Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Age of langs (was Tempus)

From:Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
Date:Sunday, March 11, 2001, 20:20
David Peterson wrote:
> That was sort of my point. But anyway, I also think there's some > confusion about "older". I don't mean existed for a longer period of > time, but existed synchronically at an earlier period of time. So, > take modern English as it exists in America today and you won't find > it in the early days of the Roman Empire. Thus, the earliest form of > Latin, taken all at once, is older than this slice of Modern English > just because it existed earlier.
Well, that's true. But that's diachronic. My point was that from a synchronic perspective (that is, only looking at languages spoken at the same time), it doesn't make much sense to talk about "older" and "younger". -- Cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon A nation without a language is a nation without a heart - Welsh proverb ICQ: 18656696 AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42