Ancient Greek and early Christian Greek contrasted with English is an excellent example of how an inflected ( or synthetic) language differs from a more analytical one like English. You could substitiute Ancient Greek, however, with other strongly inflected languages like Russian and Sanskrit which have even more inflected forms than Ancient Greek.
Some of the most analytical languages in the world today are Chinese and Vietnamese. Some linguists claim that this is the direction that English appears to be evolving. Of course, not all people would agree, and one person told me he thought that English was gradually becoming an agglutinative type language which would put it more in the category of Esperanto, Hungarian and even Turkish.
Nevertheless, here are some examples of Ancient Greek inflected (synthetic) forms and their more analytical equivalents in Modern English. Note how Modern English makes greater use of prpositions.
1) thugater = daughter
zoumou tê thugaTRI mnêmES = FOR their daughter
Zumu IN memory…
2) chrysos stephanos = gold crown
chrysOI stephanOI = WITH a gold crown
3) SimonídêN (huios) SimonídOU = TO Simonides, the son of Simonides.
4) aner Romaios = Roman citizen
Pros anDRA RomaioN = WITH REGARD TO a Roman
citizen.
5) pyr = fire
en pyrI naion = dwelling IN fire
6) lechos = bed Zeus = Zeus (but)
lechos TO zêNOS = the bed OF Zeus
7) Mignutai de zeus mêtIDI
And Zeus slept WITH Mêtis
8) theOU phos = the light OF GOD.
9) christoN maria genna = Christ born OF Mary.
10) Ho EPI staurOU, eleiêson hemas = Thou ON the
Cross, have
mercy on us.
The English I hear is definitely more analytic, but this is what I think happens when a language is learned as a second language. It’s broken apart and reassembled into a vocabulary of words and morphemes(?) that can be recombined into something more useful. When I shop at the corner deli, we aren’t speaking Korean or English, I’m buying and they’re selling and there’s no problem. Because both languages become more analytic, by necessity. The grammar probably has more in common with Beijing than Seoul and London, but it influences my language and helps me be understood in Cairo and Bombay.
Thanks for your comments. Certainly, all of the Pigin Englishes around the world: Hawaiian, Japanese-Hawaiian, Chinese, Melanesian, New Guinea, West Indian etc.) are more analytical than Standard English.
I don’t speak any of them but phrasebooks on most of them are now available in bookstores. The analytical nature of their syntax is very apparent upon just a cursory glance.
I’ve noticed that some Korean speakers of English tend to drop the copula e.g. Yor saendwich re:dii ("Your sandwhich IS ready") making it a little more analytical I suppose. Saying "You sandwhich ready" would make it totally analytical and very Chinese- or West Indian-like.
Also, speaking of Greek, your name or moniker (Melissa) is Greek for "honey bee" I understand.
It’s true, I think Deborah also means ‘bee’, but in Hebrew. As far as being named after an insect goes, I would prefer a bee to a termite.
But back to the idea of languages becoming more analytic or synthetic, English took a big step in the analytical direction at a time when the island was invaded by the Danes, and probably functioned as something like a pidgin at the time.
I’ve looked at Tok Pisin which I think is the official language of Papua (along with English) and it’s very analytic and also very easy for an English speaker to pick up. Maybe as English is used more and more, a new pidgin will appear and become the second language of choice. I hope so, I would like to go to my Korean deli and talk about stuff other than sandwiches and beer.
Re: "English took a big step in the analytical direction at a time when the island was invaded by the Danes."
Melissa, I think you are right. Several linguists I’ve read claim that the Norman Conquest slowed down the analytical drift in English by introducing lots of multisyllabic French words into the language. However, this historic event still did not preempt it. The analytical drift in English continues to this day.
Somewhere once I saw in a book some 10th century gospel writings written in the Old English vernacular of the time. The author said that they showed that English was slowly becoming more analytical even during this period (Over 1,000 years ago). :)
That’s impressive, if English was becoming analytic in the 10th century. I always thought that languages went through a slow decline and needed an outside influence to become more logical, but as you said, the French influence didn’t seem to simplify much, although they added a lot of words to the language. But they never forced the common people to speak their language. The courts were bilingual, and everyone wanted to emulate them, so we have two words for everything. But the way we order our words is more on the French model than the Germanic one, because we had already removed most of our declensions at that time.
And Old English seems to have simplified the plurals so I think you’re right, maybe a language can become analytical on its own without any outside influence. Which only leaves the question of why some languages become more synthetic, when they’re left alone.
<<< But back to the idea of languages becoming more analytic or synthetic, English took a big step in the analytical direction at a time when the island was invaded by the Danes, and probably functioned as something like a pidgin at the time. <<<
I cannot find any traces of English being a pidgin, and certainly not in the Danelaw period. Most Germanic languages shifted from synthetic to more analytic, without the help of the Danes, as you pointed out yourself in a later mail (<<<maybe a language can become analytical on its own without any outside influence<<<).
<<<I always thought that languages went through a slow decline and needed an outside influence to become more logical…<<<
I wonder the usage of ‘decline’ here. ‘Decline’ in connection with languages i only found in letters to newspapers by readers getting frustrated that ‘their’ language is changing, as if languages should stop changing as long as them readers are around… Idem dito for ‘logic’.
Evaluative notions as ‘a language in decline’, ‘a logical language’ (or something similar) are extra-linguistic notions.
<<<But the way we order our words is more on the French model than the Germanic one, because we had already removed most of our declensions at that time. <<<
Hi Frank,
Of course I don’t mean that English as written down even approached a pidgin, but just that within the Danelaw it may have functioned that way for a generation or two, and might have had some effect in making it more analytic.
And you’re right, ‘decline’ was a bad choice of word. I’m too pro-analytic. What I meant was the opposing process that changes ‘haves’ to ‘has’ and haved’ to ‘had’. Which is a simplification of pronunciation rather than a simplification of grammar. I didn’t mean that the language declined in the sense of becoming degenerate or anything of the kind. Just that it declined analytically. And I equate logic with analytical grammar.
But I think English became less Germanic in its word order, when it lost declensions and it borrowed the French order just because it was the most convenient. And the word order we are using today is only slightly closer to French. We rarely end a sentence with a verb now, but now that I think about it, we never interpose an object pronoun either. So we just simplified our grammar, The only reason I think it’s more French than Germanic is because I find it easier to translate French than German. And it’s mainly because case and word order are easier to understand in French. To me, as a speaker of English. Not a very good explanation, but just how I feel.
peace,
Melissa
Some linguists including the late Mario Pei of Columbia University have argued that Modern English started out as a jargon between Anglo-Saxons and Danes. While this would not have made Urenglisch (or Proto-English) a pidgin, it would still have resulted in some simplification and realignment of grammar.
I admire Pei, but maybe I’m partial to his ideas. And I have a very loose interpretation of the word ‘pidgin’, maybe I should say ‘pidginization’ just meaning simplification of grammar for the purpose of better communication between two linguistic groups which is always for the purpose of trading goods before the purpose of trading literature.
[quote author=brian_costello link=board=grammar;num=1109839234;start=0#9 date=05/08/05 at 02:21:47]Some linguists including the late Mario Pei of Columbia University have argued that Modern English started out as a jargon between Anglo-Saxons and Danes. While this would not have made Urenglisch (or Proto-English) a pidgin, it would still have resulted in some simplification and realignment of grammar.
Although I welcome haphazard guesswork upon the history of spoken English, good ol’ Frank’s apparent disgust (cf. post #7 above) over the topic of Mario Pei’s observations, may not require any subsequent justification, as the brief write-up cited herewith—i.e. concerning said notable scholar’s assessment of diachronic progression and its effects on English—evinces a substantive need of further elucidation & qualification, especially when it has so much to do with this lingua franca of our age, which has since grown to lord it over the WorldWideWeb, as well as most internat’l news about our global economy.
[quote author=bandito link=board=grammar;num=1109839234;start=0#12 date=05/18/06 at 13:47:21]Although I welcome haphazard guesswork on the history of spoken English, good ol’ Frank’s apparent disgust (cf. post #7 above) over the topic of Mario Pei’s observations, may not require any subsequent justification,
I wrote in that post #7:
"I cannot find any traces of English being a pidgin, and certainly not in the Danelaw period."
Bandito, instead of spending your energy on scoffing people once again, you could use your energy giving some arguments, and in this case arguments pro the "English-as-a-pidging-in-the-Danlaw-period" argument.
I do realise that asking you to give actual arguments implies a complete change of (your) mentality, but it’s worth a try, no?
It’s not because i don’t see any traces, that there wouldn’t be any. Make me see them. I’m familiar with OE, ME, ModE, ON, OS, MLG, etc., so explain me, with your finger on the texts. Use arguments, give examples. But don’t waste my time with yet another message full of expensive but empty words.
The second point in post #7 was about "language change = language decline", an idea which can be found back in some of your mails. Well, if so, the first Homo SapSaps, must have had quite a "perfect" language…
If I may be so cordial, there exists no rational, sane argument for pidgin English in the Danelagh period, unless you happen to be quite mad, my rabid provocateur, and it thus behooves you to sneak quietly in for a distemper shot! Now if I travelled to the city of London, or anywhere else upon the British Isles, i.e. to lecture in favor of pidgin Anglo-Danish’n'all, the only reception I could even hope for, would be a "happy slapping" on account of my ridiculous notions.
Now again, you can rely on my ungrudging concession, as regards your copious knowlege of Dutch, Flemish etc, but if you adopt a stance like that of Pei, or even suggest that the Queen’s English might not be anything more worthy than insular "jive-talking", then time has come for you to consider another line of debate, old friend, because confuting the pidgin argument only wastes my precious resources, as well as those of anyone else—it’s just downright insulting, and belongs in the murky recess of uncharted oblivion.
[quote author=bandito link=board=grammar;num=1109839234;start=0#14 date=05/20/06 at 12:10:26]If I may be so cordial, there exists no rational, sane argument for pidgin English in the Danelagh period…
Then we seem to agree on at least one thing.
but if you adopt a stance like that of Pei, or even suggest that the Queen’s English might simply be insular "jive-talking", then time has come for you to consider another line of debate, because confuting the pidgin argument only wastes my precious resources, as well as those of anyone else—it’s just downright insulting, and belongs in the dark recesses of uncharted oblivion.
[quote author=bandito link=board=grammar;num=1109839234;start=0#14 date=05/20/06 at 12:10:26]If I may be so cordial, there exists no rational, sane argument for pidgin English in the Danelagh period…
Then we seem to agree on at least one thing.
but if you adopt a stance like that of Pei, or even suggest that the Queen’s English might simply be insular "jive-talking", then time has come for you to consider another line of debate, because confuting the pidgin argument only wastes my precious resources, as well as those of anyone else—it’s just downright insulting, and belongs in the dark recesses of uncharted oblivion.
I think i already expressed my doubts (to put it mildly) about English-as-a-pidgin, so there is no need to waste your LOL "precious resources" unLOL, i mean quote and unquote.
;) ::)
