Re: Old French

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:27:06 -0400, Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:08:36 -0400 Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>
>writes:
>> I think he included it in Early Modern French (that is, the author
>> that didn't use the term Middle French -- he used Early and Late Old
>> French, and Early and Late Modern French, or something like that). Bear
>> in mind that these books were some decades old (or reprints) and their
>> Late Modern French probably referred to the literary French of that
>> time, not colloquial French ca. 2000 (personally, I'd say _these_ are
>> too different to use the same name).
>
>> >Christophe.
>-
>
>Now, i don't know where Jeff is, but since his name is very anglophone
>i'll assume that it isn't France or the Netherlands. Could it simply be
>that you two are working from different traditions of the Historical
>Linguistics of French, one in French and the other in English?
Meeya Meefla in the Old South East, the only living city with a pre-atomic
name. I vaguely recall that one of the authors in question was French, so I
don't think it's a matter of "tradition", but simply the basic principle
that Historical Linguists Don't Agree With Each Other. I'm not in a
position to argue against Christophe's author, and don't want to anyway.
Instead of discussing what the different versions of the language should be
called, wouldn't it be nice to see how they differed and how they got that
way? Certainly more appropriate for ConLang.

Jeff

>-Stephen (Steg)
> "i'm on my way,
>  laa a3rif aina aðhab..."

Reply