Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Newest natlang?

From:Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
Date:Saturday, September 27, 2008, 21:53
On 27/09/2008, Jake B <blookerboy95@...> wrote:
> Though we borrow little from them.
You try writing a text* without using* words we got from Norman French, then (and words we borrowed later from Latin or Greek or coined* using* such forms*). (At least the words with asterisks aren't purely Germanic TTBOMK.)
> I see your point, but honestly you never looked at many Asiatic languages > before. I studied them, and at least 70-80 percent of pictiograms are > borrowings from Mandarin Chinese.
Wait, are you talking about the written or the spoken Japanese language now? Many kanji have two or more readings: "on", borrowed from Chinese at various points in history (though I'm not sure whether calling the source varieties "Mandarin" is accurate), and "kun", native Japanese pronunciations. If you're counting borrowings in a given text, kanji read using "kun" readings should not be included IMO, since in that case it's just the written form which is borrowed but not the words themselves. For example, in "Watashi wa kuruma de ichiba e ikimasu", you might find five kanji (watashi, kuruma, ichi - ba, i(kimasu)), yet not a single Chinese-derived word. But even the existence of texts with large numbers of Sino-Japanese morphemes doesn't mean that Japanese is a dialect of Chinese any more than English is a dialect of French, Latin, or Greek just because, say, academic writing may have many morphemes borrowed from those languages. Cheers, -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>


Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...>