Re: OT: Two language change questions

Hi all,

David, thanks for your full reply (below).

I append my answer to your puzzled question ...
and a somewhat shaky counter to your views
on "articles".

Regards,
Yahya


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Yahya Abdal-Aziz

Share my music, paintings, equation art, and thoughts on books, online at
eSnips:
http://www.eSnips.com/user/Yahya


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 03:32 +1100, Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
> Do please clarify a few things for me in this most interesting pattern!
>
> Q1. In what sense are these "stages" if 5 (as well as 2) can precede 3?
>
> Q2. Please flesh out the meaning of these stages. Eg -
> Q2a. Does "demonstrative" mean a "demonstrative adjective"?
>
> Q2b. Does "definite article" in stage 2 imply the existence of
> an "indefinite article"; or perhaps only of a definiteness contrast, in
> which
> the definite state is marked by the presence of the definite particle?
>
> Q2c. What is a "noun marker" - a morpheme, inflection, clitic
> ...?
>
> Q2d. Is there any known example of a living language currently
> _in
> transition_ between two (or more) of these stages?
Q1: My fault! I was treating this as a case of two successive cycles,
but of course it isn't. Firstly the pidgin looses the article - not
really proceeding to stage 5, just not bothering with one - but
interpreting it as an initial consonant before a vowel. Then the pidgin
evolves into a creole and creates a new article.

Q2a: demonstrative adjective, since we're talking about qualifying a
noun.

Q2b: No. You can have a definite article without an indefinite one (e.g.
Greek), or an indefinite without a definite (e.g. Turkish).
Actually the use of the term "article" obscures the fact that we're
dealing with two quite different things. The definite article is a
deictic, like a demonstrative: it identifies one or more instances of
something: "that book [over there]", "this book [over here]", "the book
[that we're talking about]". The indefinite article is a quantifier:
"three books", "several books [the number is unimportant]", "one book",
"a book [there's actually only one, but the number is unimportant]".
That's why in some languages (e.g. Spanish) the plural indefinite
article is used like the English "some".

Q2c: an obligatory morpheme, part of all nouns: like the -o in
Esperanto.

Q2d: No. How would you tell a language is moving between stages until
it's moved? It may be that French will follow its creole versions and
loose the current article, but it may just stop with an "over used"
definite article as Greek has done for over a thousand years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


You wrote:

    "How would you tell a language is moving between
    stages until it's moved?"

By the fact that the change is incomplete, being partial,
that is, affecting only a portion of the vocabulary that
participates in the relevant structure.  Some words in
heavy daily use resist change and thus become irregular,
sometimes preserving, like fossils, aspects of their
development over time.

    Topsy: "I just growed".

So I'm imagining a language in which, at a late point
in the change, certain very resistant nouns still seem
to require using a form which is now obsolete for most
nouns.  At an earlier point, other nouns may even be
more sympathetic to the change, perhaps being simpler
to say the new way than the old; so these may lead the
charge.

And of course, whilst language change is inevitable, it
is nowhere either instantaneous or uniform.  Older
speakers - as evidenced by those lovely examples of
English dialects recently seen on this forum - do not
just resist change; they often seem totally oblivious to
it.  Like Ray, I was astounded to find British TV presenters
saying things like "I was stood over there" or "Here we
are sat down waiting a nice cuppa".  'Twould never've
'appened when Oy were a lad!

So some speakers adopt the changes scarcely if at all;
some wholeheartedly, having grown up just a little too
late to have learnt the old way; whilst all those in between
must inevitably use a bit of this and a bit of that.  For
these people in particular, code-switching must be the
norm, and the archaic form will be seen as the correct
one in some social situations, the modern form in others.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


David, your analysis of the indefinite article as a quantifier is
intriguing, but not entirely convincing.  Consider:

    "The house is on fire and I need to get out the window -
    bring me a ladder!"

Here the number of ladders is important - it must be one -
some ladder, any one at all - but there is no need for more
than one; indeed any delay in getting more than one ladder
may have dire results.  I think the fact that all definite articles
in English take the same form "the" may be misleading - one
could argue for treating "some" as a plural indefinite article;
thus:
    "a" = ART-INDEF-SG and
    "some" = ART-INDEF-PL,

and for making a distinction between:
    "the (singular)" = ART-DEF-SG and
    "the (plural)" = ART-DEF-PL.

I guess I can agree that 'The indefinite article is a quantifier',
but only incidentally.  The significant distinction between the
definite and indefinite articles is just that: definiteness, or
particularity.  When we say "a" or "some", we're not that
particular about which particular individual(s) are taken;
however, we have still identified the kind of thing it is or
they are.

I do agree that _a_ 'definite article is a deictic, like a
demonstrative: it identifies one or more instances of
something ...' - namely, the things we're talking about.
'Definite' and 'defined' are definitely related!

Does it follow that an indefinite article is not also a deictic?
Using an indefinite article, in whatever number, implies the
_existence_ of a particular thing or things we're talking
about - at least as a topic of discourse:

    "There's never been a man who can say 'I'm lost'."

- but not _which_ particular thing or things they are.
Using a definite article, on the other hand, goes beyond
asserting existence of the things, and characterises them
by defining characteristics:

    "The green apple on the table is yours."

    "The mail [you expect to be delivered every weekday
    about this time of day] has come."

    "The prisoners in that jail cell include serial murderers."
(The number is unimportant, but the particular jail cell
and prisoners are important.)

Oh dear me!  ("O dio mio!")  I fear I've made rather
heavy weather of all this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


So let me conclude by thanking you again for troubling
to answer so fully.  I'm always intrigued by the apparent
existence of broad patterns of change - especially when
the mechanism is not evident - and your explanations
have helped me considerably.

Thanks!
Yahya