You are here: Home Frogologoblog Tags language

Frogologoblog

Musings mainly on language

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Archives
    Archives Contains a list of blog posts that were created previously.
  • Login
    Login Login form
Subscribe to this list via RSS Blog posts tagged in language

Posted by on in Uncategorized

It started as a simple retweet to @Languagebandit’s post that “Modern forms of "to be" are a mishmash of 3 different Old English stems + conjugations, which is why "be", "is" & "were" seem so different”.

I copied and pasted a line from my (soon to be published) book Pour en finir avec la langue française suggesting that the present tense of the verb to be comes from four separate roots: bēon → be ; eom → am ; earun → are ; and is → is and got more retweets and likes than ever before. Which is interesting but not as interesting as the roots of the principle itself. When a verb develops out of originally different verbs, it is called suppletion, a relatively common phenomenon in Indo-European languages. In English, it is the present tense of ‘to be’ that gets the juices flowing, deriving from 4 Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots:
*h1es- (the copula is) → am and is
*bʰuH- (‘to grow’ or ‘to become’) → be and been
*wes- (possibly ‘to live’) → was and were
*h1er- (possible alternative to *h1es-, via Old Norse) → art and are

Which don’t exactly match the examples given earlier (bēon → be, etc.) because they correspond to different stages of language development, but still show the potential for various roots of different meanings coming together into a single verb. We find similar situations in languages such as Gothic, German, Icelandic, Lithuanian, Old Slavonic, Polish and so on.

Another verb that likes to mix and match is ‘to go’. While in English we stick to the relatively vanilla ‘I go’ vs ‘I went’ (from ‘wend’, the current past of which is ‘wended’), Latin-based languages such as French, Spanish and Portuguese tend to be derived from three (or, questionably, four) Latin verbs : vadere and ire (both to walk, go, or move forward) & ambulare (come and go, walk, walk away from, go for a walk) → *amlare*allare). The present, for example, uses ambulare / *allare (and no-one’s really sure about this development from ambulare or ambitare into aller) for the infinitive aller and most tenses plus the 1st and 2nd persons plural of the present, vadere for the rest of the present, je vais (I go, etc), and ire for the future j’irai (I will go). Why Romanian chose ‘a merge’ from Latin mergĕre for to dive, plunge or penetrate into is another kettle of fish.

But what we do see here are the traces of the difficulties earlier speakers had of expressing or interpreting intensity or subtlety of meaning with the words they had available. Suggestions have been made that the allare form existed in France in the 2nd C CE and might have resulted from a familiar military order: go! (Allez! from imperative ambulā́te with emphasis on its long final ‘a’ to allate with emphasis on its final ‘e’). And while ‘I go’ could be understood as a simple expression of personal choice and movement, the inclusive 1st and 2nd persons plural – Allons! and Allez! – could understandably be conceived of as a more coercive version of movement.

These are just ideas, tiny pieces of the massive jigsaw attempting to explain how language originates. One day, maybe, I might take a look at it more seriously.

Hits: 2681
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

b2ap3_thumbnail_Flag_of_Esperanto.pngEsperanto is what’s known as a conlang, or constructed language, invented by L. L. Zamenhof in the 1870s/1880s. Living in a divided community of Russians, Poles, Germans, Old Believers, Catholics, Protestants and Jews, where everyone hated everyone else, Zamenhof believed a common language could bring people together.

In itself, it was a good idea but, as various other conlangs have discovered, it doesn’t really work. Esperanto may boast the greatest number of speakers, about 2,000,000, but in its 125-odd years of existence has only spread to about 0.03% of the world population. Today, it might have a couple of hundred native speakers (poor buggers).

What other qualities does it not bring to the table?:
• Other than the occasional novel or poem, it has nothing written in it. Everything has to be translated
• Based on Western European languages, it is of no help to Asians, Africans…
• Where place names help us understand the Celts or Etruscans, Esperanto has none
• Where probably every driver in the world recognizes “Stop!”, who the hell knows “Ĉesu!”?
• Where 80% of scientific papers are published in English (www.scopus.com), Esperanto has essentially none
• Where 80% of websites are in English, there are at least 19 in Esperanto
• Where the world population has gone from an approximate 1.325 billion in 1875 to some 7.350 billion today (up 550%) and the English-speaking world from about 50 million to 1 billion (up 2000%), it is clear that Esperanto has no future other than that of a tiny group of learners who have failed to understand the concept of sunk cost fallacy…

So, to reiterate what I said in a recent tweet: “Esperanto is a game”. It’s a Lego house compared to a capital city, a stick man compared to Rembrandt. It is useless.

Nice flag though.

 

Hits: 3045
0
You are here: Home Frogologoblog Tags language