Category Archives: Balto-Slavic-Germanic

Check Out Belarussian

Here is a sample of the Belarussian language from a Belarussian TV commercial. For those of you who speak a Slavic language, I would like you to listen to this clip and tell me how much you can understand of it.

I decided to post my section on Belarussian from a recent paper of mine. My charming critics say that I am “promoting misinformation,” and have banned all links to me. They also say that everyone should ignore every single word that I write because nothing that I say is true, not even one sentence. However, some averred that in an entire paper, I might state one or two true things.

If any of you know anything about the subject below, tell me if they are right. Tell me if every single sentence below is true or false. In fact, tell me if you can find one false sentence below.

Here.

Belarussian is one of the most recent East Slavic lects to come into existence, as the earliest Belarussian texts are from only the 1500’s. So the split between Belarussian and Ukrainian and Russian is shallower than that between Spanish and Portuguese.

Belarussian intelligibility with both Ukrainian and Russian is a source of controversy. On the one hand, Belarussian has dialects that are intelligible with dialects of both Russian and Ukrainian.

Reports of the endangerment or looming death of Belarussian are usually politically motivated attacks on President Lukashenko accusing him of killing the language.

On the contrary, Belarussian, while in a disappointing situation, is very much alive. Almost all Belarussians can speak the language, but only 15% do so in day to day conversation. Most of the rest more often play the role of passive speakers although they can speak the language if they need to (Mezentseva 2014).

Belarussian knowledge of their language benefits them because it gives them a head start on learning other Slavic languages (Mezentseva 2014).
Belarus was actually part of Poland at one time, as was Western Ukraine. Belarussians see themselves as a different people from Russians.

For centuries, they called themselves Tutejshiya “our people” (Mezentseva 2015).

Part of the blame for the decline of Belarussian lies with Belarussians themselves because despite the statements in the paragraph above, Belarussians have a very strong attachment to Russia and only a weak attachment to their own land (Mezentseva 2014). The result of this is that although 85% of Belarussians can speak Belarussian, and Russian is the preferred language in the country (Pavlenko 2006).

In 1991, Belarus only had one official language, Belarussian, though Russian was in wide use. In 1994, the people voted to have two official languages, Belarussian and Russian. Russian-language media and politicians quickly took advantage of the situation and used to opportunity to make Russian the dominant language in the country (Mezentseva 2014).

Lukashenko regularly wins elections by 75-80% margins, and polls show about the same support. The very unpopular opposition are regarded by most Belarussians as traitors and anti-Russian, pro-US tools of the West out to destroy the country.

One major problem for the language is that Belarussian is now associated with the opposition in the country. This association of the language with the unpopular opposition has hurt the language and is a major reason why state support for Belarussian has been lukewarm at best (Mezentseva 2014).
However, the linguistic situation in the country is complicated, and there are Belarussian-language TV stations and a number of daily newspapers (Mezentseva 2014).

The Western media reports that Belarussian is dying, but this is politicized discourse.

The truth is that Belarussian is becoming more and more popular these days, as it is coming to be seen as the prestigious “language of the intelligentsia” as opposed to the Soviet era in the 1970’s and 80’s when it was regarded as a “village language.” Belarussian language advocates say that they are not pessimistic at all about the state of the language and in fact they are optimistic. Belarussian is used in the educational system, and advocates expect its use there to expand. Independent Belarussian classes have been springing up to assist Belarussians who want to promote the language and culture. (Mezentseva 2014).

Russian nationalists often state that Belarussian is a dialect of Russian. However, this judgement is based more on national chauvinism than linguistics (Mezentseva 2014), as Russian lacks full intelligibility of Belarussian.

However, the statement is partly true if we are discussing Trasianka and Russian. Trasianka is Belarussian dialect based on a a mix of Russian and Belarussian that arose during the Sovietization of Belarus. It resembles Russian spoken with a Belarussian accent and is spoken mainly by rural dwellers who moved to towns and started to watch a lot of Russian TV. It is also widely spoken in Eastern Belarus near the Russian border (Mezentseva 2014).

West Polesian or West Palesian is a transitional Belarussian dialect to Ukrainian. Some think that West Polesian is a microlanguage, but the majority of Belarussian linguists say it is a dialect of Belarussian (Mezentseva 2014). But see the analysis of Polesian in the Ukrainian section above under Ukraine for a fuller account of this very confusing lect. Belarussian and Ukrainian have 84% lexical similarity.

Pronunciation is also very similar between the two languages. Some of the grammatical categories do differ. Belarussian intelligibility of Ukrainian is high at 80% (Mezentseva 2014).

Belarussian has many Polish borrowings, hence Belarussian has a fairly high intelligibility of Polish at 29%. Written intelligibility is higher at 67% (Mezentseva 2015).

Although Polish is notorious for being one of the hardest languages in Europe for foreigners to learn, Belarussians can actually learn it fairly easily due to the similarities between the two languages (Mezentseva 2014).

Testing Belarussian intelligibility of Russian is not realistically possible.
The vast number of Belarussians speak Russian, and of those who do not, all or nearly all have at least passive knowledge of Russian. At the moment there are few to no Belarussian monolinguals. If they exist at all, there may be a few elderly female monolinguals in the far west of the country by the Polish border (Mezentseva 2015) , but it would be difficult to study them.

MI figures:

Belarussian: Oral intelligibility: 80% of Ukrainian and 29% of Polish.Written intelligibility: 67% of Polish.

References

Mezentseva, Inna. English teacher, Belarussian and Russian speaker, Vitebsk, Belarus. BA in Education and Linguistics. Vitebsk State University, Vitebsk, Belarus. December 2014. Personal communication.
Mezentseva, Inna. English teacher, Belarussian and Russian speaker, Vitebsk, Belarus. BA in Education and Linguistics. Vitebsk State University, Vitebsk, Belarus. May 2015. Personal communication.
Pavlenko, A. 2006. Russian as a Lingua Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 78-99.

Leave a comment

Filed under Applied, Balto-Slavic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Belarus, Belorussians, Dialectology, Europe, Europeans, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Multilingualism, Polish, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Russians, Slavic, Sociolinguistics, USSR

I Have Been Working on This Paper Lately

Here.

It is 65 pages now, and it has 34 references, 6 personal communications and 28 cites. A number of the judgements are now from linguists, articles in linguistics journals, people with graduate degrees who took a vast number of linguistics courses, grad students in philology, and language teachers with BA’s in Linguistics. There are also a number from people who I personally tested. And I do have one result from a formal intelligibility study, but I could only find one of them for Slavic. These types of studies are almost never done with major languages.

Leave a comment

Filed under Applied, Language Families, Linguistics, Scholarship, Slavic

Judith Mirville on Language

I really enjoyed this piece. Those idiots at Badlinguistics are going to hate this post so much, but nevertheless, I think she is mostly correct here. This post is definitely Beyond Highbrow! Something to strive for, commenters! Reach for the skies!

Judith Mirville writes:

English has on one hand grown easier by shedding most of the heavy declension and conjugation-based Germanic grammar of old Anglo-Saxon and old Norman French it also derives fully from, but on the other hand it has grown into one of the most difficult languages of the earth due to the fact that to master it in a workable way, you have to work with roots coming from just too many linguistic horizons, each one having its own rules of combination.

You have more words of French origin in English than remain in French proper. For instance jeopardy and legerdemain are no longer understood in French, and poisonous is no longer correct. More words of Latin and Greek origin than allowed for in real Latin and Greek, apart from the simpler one-syllable, quite often more purely Saxon words that form more numerous prepositional idioms in the popular language than there are words formed likewise in German or Dutch, not counting a larger array than in other languages of purely exotic words having no common roots with any of the main ingredients of English.

The only other one language I know to be quite difficult for foreigners wanting to go beyond the cafeteria level for that very same reason is Hindi. Its grammar has retained only very few of the original complex Indo-European forms, and you cannot master its vocabulary without understanding that even though a few words of daily usage were originally Sanskrit or Pali, they have now undergone much transformation not necessarily for the simplest.

Yet most of the everyday vocabulary used in polite conversations is deformed Arabic imported through Persian, itself a compound language from Old Iranian and Semitic languages.

There is also a whole array of more recently learned terms artificially derived from Classical Sanskrit when it comes to science or Hinduism.

There is also quite a wide array of even more recently learned terms artificially derived from Classical Arabic when it comes to political science, economics, politics or Islam of course, which is an obligatory subject of conversation for all even those who combat it.

This is not counting an even wider array of words imported from English since the British era which is now widening with the advent of globalization. Each of those variegated language sources imposes its own ways of lexical derivation and quite often its grammatical forms.

Hindi, like English, seems somewhat easier than Sanskrit or Tamil as you begin, though it is never as easy as broken or basic English. But like higher-level English, you never, ever come close as a foreigner to master a working knowledge of it for universities or big enterprises.

In German (as well as in many Indian languages other than Hindi), by contrast, you have a much harder time mastering the grammatical machinery as you start, quite like a Mercedes engine, but once you do and you also master the root word combination system, you access very rapidly the highest realms of German philosophical thought.

I perfectly agree with you in stating that the idea put forth by many linguists that all languages are equal in terms of difficulty and ease of learning is a piece of utter fallacy and mendacity.

This is somewhat true only in the very specific context of automated learning of everyday language reflexes to be used without thinking in various situations, as if one were a spy working among a very distant people, and having learned to pronounce with the right accent most automated answers to daily practical situations like ordering toasts and coffee, paying a traffic ticket… one has also to pass more unnoticed in that environment than another person speaking a neighboring and similar dialect with less ease but more ability to express his thought.

This linguistic egalitarianism only works with people who will never bother to express anything they love to say but rather conceal what they know and camouflage it under nonsensical conversation of the kind that will never elicit any suspicion of unorthodoxy, as was the case in early Soviet Union.

And it comes to no surprise that such a linguistic theory came along together with Marxism. This theory can also work quite well in the context of enforced intellectual limitation by a ruling empire over all cultures to be stultified in the same way. But as soon as you are bothering to excel in a language and say everything you would love to say in your own or want to make serious intellectual research, this is simply untrue.

Some languages are really hard to learn, and some others quite easy, though the reasons may vary. Some languages are more difficult due to their lack of relationship with your native one, and some are quite difficult even to their own native speakers.

This PC view about languages just tells us about the limitation of all language they want to impose on us: prohibiting real self-expression and allowing only for a narrow range of practical commands. As they do when they say all races are equal and should mix with each other: what they tell is not the truth, but their aim instead is for the creation of a general stultified world citizen where all possible ancestral talents cancel out each other in favour of sheer mediocrity except for the cunning to make money by fraud and accepting bribes from the higher strata.

Anyway it won’t work: the most mongrelized White-African-Arabic new underclass they wanted to promote as model to be followed by all in France turned out to have lost all personal qualities and prejudices by race and culture mixing … except conspiracy-finding antisemitism as a natural federating factor as epitomized by Dieudonné. The result is that the new-fashioned intellectual Jewish elite of Paris are panicking, developing their own local version of neoconservative thought and telling the White Frenchmen to preserve their heritage from Africanization and mongrelization.

What I cannot stand though is the contrary point of view manifested by race realists such as Gedalia Braun that Negro languages are always more simple and primitive in structure and lacking in the power to express many concepts making civilization possible like metric graduation in the expression of distance in space and time and the notion of appointment and faithfulness as well as a vocabulary needing a dictionary to be relied upon and maintained.

I happen to be a passionate speaker of Haitian Creole of the most purely hillbilly kind as the language of my main love in life, and what Gedalia Braun says is 100% dead wrong even though Creole is supposed to be the zero ground in terms of general linguistics and mental development.

First of all, there is an elaborate tense system in Creole. It seems non-existent only relative to French verbs. Actually it works quite in the same way as English in terms of  morphology and auxiliaries though the shades of tense and aspect meaning are as elaborate as in Classical Spanish. It is much more refined and detailed in expression than the tense system of German or of Hebrew which is without any refinement in its modern form. And we are not even talking about the East Asian languages which are said to devoid of the notion of taste and actually more like what one caricatures as a Negro language.

Like English, and for the same reasons, Creole vocabulary is actually huge and of complex derivation, even though it seems easy to catch it when you begin as a traveling salesman, before long, you realize you will never be over with it.

You’ve got three main levels of language.

One that outwardly looks like simplified French but is combined very differently according to syntactic rules more like Semitic languages, possibly Aramaic, and of semantic rules more like Germanic languages. It is also very detailed, accurate and flexible as regards the expression of movement in space and time. A few engineers I know say it is seducing as an instrument for expressing equations.

The second level is the voodoo one, which works according to a different syntax copied from the Gbe language where the determinant comes before the determined as in German, not afterwards as in the first level, and is used for psychic manipulation purposes and power politics.

A third level of language is used for reasons of communication and compatibility with the surrounding modern sophisticated world and comprises all terms of Latin and Greek etymology present in either French, English and Spanish, generally with a rather French pronunciation but the same meaning as in English, and also a greater freedom in forming new terms by Pseudo-Latin derivation.

I don’t know anything about the Piraha language of Amazonia, but after having read a book by a pastor (Everett) who said he had witnessed the marvel of nonthinking people using it, and it had only three vowels, ten consonants, and no structured sentences, I can assure you this guy has been played with by those “primitives.” After all, as an American Evangelist missionary, he deserved to be shot by a poisoned arrow, but they defended themselves in a grander way by neutering his brain, maybe by the use of other less poisonous botanicals.

What that missionary says in a frantic, ecstatic mood is pure delusion.

First of all, there is a consecrated non-wordy, non-analytic, non-recursive way of expression most delicious to use whenever feasible in many languages closer to ours.

Portuguese is one of the best known examples of it.

Even though Portuguese is a very intricate and rich, complex language as regards its literary form proper, it possesses a register of expression that is very difficult to pick up. You have to develop extrasensory modes of communication to do it.

In this register, you exchange only one-word whispered sentences (like so pode) conveying each one a world of implications, making the conversation more like birds’ concert so to speak. Maybe the Portuguese Catholic Inquisition made that a matter of survival at some time, but its reputation for mortal totalitarian control has been grossly exaggerated compared to other control-freaks like the Judaeo-Anglo-Saxon PC crowd.

Everett has remained in the same kind of racist outlook with direction only reversed. Actually, the Pirahas he has met with have always known much more about his culture and his world, together with many other ones that have been threatening them into extinction for centuries, and which they have circumvented through manipulation so far, than he has about theirs, even after all he thinks he has discovered. I suspect the Pirahas to be a very cunning and not so charming and benevolent crowd, though capable of huge good practical jokes: not at all the last castaways from Eden that Everett still imagines as a former Evangelical.

There is certainly a huge higher initiation level of language the Pirahas are dead intent on reserving to themselves, which as high in left brain content as KGB Russian, the same level as in Portuguese, and my beloved Creole. Haitians even used to have computer-like programming languages long before computers, except that they were used to program humans made into zombies, and the purpose of them was always evil.

Arabic, among the languages of worldwide use, is one of the most difficult technically, not only because of its non-relationship with any roots we know in our own languages or its very heavy and irregular morphology as regards plurals, conjugations, declensions and its convoluted syntax, but also because very simple notions in most other languages even in supposedly closely-related Hebrew never can be said in clear simple terms in Arabic and need a cumbersome grammatical apparatus to be conveyed.

To express the concept of doing again or re-doing something, you have to fully conjugate the two verbs re- and do (prepositions are conjugated too, with as many special rules as with verbs), you cannot add something like un- or de- to express the undoing of something.

Instead you have to use a full clause like I am undoing the attachment of my shirt instead of I am untying it. You cannot say I have done it already, instead you have to say something like It is already overtaken by my doing it. You generally don’t say I must do it (even though you could in theory), instead you more commonly say There is no alternative for me apart from doing so.

One thing I like about Arabic though is its closure towards foreign admixture and the difficulty for foreign words to get naturalized, with the result that the semantic universe is simpler than elsewhere and more coherent.

The most difficult aspect though is that you cannot form compound terms and verbs the way you do in English and Romance languages by using suffixes and prefixes, especially when as a stranger or a beginner you are short of the exact term and would use a synonymous compound word instead. Even the negation of adjectives is not guaranteed, and you have to learn the contrary ones which have independent roots.

One thing remarkable about Arabic is the utmost difficulty of expressing in it the idea of excess or of extremism as being an undesirable thing, and conversely, of moderation as being a virtue. The word too or too much simply doesn’t exist. Phrase books and Google translation recommend to use the word very (jiddan) instead, but it has nearly always a laudatory connotation, and if you insist in using it for meaning too much you are spotted as a clumsily-speaking foreigner.

The problem is that practically all comparatives and superlatives that are used to render the idea of relative excess to a situation, like a truck too high for a tunnel to pass through, are also by themselves as elatives having an admirative value. When you say akbar for instance, it is very big or bigger than expected, but it can never really be too big. It is always something like “Wow my Gosh, how it’s big!” Even apart from the worldwide known religious and terroristic use of Allahu Akbar proper, it is just too big eventually for the sum of money it would cost or some other accidental impediment like a ceiling.

In theory, in very Classical (though non-Koranic) Arabic, you could also use a difficult conjugated verb in a serial clause for expressing the simple adverb too much (the verb ifrat:a, meaning overdoing) as is the case with most simple English adverbs, but  that would sound as pedantic, unnatural and unusual as Shakespearean “multitudinously” (except as verbal nouns to form scientific compound terms used in universities only) and make everybody around laugh, even among religious speakers of Classical Arabic only.

The word “moderate” is generally recommended to be translated in journalistic lingo as mutaäddil.

But if you leave the Western-style university class for the university cafeteria and say Ana muslimun mutaäddil (I am a moderate Muslim), your colleague from a non-Western culture-related subject will understand something completely different.

He will know that your appetites are well moderated by your faith in Islam, that you have renounced all alcohol, you no longer smoke, you skip one meal out of two and fast for the whole Ramadan, you never indulge in erotic or profane literature and try live a spartan life in order to spare money for the Hajj, which things are not a promise of tolerant conduct towards non-believers.

All good translators into Arabic will tell you of the challenge to render such an expression as too much or of the general concept that an extremist point of view (mutat:arrif) might be condemnable.

Leave a comment

Filed under Linguistics, Language Learning, Romance, Language Families, Applied, Indo-European, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Germanic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Italic, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Hittite, Portuguese, German, English language, Afroasiatic, Arabic, French, Indic, Sanskrit, Hindi, Semitic

Stupid New Word Invented for No Good Reason

The otherwise sensible Oxford English Dictionary has just invented a crazy new honorific title to go along the sane titles Mr., Mrs., Miss and Ms., all of which makes some sort of sense. The stupid honorific is Mx. So now we have Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., and Mx. Mx. will be used to transgender people who can’t figure out whether they are men or women or both or neither. It can also be used for idiots who “do not want to identify their gender.” Why would anyone not want to identify their gender!?

The otherwise sensible editor of the OED said it was an example of people using language in ways that suit them rather than having language dictate identity to them. I agree that this has been a serious problem. It is almost a crime the way our honorifics force you to decide whether you are a man or a woman. What a terrible choice to ask people to make.

The Cultural Left Freakshow has just scored another victory in their neverending war against common sense and sanity.

Let’s hear it for the Cultural Left!

Yay Cultural Left!

Go, Cultural Left go!

17 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, English language, Gender Studies, Left, Ridiculousness, Useless Western Left

The Jewish Languages of the Jewish Diaspora

Sam asks:

Robert I should have asked you this before but I had forgotten it. This post jogged my memory. I read once…somewhere…that all Jewish languages were bastardizations of whatever language they were using at the time. The idea being that they could converse amongst themselves without others knowing what they are saying. Seems also the way they transformed the language was supposed to be a bit tricky so as to make it even harder to understand. Does that sound as if that scenario is true or could be true?

I am not sure if they did it on purpose so as not to be understood or if their versions are bastardizations (a term we linguists do not use) of the native tongue, but in just about every nation in which Jews were living in a large number, the Jews were speaking a different language than the natives. In Europe, the Ashkenazim were speaking Yiddish in the north and the Sephardics were speaking Ladino in the South. In the Crimea, the Karaite Jews spoke Ukrainian Karaim and other Jews spoke Krypchak, both of which are closely related to but not the same language as Crimean Tatar. In other parts of Ukraine and in Lithuania and Poland, other Jews also spoke Lithuanian Karaim, a different language from Ukrainian Karaim.

In the Arab World, in each nation where the Arab Jews reside, they speak a different form of Arabic than the natives, for instance, Moroccan Jews might have spoken something called Moroccan Jewish Arabic instead of Moroccan Arabic. They also spoke their own forms of Aramaic where they were living with a lot of Arab Christians in the north of Iraq, Syria and Iran. The Jewish language often had many Hebrew loans in it and was different in other ways. In each case, Ethnologue regards the Jewish language as actually a separate language from the native tongue of the land.

In Northern Europe, Jews took Palatinian German and fashioned a new Jewish language out of it. In the South, they did the same with Spanish. In Ukraine, the Jews melded Crimean Tatar into three separate Jewish languages. In the Arab Muslim and Arab Christian worlds, the Jews took the common and Arabic or Aramaic languages of those lands and fashioned them into separate Jewish languages.

It seems as though everywhere they lived, the Jews desired to be different and set themselves apart from the rest, even in a linguistic sense.

N.B. Most of these Jewish languages are now in very bad shape and by the year 2100, most will probably be extinct with the probable exception of Yiddish and Lithuanian Karaim.

3 Comments

Filed under Africa, Afroasiatic, Altaic, Arabic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Crimean Tatar, Culture, Europe, Europeans, German, Germanic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Jews, Kipchak, Language Families, Linguistics, Lithuania, Middle East, Morocco, North Africa, Poland, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Semitic, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Ukraine

How Close Is Yiddish to English?

Here.

Yiddish: A matone di ale vos bay zeyere kinder in moyl vet yidish lebn.

English: A gift to all those in whose children’s mouths Yiddish will live

Interlineal translation: I am guessing at meanings, but even where the definitions are wrong, that is not of much importance. For instance, if I read zeyere as their then that is successful bilingual communication on my part, even if zeyere does not mean their. I assigned it a token meaning that works perfectly in this context and communication is all that matters in bilingualism, not perfect definitions:

A matone di ale vos   bay zeyere kinder   in moyl    
A        to all those     their  children in mouths

vet yidish  lebn.
yet Yiddish learn.

Not bad. Notice all the cognates. You can do much the same with any German or Frisian or possibly even Dutch sentence.

Yiddish is only a German dialect, closely related to the Palatinian German language as spoken along the Rhine. It is so close to the Mannheim and Speyr dialects Palatinian that it may be nearly intelligible with them. Yiddish has also incorporated a lot of Slavic and Hebrew loans which complicate matters.

German and English are separated by 1,900 years. So after 2,000 years separation, really there is nothing left. An English speaker cannot understand one single word of spoken German. I know this because I have listened to German speakers and I can’t get even one word of their speech. This is true even though German and English are loaded with cognates. But you can’t recognize the cognates because they are “masked.”

So in the sentence above, the English speaker might hear kinder, moyl and lebn, all of which have obvious English cognates, but they still would not make sense of them because they were not recognize the fact that they are cognates. That is, they would hear the word kinder, but have no idea that that referred to children, etc.

If you can’t sort out the cognates and recognize them and connect them up to some word in your own language, they are as good as useless.

7 Comments

Filed under Applied, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Dialectology, English language, German, Germanic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Jews, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Sociolinguistics

Synonyms in English

Look at all the synonyms for one simple word!

Look at all the synonyms for one simple word! That is quite an impressive list!

Amazing. I knew a young Korean woman once, a friend of the family. She knew Korean of course, and she was learning English and could speak it pretty well.

Once she said that she thought all of the synonyms in English were ridiculous and idiotic and that Korean has few synonyms. The Koreans have the attitude that if you have one word that connotes a given meaning, what is the purpose of having another word, basically a duplicate word, for the same meaning? You now have two words that mean exactly the same thing. What exactly have you accomplished other than to clutter up your language and your brain?

In Semantics there is the notion that there is probably no such thing as a synonym other than for slang words. Semanticists believe that most synonyms have slightly different meanings from each other – that is, they have a tiny shade of a different meaning from the word or words that they are synonymous with.

4 Comments

Filed under English language, Linguistics

Beherrschen Linguisten viele Sprachen?

This is a German translation of the post, Linguists Know Lots of Languages? that appeared first on the old site. I used to have a lot of folks translating articles for me on the old site because I had so much traffic coming in and I wanted to accomodate international readers. I would keep track of how many would come from any country for any post and then tally them up. At some point, I would have enough demand for a transation. The blog was making no money at all, so I was volunteering, so I asked all of my translators to volunteer also.

This post might be interesting to any of you who know German. If you want, I can put the English version of the post in too.

Beherrschen Linguisten viele Sprachen?

Ein weit verbreitetes Mißverständnis ist, dass Linguisten viele Sprachen beherrschen. Eine Abwandlung davon ist, dass wer nicht polyglott ist, auch nicht für einen Linguitik-Studiengang zugelassen wird – und schon gar nicht, wer nur eine Sprache spricht.

Viele ältere Leute denken, das Wort “Linguist” sei ein Synonym für “polyglott”.

Ich habe einen Master in Linguistik und spreche nur eine Sprache gut: Das ist Englisch. Mit Spanisch komme ich einigermaßen zurecht, aber ich beherrsche es nicht fließend und schon gar nicht wie ein Muttersprachler. Ich verstehe ein bisschen Italienisch, Französisch, Portugieseich und Chukchansi Yokuts (eine Sprache kalifornischer Indianer), aber mein Spanisch ist besser, als diese Sprachen.

Als Linguist muss man nicht mehr als eine Sprache beherrschen. Beispielsweise habe ich etwa die Hälfte eines Wörterbuches und Sprachführers in Chukchansi Yokuts fertig gestellt, aber eher würde die Hölle vereisen als dass ich diese Sprache wirklich zu beherrschen lernte. Ich habe nur die Daten gesammelt, organisiert, analysiert und in eine Lexikon und etwas Lehrmaterial umgearbeitet.

Für meinen Linguistik-Studiengang war es nicht einmal Voraussetzung, zweisprachig zu sein, um zugelassen zu werden. Ihn haben Viele studiert, die nur eine Sprache beherrschten. Sicherlich, es gab auch viele ausländische Studenten, die jedoch alle auf einen ESL-Abschluß hinarbeiteten (ESL = English as a second language) und dann wieder im Ausland Englisch als Zweitsprache unterrichten wollten.

Alles was wir machen, ist das Studium von Sprachen. Aber man muss die Sprachen nicht wirklich erlernen um sie studieren zu können. Aus irgend einem Grund verstehen viele Leute das nicht.

Es ist wirklich wahr [in diesem Sinn], dass viele Linguisten mehr als eine Sprache kennen, lesen können und schreiben können.

Ein Linguisten-Witz (Mal seh’n, ob Sie ihn verstehen. Sie müssen viellecht ein bisschen nachdenken.): Man sagt, der berühmte Linguist Roman Jacobsen spräche Russisch in 17 verschiedenen Sprachen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Applied, German, Linguistics, Multilingualism, Translations

Stupidest Word Ever Invented in the English Language

Cisgendered.

Ridiculous or what?

In case you are wondering what it means, all of the present commenters on the site are “cis.” We had one oddbody weirdo, but thank the Lord he left and took all of his endless strands of trailing weirdness with him.

Way to go feminists. Thanks a lot, political gays. Thanks for nothing, Cultural Left Freakshow.

The Cultural Left – whittling away at the concept of normal one day at a time. Honestly, I think the Cultural Left actually hates that word and the hate the very idea and concept. I am certain that they want to eliminate that word from our discourse altogether. The Cultural Left probably considers the word “normal” to be on a par with “nigger.”

1 Comment

Filed under Cultural Marxists, English language, Gender Studies, Left, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex

The Roots of the English Language

I was finally able to get a good breakdown of English language roots with the exact percentages. In a previous post I had only guessed at the figures.

According to a 1973 analysis of the shorter (but still 80,000 words) Oxford Dictionary:

28% of English words came from Latin
28% came from French (which is largely Latin)
25% came from elsewhere in the Germanic family
5% came from Greek.

Long story short, more than half of our words (56%) come from the Romance branch and one quarter of our words are more or less from German. Romance and German account for 81% of English words. If we add in the 5% Greek, fully 86% of English words (or almost all of them) come from Romance, German and Greek. Of course the Romance words are all borrowings and only the German words are truly genetically English.

5 Comments

Filed under Balto-Slavic-Germanic, English language, French, German, Germanic, Greek, Hellenic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Linguistics, Romance