Date: Re: Language Drift
- Next by Date: Campaign/scenario based on translation breakdown
- Previous by thread: Re: Language Drift
- Next by thread: Re: Language Drift
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
