tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post6535689435847836284..comments2022-04-26T09:43:50.025+02:00Comments on Language Continuity: Language continuity in Europe (II): SwitzerlandUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-50993279883656164672008-12-15T00:16:00.000+01:002008-12-15T00:16:00.000+01:00Thank you for your comments, Mr Anonymous. It's ob...Thank you for your comments, Mr Anonymous. It's obvious that your criticism is based on the same arguments that have been used for centuries. You say things like:<BR/><BR/>- "no language in Switzerland is older than 2000 years"<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>- "All of this happened in the full light of history".<BR/><BR/>Don't you think this is just amazing? According to you, the history of languages in Switzerland is exactly as old as the written documents about them... What a coincidence! I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong and that Alinei is absolutely right, I'm only interested in providing and suggesting new ways to look at language history. And these new ways seem to make a lot of sense. Why don't you take a look at Alinei's writings? It looks like you have never actually read any of them. But that's your problem.Language Continuityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601672205935444428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-39792099095358450202008-12-01T12:01:00.000+01:002008-12-01T12:01:00.000+01:00this is just so wrong. Switzerland is a prime exam...this is just so wrong. Switzerland is a prime example against PCT. Switzerland shows a lot of linguistic conservativism, what with the isolated Alpine valleys. And yet no language in Switzerland is older than 2000 years. The Romance languages (yes, unambiguously Romance, not generically "Italic") are a result of linguistic assimilation to the Roman Empire, and the Alemmannic dialects a result of the Alemannic immigration less than 1500 years ago. All of this happened in the full light of history. The only linguistic traces dating to prehistory are a few Gaulish toponyms (which show unambiguously that the Romance and German dialects are imposed over a prehistoric substrate) and a couple of archaic "Old European" words such as the famous 'loba'. <BR/><BR/>Now, you make a few perfectly valid observation about the geographical dialect boundaries. Yes, modern dialect boundaries may well co-incide with prehistoric ones. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "continuity". It has to do with topography. Did it occur to you that these boundaries may be determined by geographical features such as, well, the four-thousanders of the Bernese Alps? Anyone immigrating to the Mittelland, never mind during which millennium, is likely to stop their advance there. "Germanic and Italic dialects around 8,000 BC" is a joke. You are shooting yourself in the foot if you tend to top valid observations with patent nonsense such as this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-15906087948775202312008-09-13T08:26:00.000+02:002008-09-13T08:26:00.000+02:00I agree, those differences must be taken into acco...I agree, those differences must be taken into account. But the similarities too: languages have been promoted through the influence of elites, prestige and the promise of social promotion, and the need to make oneself understood with neighbours speaking other languages has led to pidginization and mixture- which is surely an argument for both continuity and change. There is perhaps a danger that one might go all the way now to the other extreme, to the continuity pole, and forget about language change and the death of languages.JoseAngelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08498383812404763792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-37903727468259278752008-09-12T18:07:00.000+02:002008-09-12T18:07:00.000+02:00I disagree with you. In the history of languages, ...I disagree with you. In the history of languages, hybridization is the rule. Human populations get in touch and, as a consequence, there's an exchange of linguistic elements. Language substitution, however, seems to be a very recent phenomenon in terms of human history. The spread of European languages through colonization is one of these recent phenomena, and even in these cases there is never any kind of "absolute" substitution, because hybridization tends to appear in one way or another. In the case of the Roman Empire, we might find some conditions for substitution, but I think the balance here is still more in favour of hybridization and continuity.<BR/><BR/>When we look at prehistory, or the times of the Romans, or the Middle Ages, we must try to avoid seeing them through the mentality of the modern or contemporary world. We must think of a time when the vast majority of the population were illiterate, and where there was nothing similar to our modern means of communication or transport, and where notions such as "language", "nation", etc., have nothing to do with the ones that we are used to. Human languages were born and evolved in societies which were quite different from ours.Language Continuityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601672205935444428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-60345452263879215652008-09-12T16:38:00.000+02:002008-09-12T16:38:00.000+02:00"everywhere else". Oops."everywhere else". Oops.JoseAngelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08498383812404763792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-44965637124512026882008-09-12T16:32:00.000+02:002008-09-12T16:32:00.000+02:00That would seem to be a surprising conclusion. Not...That would seem to be a surprising conclusion. Notice that the Roman conquest radically altered the spread of Italo-Romance languages everywhere elee: in France, Spain, Italy itself, Romania. History seems to point to a greater discontinuity in the distribution of populations and langauges, as a rule.JoseAngelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08498383812404763792noreply@blogger.com