Print

Print


At 03:55 PM 9/5/98 +0200, Mike Farris wrote:
>First two caveats:
>
> 1. I'm not as familiar with Jespersen's (or Hogben's or many otherss)
>work as I should be. This is a disgraceful truth of most linguists. I also
>suspect it's true of most academic disciplines. The "classics" lay mostly
>unread, while people are busy reading the Very Latest Thing (which in
>linguistics is  increasingly and distressingly trivial).
>
>2. An adequate response to this thread would take about ohhh ten pages,
>which I doubt many folks want to read. Therefore I'll condense and
>simplify like crazy and hope the result is at least slightly
>understandable and not too badly distorted.
>
*   Perhaps we should all have read the Interlingua classics - I'm more
into the R&D side of Glosa than into comparing and contrasting all of the
possible auxlangs.
   I am sorry to hear of the latest developments in Linguistics.
 
   I understand and agree with your conclusions here.  There is just one
question about Evolution.
   I'll agree that a native language, left in situ, will be inclined to
change little.  However, in line with the "creole" idea, I would ask what
happens to the 'evolution' of a language that is not left undisturbed, but
suffers regular external influence.
 
   Some time back, on Conlang, I ventured the thought that because of
successive waves of invasion of Britain, English was the 'most evolved' of
the national languages.
   Considerable singeing followed, and I was told, in effect, to wash my
mouth out with soap and water, and that you can't say languages "evolve."
Your comments, here, tell me where the theory, with which I was blodgeoned,
came from.
   Assuming that there might be two types of evolution within languages,
endogenous and exogenous, the former would be small, while, I hold, the
latter could be quite considerable.  My reason for drawing the picture of
an English that had been changed through successive waves of creolisation,
was to suggest that its final form was the result of many survivals of the
fittest linguist elements.  I suggested that the basing of Glosa's sentence
structure on that of English was something to do with the fact that English
had been through the mill, Linguistically, and thus, had shed more
unsatisfactory linguistic characteristics than any other language.
   Common sense does tell me that human languages from ape-man to Homo
sapiens must have evolved, It seemed that just the Linguists couldn't see
this.  could you give me a ruling on this exogenous form of language
evolution.
    Such a situation might be very important for an IAL once it was
adopted: there is likely to be pressure placed upon a World Tongue to
conform to this, or that, national language.  Will one auxlang have more
resiliance than another to withstand unwanted change; and, if this were a
factor in the equation, what characteristics of an auxiliary language makes
it resistant to external influence?
 
>Does this make any sense?
>
*   Yes!
 
Saluta,
 Robin
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ROBIN GASKELL: [log in to unmask]      WEBPAGE: www.zeta.org.au/~rgaskell
 GLOSALIST MAILING LIST:   Majordomo reads your email address automatically.
        To:     [log in to unmask]
              subscribe glosalist
 
 GLOSALIST ARCHIVES:  http://members.xoom.com/ailanto/glosa/index.htm
 
 BOOKS ON GLOSA:-  Blackwells Internet Bookshop
www.blackwell.co.uk/bookshops/
                   Internet Bookshop  [log in to unmask]