Pronunciation watch

[Pabmusic]

I assume that it is by this process of evolution that our definite article gradually mutated into "the", a rather unattractive word, devoid of number, gender or case and with no proper vowel sound, surviving because it is functional and is easily mastered by the sloppy.

Yes, at least partly. Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had three genders, and the definite article was se, seo and þæt for M, F & N. They had collapsed into one form - þe - by 1066. One of the strongest influences for abandoning inflected speech would have been the proximity of speakers with different, but quite close, tongues - namely the Danes (Vikings), with whom there was much trade.

[french frank]

One of the strongest influences for abandoning inflected speech ...

And in early Romance, phonetic changes (aka sloppiness) simply did for it. Final 'm' no longer pronounced, for example, which wipes out the distinction between nominative and accusative. I think I remember the axiom that languages tend to simplify.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Short for 'easy in my mind'?

In other words, lazy speech.

[french frank]

In other words, lazy speech.

Yes - just think, without lazy speech we should still have a conjugation system.

On another point - lazy internet usage: why would a person unfamiliar with Polish even question how Lutoslawski was pronounced? There is, at least some chance a hapless presenter might wonder what a ł was? (I'm just listening to the Lutosławski/Szymanowski concert). And Tarrega - without an accent - would regularly be stressed on the middle syllable, not the first.

It would be a great help to presenters (and hence to listeners) if R3 took some trouble with this.

Actually, on second thoughts, I don't agree that 'sleep easy' = sleep with an easy mind is lazy. It's a fixed expression which is understood to have that meaning. There's no need always to seek out a longer way. Economy of speech, I should say

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Yes - just think, without lazy speech we should still have a conjugation system.

Like: "I sit; you sit (thou sitteth); he/she sits"
you
Sloppiness results in "I am; you are (thou art); he/she is". So children using logic say "I are". The more language develops by laziness, the more complicated it becomes for future generations.

[mangerton]

I think I remember the axiom that languages tend to simplify.

That certainly appears to be true, and it raises the interesting question of why "ancient" languages like Greek and Latin (and Hebrew?) are heavily inflected and complicated.

[JFLL]

That [that languages tend to simplify] certainly appears to be true, and it raises the interesting question of why "ancient" languages like Greek and Latin (and Hebrew?) are heavily inflected and complicated.

There is a theory, I think, that verbal inflexions were originally independent pronouns, so that Greek didōmi ‘I give’ for example, may have coalesced in proto-Greek from *dō ‘give’ + *mi ‘I, me’, which seems reasonable. In that case, one could see in Indo-European languages a cyclic movement from ‘simplicity’ to ‘complexity’ and back again to ‘simplicity’.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

At what stage did the Larin verb move from the end of the clause to before the object in Italian?

Yoda must upset have been.

[vinteuil]

That certainly appears to be true, and it raises the interesting question of why "ancient" languages like Greek and Latin (and Hebrew?) are heavily inflected and complicated.

... six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Greek and Latin may have "complicated" systems of conjugation and declension. But this allows greater "simplicity" or freedom as to things like word order.

Modern European languages which have dropped complexities of declension or conjugation then have to be much stricter in terms of word order and other syntactical structures.

If I were a Martian I wd say it was much simpler to get my head around Latin verb forms than to try and grasp English modal forms and phrasal verbs...

[mangerton]

... six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Greek and Latin may have "complicated" systems of conjugation and declension. But this allows greater "simplicity" or freedom as to things like word order.

Modern European languages which have dropped complexities of declension or conjugation then have to be much stricter in terms of word order and other syntactical structures.

If I were a Martian I wd say it was much simpler to get my head around Latin verb forms than to try and grasp English modal forms and phrasal verbs...

Yes, I suppose it all depends what we're used to from the time we start learning languages - ie at birth. I didn't do Greek and Hebrew, but I enjoyed my four years of Latin at school - apart from Caesar's Gallic Wars.

[gurnemanz]

Yes, at least partly. Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had three genders, and the definite article was se, seo and þæt for M, F & N. They had collapsed into one form - þe - by 1066. One of the strongest influences for abandoning inflected speech would have been the proximity of speakers with different, but quite close, tongues - namely the Danes (Vikings), with whom there was much trade.

I also referred to the Old English inflected forms for case and number which I have copied across from here;

Definite Article Singular
Nom | sé | þaet | séo
Acc | þone | þaet | þa
Dat | þáém | þáém | þáre
Ins | þý | þý | þáére
Gen | þaes | þaes | þáére

Definite Article Plural
Nom/Acc | þá
Dat/Ins | þáém
Gen | þára

That these inflections disappeared thanks to the sloppy Viking speakers is, I thought, only one possible theory.

[french frank]

The more language develops by laziness, the more complicated it becomes for future generations.

I don't think that's quite how I would look at it Where I d' come from, it were:
I be, you be, he be, she be, we be, you be, they be.

and similarly I d' sit, you d' sit, he d'sit &c. (past tense: I did sit, you did sit &c)

At what stage did the Latin verb move from the end of the clause to before the object in Italian?

I'm not sure that word order in spoken Latin was ever quite fixed at the end of the clause, as in German now. And classical Latin poetry shifts words around to fit the metre. The whole point about inflected languages is that the grammatical function of each word is contained in its ending, not reflected in word order. Word order alters emphasis.

Brutus Caesarem interfecit. Caesarem interfecit Brutus. Interfecit Brutus Caesarem.

Also: Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres ?

Ed. Should have made clear that it's when there are no inflections that word order does matter. 'Caesar killed Brutus' is not the same as 'Brutus killed Caesar'.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I don't think that's quite how I would look at it Where I d' come from, it were:
I be, you be, he be, she be, we be, you be, they be.

and similarly I d' sit, you d' sit, he d'sit &c. (past tense: I did sit, you did sit &c)


I'm not sure that word order in spoken Latin was ever quite fixed at the end of the clause, as in German now. And classical Latin poetry shifts words around to fit the metre. The whole point about inflected languages is that the grammatical function of each word is contained in its ending, not reflected in word order. Word order alters emphasis.Brutus Caesarem interfecit.

Caesarem interfecit Brutus. Interfecit Brutus Caesarem.

Also: Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres ?

As in "Aio te Romanos vincere posse"

[french frank]

As in "Aio te Romanos vincere posse"

Heh, heh! Language used to communicate thought ...

[LeMartinPecheur]

Heh, heh! Language used to communicate thought ...

ff: do you by any chance mean that the Sybil didn't know the answer and was therefore covering her bets??

I'd always understood that Pyrrhus was a vain man, and that the Sybil was a knowing instrument in bringing him down a peg or 16. Therefore her choice of phrase was made in full knowledge of what would befall him, but she was still giving him a good mendacious push to make sure!