http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/ language-related musings - one language is never enough / ét sprog er aldrig nok Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:51:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60885 Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:54:02 +0000 http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60885 My German teacher told us that strong (irregular) verbs were used more often and therefore became strong originally. I guess if they began being used less often later on they could then be reregularized. I am pretty sure strong verbs (Indo-European Ablaut) go back to Proto Indo-European so I am not sure exactly how all this fits together. My German teacher told us that strong (irregular) verbs were used more often and therefore became strong originally. I guess if they began being used less often later on they could then be reregularized. I am pretty sure strong verbs (Indo-European Ablaut) go back to Proto Indo-European so I am not sure exactly how all this fits together.

]]> http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60865 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:49:10 +0000 http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60865 It's not surprising about the replacement, no. However, it would be surprising if they were talking about sound change, as you would think (or at least I would think) that words which are used more frequently would be more likely to undergo changes making them easier to say. It’s not surprising about the replacement, no. However, it would be surprising if they were talking about sound change, as you would think (or at least I would think) that words which are used more frequently would be more likely to undergo changes making them easier to say.

]]> http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60864 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:13:20 +0000 http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60864 This is not very surprising. This is not very surprising.

]]> http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60863 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:04:35 +0000 http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60863 To continue what Dominic said, irregular verbs that are commonly used also take on new forms more readily than less commonly used verbs. For example, the modern English verb "to be", has the most forms of any verb (being the most used) and it has formed from two Anglo-Saxon verbs that both meant "to be" (in some way or another). To continue what Dominic said, irregular verbs that are commonly used also take on new forms more readily than less commonly used verbs. For example, the modern English verb “to be”, has the most forms of any verb (being the most used) and it has formed from two Anglo-Saxon verbs that both meant “to be” (in some way or another).

]]> http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60862 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:39:46 +0000 http://www.omniglot.com/blog/2007/11/08/language-change/#comment-60862 I think it's important to note that when they say "change", they mean "replacement", not sound change. E.g., the word 'two' in English goes all the way back to proto-Indo-European, and it's undergone all sorts of regular sound changes (d > t, for one), but what the authors mean here is that the word hasn't been replaced by another word meaning 'two'. I think it’s important to note that when they say “change”, they mean “replacement”, not sound change. E.g., the word ‘two’ in English goes all the way back to proto-Indo-European, and it’s undergone all sorts of regular sound changes (d > t, for one), but what the authors mean here is that the word hasn’t been replaced by another word meaning ‘two’.

]]>