From: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Subject: Re: typology of Esperanto
Originator: alderson@leland.Stanford.EDU
Reply-To: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Organization: Stanford University Academic Information Resources
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 00:29:10 GMT

In article <1684F12599.JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, JAREA@UKCC writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.202419.9164@spss.com>
>markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug23.190212.107@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>>alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes:

RA>To take a classic example, do you consider English to be a Germanic
RA>language, vocabulary of English is derived from Latin (via Norman French or
RA>not) and Greek than from Proto-Germanic.

MR>I think the prototype approach works very well here.  The prototypical
MR>example of a Germanic language would surely be German, not English.  Both
MR>are Germanic, but German is a better example of Germanic.

JA>There are several problems involved with this approach to language classi-
JA>fication. First, we seem to be confusing typology with affiliation.  The
JA>term Germanic is one applied to certain languages based on their historical
JA>origin and development, not surface resemblance.  Second, of the 'parts'
JA>of a language that one might consider in deciding whether language x is or
JA>is not a member of language family q, vocabulary is the least safe, and
JA>the least relied on by historical linguists (Swadesh having been an anthro-
JA>pologist, and Greenberg is not widely accepted by historical linguists.)
JA>For example, the observation that Italic (French, Latin, etc.) words out-
JA>number Germanic ones in an English dictionary is beside the point, since
JA>our knowledge of the development of English makes clear that these were
JA>grafted onto the language by borrowing.  No matter how much I borrow from
JA>someone, my genetic classification is unchanged. By the by, an argument
JA>can be made that in some ways English is a more typical Germanic language
JA>than is German.  One characteristic that helps define the Germanic languages
JA>is that referred to as the first consonant shift, or Grimm's law (regard-
JA>less of the details we attribute to Indo-European consonants).  English,
JA>like Danish and Dutch, Gothic and Swedish, has for the most part preserved
JA>the Germanic consonant system, while German through its second consonant
JA>shift has not, making it more difficult to recognize as Germanic.

By the time everyone had gotten around to responding to my posting, even *I*
had forgotten the point in my rhetorical question, having read too many posts
on prototypes at that point.  No wonder that both of you missed the rhetorical
nature of the question.

*Of course* English is a Germanic language.  The point to be made was that this
question of prototypes is silly in an historical context, and to co-opt a label
defined in historical studies for some imagined prototype is misleading at the
very least.

Mr. Rosenfelder has shown himself unwilling to give up this particular misuse,
though, and as he himself has pointed out, we risk infuriating the general
readership of this newsgroup if we continue to argue about it.

As I have been using this discussion (among others) as an excuse not to pack
up my apartment, I'll hold off responding for a week to anything on the net.
Private mail will be answered as soon as practicable.
-- 
Rich Alderson   'I wish life was not so short,' he thought.  'Languages take
                such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
                                                        --J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@leland.stanford.edu                              _The Lost Road_