>>Why are languages becoming so simplified worldwide? I read that Afrikkans is compleatly analitical with no inflections at all (can't find the reference).

I thought I'd start a new thread to answer this one.
(And I'll try to be as simple as I can)


I think the thing to remember is:
All that is irregular was once regular.
What is synthetic (irregular) was once analitic (regular).

What is sythetic is a result of the merging of 2 (or more) units into one form, due to REGULAR phonetical changes. But when the changes wear off, the results of the merging remain, and are then IRREGULAR.

These things can remain irregular for a long time, since the parents correct the children (not "foots", "feet"!) and the children pick up after their parents.

But what is irregular is eventually regularized: "holpen" > "helped"


So, to answer the question:
Languages are not becoming so simplified worldwide.
Evolution creates irrularities through a regular process, and eventually gets rid of them while creating others. It's and endless circle.

quote:

Languages are not becoming so simplified worldwide.
Evolution creates irrularities through a regular process, and eventually gets rid of them while creating others. It's and endless circle.

An-suimiúil ar fad.

So are you saying that the irregularities came about because of people's difficulty or plain dislike of certain sounds?

For instance, I have a Dublin accent. One thing we do is that when there's a "k" sound at the end of a syllable, we turn it into a "g" sound... it's quicker and easier to shape than a "k" sound for us, eg.:

explode = egsplode
Heineken (the beer) = Heinigen

So maybe these dislikings in pronounciation would influence people to make an irregularity... but then as people's accent changes, they eventually make them regular again... while making different things irregular?!

If I've got you completely wrong then slap me! : )

I can see this becoming a very interesting thread.

>>So are you saying that the irregularities came about because of people's difficulty or plain dislike of certain sounds?

Not exactly... but there's some of it.

About difficulty: Only the sounds that people haven't learnt in their infancy can be a problem. So in the present case, difficulty in pronouncing the sounds is not a factor.

About dislike: Dislike is judgemental. This means that people dislike certain sounds not because of "what they sound", but because of what they represent. These sounds are to be found in the lower classes (because you stigmatize the sounds pronounced by the people you stigmatize). But it's not a factor either because it implies at least another variant, which means that evolution was already at work.

I think the greatest factor is: "the law of least effort".
i.e.: it's physically easier to say [aga] than [aka] (or "heinigen" than "heiniken").

Here is an example in French:
1/ at first, when you wanted to notify the plural, you used the unit "plural" which is -s- [z] and comes at the end of the word (just like in English):
"général"+"plural" = [général]+[z] = [généralz] regular
2/ phonetical change: [l] becomes [u] when after a vowel and before a consonant:
"général"+"plural" = [général]+[z] = [générauz] regular
3/ next phonetical change: [a]+[u] becomes [o]:
"général"+"plural" = [généro]+[z] = [généroz] regular
4/ last phonetical change: [z] is dropped in the end of words. And since [z] represents the plural, it means that you drop the plural altogether, and therefore sould end up with no change at all (which is what happens with most of the nouns). But in this case, because of the changes that have already taken place, we have a special form for the plural:
"général"+"plural" = [généro] irregular

To sum it up:
You had something regular (and analitic):
"général" = [général] /"général"+"plural" = [généralz]
But due to regular phonetical changes, you end up with something irregular (and synthetic):
"général" = [général] /"général"+"plural" = [généro]

(Message edited by Max on August 31, 2005)

quote:

But due to regular phonetical changes, you end up with something irregular

Bhí an míniú sin an-spéisiúil. Má tá suim ar leith agat in athruithe mar sin agus an mhírialtacht a thagann astu, ba chóir duit d'intleacht a dhíriú ar an mbriathar Sean-Ghaeilge lá de na laethanta seo.

A Mhaics,
I can see what you mean (I think) if we look at the way plurals are formed in Irish. Due to the inflections existant since Old Irish and the way the tongue has changed one sees a whole gamut of particular plurals (which fall in to cathegories, such as weak plural endings, broad endings etc) some of which are now irregular, such as lá, lae, laenthanta, and these irregualars are like islands or throwbacks to the older days.

Originally, what I meant by 'lesser complexity' was a quasi information theory measure of grammatical complexity with the thought that Irish has been 'simplifying' over time due to assualts on gaeldom, which leads to social upsets, and comsequent accererated linguistic change. If ti is true that German is loosing its cases, like Irish, coudl that constitute simplification? I know case loss tends to result in increase of prepositions to compensate...so does that mean I have a rather qualitative measure of linguistic complexity?

PS. analytical/analytic are the spellings in English. I misspelt in the other post

>>Originally, what I meant by 'lesser complexity' was a quasi information theory measure of grammatical complexity with the thought that Irish has been 'simplifying' over time due to assualts on gaeldom, which leads to social upsets, and comsequent accererated linguistic change.

This part I don't understand....

>>If ti is true that German is loosing its cases, like Irish, coudl that constitute simplification? I know case loss tends to result in increase of prepositions to compensate...so does that mean I have a rather qualitative measure of linguistic complexity?

I wouldn't use the expression "linguistic complexity" here because we have to distinguish between all the different levels in language.
For instance: Latin has a very complicated morphology, but strict "word" (or rather unit) categories rendering the syntax clearer; and Chinese has practically no morphology, but blurred "word" categories rendering the syntax not so clear.

As for cases and prepositions:
The most important thing to remember is that both prepositions and cases fall into the same category: they are "linkers". Strictly syntactically speaking, there is no difference, and consequently they share the same level of syntactical complexity.
Cases come from older postpositions that have merged with the noun, the same way that the unit "plural" finally merged with the noun "général" into "généraux" in French.

But since cases are the result of a merging process, they are morphologically complex, and tend to be replaced by prepositions... following the law of least effort.


PS: I'm not a great speller....

>>ba chóir duit d'intleacht a dhíriú ar an mbriathar Sean-Ghaeilge lá de na laethanta seo

Some day, indeed, I may...
But for now, I have enough to do with modern Irish...

>ba chóir duit d'intleacht a dhíriú ar an mbriathar Sean->Ghaeilge lá de na laethanta seo.

Muna bhfuil eagla ort go dtabharfar go teach na ngealt thú - is minic duine ar scar a chiall uaidh de dheasca briathra na Sean-Ghaeilge :-D

= If you are not afraid of being sent to a lunatic asylum - quite often, people lost their reason because of Old Irish verbs :-D

Here were have Manx, which seems to ahve developed a /kw/ to /G/ distinction
www.gaelg.iofm.net/MUTATION/Nas/menu.html

"qu gu" or is it /kw/ to /g/?

Which this says it should not (historically) have, or at least is quirky, for structural reasons:
http://www.akerbeltz.org/beagangaidhlig/gramar/grammar_p&q.htm

" t k kw
b d g gw "

So, if /p/ came back in from the cold, how about /G/? I see tho, it been more fundamental of a change to do so

">>Originally, what I meant by 'lesser complexity' was a quasi information theory measure of grammatical complexity with the thought that Irish has been 'simplifying' over time due to assualts on gaeldom, which leads to social upsets, and comsequent accererated linguistic change.

This part I don't understand.... "

Steven Pinker mentioned in 'How the Mind works' (and do you know yourself, Steven?) that English has more bits of data per word, on average, than French due to greater proportion of single syllable words, so consequently, shorter sentances to say the same thing (more Anglo-Saxon brillance, along with simplified grammer etc. Of course, if it had the most coplex grammar in the world, it would be superior too. Relitivity, relativity...)

One could day that there is a degree of qualitativness in this sort of meaure, but if one were to apply the notion of greater grammatical complexity = large number of bits needed to describe the langauge, could one say that from Old Irish to now, Irish has been gettign simpler? Social upheavals damage lingusitic communities, and can lead to simpler forms, at least in theory.

quote:

English has more bits of data per word, on average, than French due to greater proportion of single syllable words

Now this is nonsensical.
And not only does this sentence really mean nothing, but this kind of pseudo-scientifical arguments leads to sorting out the different languages in terms of "inferiority" and "superiority".

I am willing to believe that English has greater proportion of single syllable words than French; so that the same sentence would be said with less syllables than in French; and the inference which can be drawn from this is that, on average, English has more bits of data per syllable.
So what?
It doesn't even mean that the sentences are shorter to say...

quote:

if one were to apply the notion of greater grammatical complexity = large number of bits needed to describe the langauge, could one say that from Old Irish to now, Irish has been gettign simpler?

What do you mean by "large number of bits"?

quote:

Social upheavals damage lingusitic communities, and can lead to simpler forms, at least in theory.

Children regularize (into analytical forms) all the aberrations (I use this term on purpose because, synchronically, it is what they are) which exist in their mother tongue. If they are not corrected (due to social upheaval for instance), then yes the simpler forms will replace much faster the older aberrant forms.
But we are talking about forms, that is: morphology. And morphology as no impact whatsoever on grammar (that is: syntax).

For instance:
Old Irish had nominative and accusative to mark respectively the subjet and the object of the verb.
Modern Irish has dropped those cases altogether and uses position: VSO... it is much simpler from the morphological point of view, but the syntactical structure (or grammatical, as you wish) remains exactly the same.

"What do you mean by "large number of bits"?"

I suppose the corrolate with complexity would be how many rules would you need to describe a language, and the more complex, the greater number of rules, and thus if you were to use the pseudo measure above, some languages would require longer /rules/strings/number of bits of information etc to describe.

I agree with you that it is simply a form of sophistry to enable someone to claim their langauge is superior. Almost every book on the English langauge is choc-full of often downright boasts on the superioroty of the tongue. I suppose Pinker would say Irish is longer (more inferior) than English, but would not know about sandhi, shortening of long vowels, elision etc that occurs to shorten Irish sentances in actual speech. I know english has elision, but has less examples of 'shortening' than Irish.

thanks for making it clear about the morphological and syntactical levels

>>the more complex, the greater number of rules, and thus if you were to use the pseudo measure above, some languages would require longer /rules/strings/number of bits of information etc to describe.

I suppose so.
(Also I don't use the term "rule" because it's prescriptive.)

the more = the more complex

the more words = the more lexically complex
the more phonemes = the more phonologically complex
the more aberrant forms = the more morphologically complex
etc.

But the problem with syntax is that you have to delve deep down to find it. (Not to mention that people confuse it with morphology anyway...)

"to mention that people confuse it with morphology anyway..."

Yea, I now get what you mean by there been no nominative, but only a gentive and dative in irish, as the nom & accus. have fallen together and so word order details soubject and object in appropriate terms. I suppose on can see that with the gentive how there is less need of prepositons and strict order, at least relative to less synthetic langauges like Englsih or French.

"And not only does this sentence really mean nothing, but this kind of pseudo-scientifical arguments leads to sorting out the different languages in terms of "inferiority" and "superiority". "

LOL! I quite agree, Max, but the English/American/Australians (speakers of English in general) are very prone to do this. Instead of first looking at what could be "superior" and then look where "superiority" could be found, they first look at their own language, culture or country and then classify superiority so that it matches...

I think I'll get in contact with Steven Pinker to let him now that any language that does not have at least 5 cases cannot even be considered a fully developed language. Luckily, Finnish has 14 cases so we're quite on the safe side... :-)

Perhaps this "White mans burden" stuff wrt English is really a hidden inferiority complex?

quote:

the English/American/Australians (speakers of English in general) are very prone to do

Tá sé chomh maith agat "the Irish" a chur san áireamh, Jonas! :-)

>>as the nom & accus. have fallen together and so word order details soubject and object in appropriate terms.

Absolutely.
Traditional grammar talks about a "common case" as a result of the merging of nom. and acc.
But nom. and acc. are in opposition: their fonction is really to mark where the subject and the object are.
Whatever happens, there will always be some means to mark it.
So, if the nom. always comes after the verb, and the acc. after the nom., position, which is then just a habit, can take in charge the "marking where the S and O are" fonction; and then nom. and acc. can merge, because there is no more need of them.
The funny thing is that, the moment nom. and acc. have totally merged, you don't have a new ("common") case as a result, but no case at all.

>>Instead of first looking at what could be "superior" and then look where "superiority" could be found, they first look at their own language, culture or country and then classify superiority so that it matches...

Well, the Fench don't need to do that... Thanks to the prestige that French had throughout Europe (and which is not yet ready to wear off, especially in the mind of the Francophones), there is always someone to remind you that French is the most beautiful language in the world... (If you've got it, flaunt it!)

quote:

French is the most beautiful language in the world

Aontaím leat, ach tá mé claonta, is dócha. ;-)

Ach -- ceist dháiríre í seo -- an bhfuil dóigh ar bith ann le comparáid aestéitiúil a dhéanamh idir theangacha *go hoibiachtúil*? I mean, an mbíonn teangacha a bhfuil "vowel to consonant ratio" ard acu níos binne? Cacamas? ;-) Is an-mhaith liom Hawai'is, mar shampla.

>French is the most beautiful language in the world

Chan aontaimse leis sin. Is í ’n Ghaeilg a’ teangaí is áilne agus is binne. Tá ’n Rúisis ionta’ binn fosta.

Eh is í Gaeilge an teanga is deise ar domhan!!
Náire oraibh ;-)

>>French is the most beautiful language in the world

Thanx Dennis... now people are gonna believe I (seriouly) said that...

>>Chan aontaimse leis sin. Is í ’n Ghaeilg a’ teangaí is áilne agus is binne. Tá ’n Rúisis ionta’ binn fosta.
>>Eh is í Gaeilge an teanga is deise ar domhan!!

*sigh*

>>an bhfuil dóigh ar bith ann le comparáid aestéitiúil a dhéanamh idir theangacha *go hoibiachtúil*?

No
But answer this one first:
Considering the sounds "ee" and "oo", which one is clean and which one is dirty?

Ní bhíonn leisce ar Bhéarlóirí a dteanga féin a mholadh de ghnáth. Ach nuair a chuirtear an cheist, cad é an teanga is binne ar domhan, is minic a thugann siad an chraobh do theanga eile: an Iodáilis nó an Fhraincis féin. Is dócha nach bhfuil siad i ngrá le cairn chonsan mar /stssp/ ("casts spells")!

quote:

Considering the sounds "ee" and "oo", which one is clean and which one is dirty?

Dheamhan a fhios agamsa. I mBéarla, tá "sea, breeze, eel, pee" ar thaobh amháin, agus "moon, June, soup, sewer, poo" ar an taobh eile. What's the punch line?

>>Dheamhan a fhios agamsa.

Just go to your first instinct...

quote:

Just go to your first instinct...

Someone else will have to. My instinct is neutral. Brón orm!

"What's the punch line?"

some, bum, done, fun, go trom!

>>Chan aontaimse leis sin. Is í ’n Ghaeilg a’ teangaí is áilne agus is binne. Tá ’n Rúisis ionta’ binn fosta.
>>Eh is í Gaeilge an teanga is deise ar domhan!!

>*sigh*

Ok, i should have written "is í ’n Ghaeilg a’ teangaí is áilne agus is binne LIOM. ;-)

>>Ok, i should have written "is í ’n Ghaeilg a’ teangaí is áilne agus is binne LIOM. ;-)

J'aime mieux ça ! ;-)

>>Someone else will have to.

I tried it in French with the sounds [u] (as in "loup") and [i] (as in "lit").
The results were eloquent.
Try and ask around if your instinct is neutral then...

Mar a chuireas anseo cheana:

"Spanisch spreche ich mit Gott, Italienisch mit Frauen, Französisch mit Männern und Deutsch mit meinem Pferd. ... Kaiser Karl V. (1500-1558)."

An ann don teanga is binne? Nach mbraitheann sé ar a bhfuil á rá? Is binn liomsa Gearmainís, ainneoin a deir a Mhórgacht - nuair is le'm bhean atáim ag caint!

Cé go ndeirtear go bhfuaimníonn Fraincís binn fiú nuair is rud gránna atá á rá.

Dúirt Max

quote:

I tried it in French with the sounds [u] (as in "loup") and [i] (as in "lit").
The results were eloquent.
Try and ask around if your instinct is neutral then...

Beidh ceathrar againn ag caitheamh dinnéir le chéile anocht. Cuirfidh mé an cheist orthu. Tá a fhios agam anois, dála an scéil, go bhfuil a leithéid de rud agus phonosemantics ann. Tá fuaimeanna áirithe in ainm a bheith géar nó bog, te nó fuar, beag nó mór, agus mar sin de, dar leis na scoláirí sin. Ach ní bhraithim féin go bhuil /i/ níos glaine ná /u/ nó a mhalairt.

Tá rud éigin duit thíos i gComhrá i nGaeilge, sa téad HTML!