Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
A truly dreadful contribution, Nonconformist, but containing your usual semtex booby-trap in its midst.

First off: Please, PLEASE, can we nail down the two meanings of “language-change”.

Shakespeare wrote Hamlet in a particular language; by the time he came to write The Tempest, that language had changed. By a little bit, in an incremental fashion, by fully documented steps, within a reasonably discrete population. Let us hereinafter call this phenomenon “change IN a language”.

If Shakespeare, in between writing Hamlet and The Tempest, had decided to write a sonnet to the Dark Lady in French, that would be a case of “change OF language”. Similar words, different phenomenon, n’est-ce pas?

Since my book is about the second type of language-change, I basically couldn’t give a monkeys about the first type (except, as I explained, that Orthodoxy makes the same classification error that you seem so prone to do though for much darker purposes).

It’s true, as Nonconformist urges, that I would benefit greatly by studying Shakespearean English at my local college or university but the book wouldn’t. Unless I intended to bring out an Iambic Pentameter edition. I don’t know…is there the market?

That takes care of the first two-thirds of Nonconformist’s effusion (except for a diabolic liberty with Middle English but that can wait).

So we get on to the Romance language stuff. Now here I am in a genuine difficulty. What you say, Nonconformist, is in complete contradiction to everything I’ve always understood the Orthodox position to be and if it really has changed as radically as you say, I am amazed that I haven’t heard about it.

The way you put it is:

"The Romance languages were languages that were related to Latin, not derived from it but like Latin derived from a previous spoken language (for which we have no records) at the same time that Latin was the official language of the Empire."

This is utterly baffling. You are saying that the Gauls, the Celtiberians, the Siciliotes and everyone in between were, during the period c300 BC to c 300 AD, NOT speaking Celtic languages as we were all brought up to believe (and as confirmed for us in our Asterix comics), NOT speaking Latin learned from their Roman masters (as we were all brought up to believe, though admittedly there was nothing in the Beano to confirm it) but a Romance language of which we have no records.

Well, I must confess, that I am not up to speed on the most hyper-modern trends in palaeolinguistics so I can only appeal to the wider community of the GHMB for help with this and tell the publishers to have the pulpers at the ready.

Now to the ever-lively topic of dead languages. Nonconformist, I have to reprove you for some fairly deliberate chicanery on the subject of “Latin, its Uses and Variants”.

You know as well as I do what Ecclesiastical Latin is and it is nothing more (nor less) than a mish-mash of conveniences, conventions and shorthand that busy people writing to one another both invent for themselves and emulate from others. Ironically enough we are doing it ourselves right now with LOL and AFRAIK and TOERAG.

You say I should go study it at university, you also say there probably won’t be a course in it and you’re dead right; the only point in knowing about it all is that it is useful in Medieval Palaeography to sort out out where and when and by whom a particular document was composed. The same dudes of course used proper Classical Latin when not scribbling notes to one another.

However, I do concede one point: I was guilty of lack of precision when talking about dead languages. For the record this is the position as I understand it:

DEMOTIC LANGUAGE: a language spoken by a discrete, general population as a mother-tongue for all purposes
DEAD LANGUAGE: a language no longer spoken or written for any purposes
NON-DEMOTIC LANGUAGE: a language that is not spoken by a discrete population as a mother-tongue but may be spoken and/or written by a particular group of people for professional purposes or by a general population in restricted and temporary circumstances.

I’ll leave the Middle English issue for another time as I see that somebody else has brought it up. However I am glad to see you’re busy stretching it towards Shakespeare, because the entirely mythical language of Middle English is one of the most elastic concepts that Orthodoxy has ever had the cheek to foist upon an unsuspecting public.

Whoops, I see events have overtaken this...

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
AOM: Anomoly One 137 AOM-Presenter 03-Apr-03 16:39
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 79 jameske 03-Apr-03 20:02
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 79 Doug 03-Apr-03 22:44
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 105 M J Harper 03-Apr-03 23:39
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 79 Nobody 04-Apr-03 00:16
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 76 M J Harper 04-Apr-03 00:29
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 106 Nobody 04-Apr-03 01:07
Cymri 196 nonconformist 04-Apr-03 04:59
Re: AOM: Anomaly One 93 nonconformist 04-Apr-03 03:31
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 97 M J Harper 04-Apr-03 04:17
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 108 nonconformist 04-Apr-03 05:20
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 93 Doug 04-Apr-03 06:47
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 122 HectorChico 04-Apr-03 10:26
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 97 M J Harper 04-Apr-03 12:56
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 113 DPCrisp 04-Apr-03 13:27
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 107 HectorChico 04-Apr-03 14:58
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 113 M J Harper 04-Apr-03 16:30
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 69 AOM-Presenter 04-Apr-03 16:31
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 130 nonconformist 05-Apr-03 02:15
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 117 AOM-Presenter 05-Apr-03 04:57
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 126 nonconformist 05-Apr-03 08:56
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 117 M J Harper 07-Apr-03 02:24
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 96 nonconformist 07-Apr-03 07:17
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 108 AOM-Presenter 07-Apr-03 15:00
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 72 nonconformist 08-Apr-03 00:27
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 99 M J Harper 08-Apr-03 01:01
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 116 nonconformist 08-Apr-03 03:50
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 95 DPCrisp 08-Apr-03 13:52
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 65 M J Harper 08-Apr-03 15:05
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 102 nonconformist 10-Apr-03 02:10
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 144 stickler 10-Apr-03 10:09
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 99 DPCrisp 10-Apr-03 10:59
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 88 stickler 10-Apr-03 12:32
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 116 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 16:01
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 119 DPCrisp 10-Apr-03 16:47
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 116 stickler 10-Apr-03 17:26
Spellinge 114 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 15:41
Re: Spellinge 106 stickler 10-Apr-03 15:50
Pronounciation 103 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 16:19
Re: Pronounciation 110 stickler 10-Apr-03 17:33
Re: Pronounciation 108 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 18:35
Re: Pronounciation 121 DPCrisp 11-Apr-03 09:39
Re: Spellinge 87 DPCrisp 10-Apr-03 16:34
Re: Spellinge 131 stickler 10-Apr-03 17:34
Re: Spellinge 106 DPCrisp 11-Apr-03 09:47
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 105 M J Harper 10-Apr-03 14:29
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 105 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 15:16
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 93 DPCrisp 11-Apr-03 11:35
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 89 nonconformist 11-Apr-03 22:19
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 111 nonconformist 11-Apr-03 22:33
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 94 Doug 12-Apr-03 08:21
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 84 Doug 08-Apr-03 17:20
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 102 M J Harper 08-Apr-03 18:10
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 87 Doug 08-Apr-03 21:23
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 84 M J Harper 08-Apr-03 22:23
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 106 M J Harper 10-Apr-03 14:10
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 86 stickler 10-Apr-03 15:39
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 81 M J Harper 10-Apr-03 16:30
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 107 stickler 10-Apr-03 17:52
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 81 M J Harper 11-Apr-03 22:37
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 111 nonconformist 12-Apr-03 03:46


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.