Print

Print


On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Robin Gaskell wrote:
 
>    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."
 
Maybe "evolve" is the wrong word or concept, but languages
certainly "drift" by phonological change; both English and
Chinese had inflections that became more and more indistinct,
forcing the order of words to take over their functions,
which fed-back until the endings were gone. Endings erode
most easily when the leading syllable is heavily stressed,
as in Germanic languages; in Chinese some terminal phonemes
became tones, perhaps to disambiguate all the near-homonyms.
At least that's the last theory I heard ...
 
Something similar may have happened to Vulgar Latin when
imposed on "substrates" of Celtic/Germanic languages.
(True pidgin/creolization apparently did not occur.)
Anyway, all the Romance languages became more analytic.
So, analytic languages can either begin as such,
or synthetic langs can "drift" in that direction.