Re: Age of langs (was Tempus)

In a message dated 3/10/2001 2:27:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fortytwo@GDN.NET writes:


> But the point is, where you draw the line between languages is
> arbitrary.  The Anglo-Saxons couldn't understand Modern English either,
> yet their speech is considered a type of English.  Yes, some languages
> you could go further back in time and still be understood, altho the
> question of sound changes can complicate matters.  However, I don't see
> that it makes sense to say that a language that has changed more slowly
> is somehow "older".  Okay, so language A could be understood 1500 years
> ago, while language B couldn't.  One could say that language A is older,
> but that terminology doesn't make sense to me.  More conservative, yes,
> but they're both much older than 1500 years old.  They're tens of
> thousands of years old!  Using the analogy of a human being again, the
> way I am now is very different from how I was when I was 10, and people
> who knew me then might not recognize me now.  Yet, I and that past-self
>
       Those are very good points for claiming that there should be no
language names at all, because they're really all the same thing.  However,
you seem to be claiming something entirely different that can't be derrived
from the evidence you're giving.  Anyway, that's only one way of looking at
it: Namely, diachronically.  If you look at it synchronically, however, the
isolated version of English spoken today can be classified as one language,
as compared to other isolated versions of other language.  With this way of
looking at it, there are tons more languages then people say there are now,
and there boundaries are definite.  I tend to look at things that way.  And,
of course, classifications such as "older" and "younger" do apply.  Things
like "more or less conservative" are total judgment calls and shouldn't even
be entered into any sort of discussion about language, in my opinion.

-David

Replies