Print

Print


On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:05:35 +0100, R A Brown wrote:

>On 11/10/2013 10:34, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
...
>> I do not doubt that your English has been influenced by
>> written English. And in my case, I learnt written
>> English first.
>
>Both truisms - but, with respect, it has no bearing on the
>fact that English was put into a written form as a
>consequence of its being spoken.   The written form is
>secondary.

I have no objection to this statement about the history of the
English language (or of any natlang). I have only objected to your
intitial statement: "I think most of us here will agree that the
*primary* form of any natlang is the spoken form." I did not know
that you implied "historically" or "diachronically". I only object
to this statement if it is meant synchronically.

-- 
grĂ¼ess
mach