home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!swrinde!emory!cs.utk.edu!memstvx1!connolly
- From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
- Newsgroups: sci.lang
- Subject: Re: Future of Languages
- Message-ID: <1993Jan12.115027.4988@memstvx1.memst.edu>
- Date: 12 Jan 93 11:50:27 -0600
- References: <1e59wB1w164w@cellar.org>
- Organization: Memphis State University
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1e59wB1w164w@cellar.org>, dbt@cellar.org (Marquis de Freud) writes:
- > Tying a few threads together here -- dealing with "plausible" lingusitics --
- > I wonder if anyone has tried to *predict* language change. I know many rules
- > exist for classifying linguistic drift, but have there been any notable
- > attempts to extend these observations into the future? (Even if they have
- > been *wrong*).
-
- I don't know of any serious attempts to predict the entire future course
- of a language. However, we do find some predictions of a few changes.
- For instance, it has been noted (I don't remember by whom) that English
- [oi] is poorly integrated into out vowel system and really shouldn't
- exist. (See Chomsky & Halle, The Sound Pattern of English, to see just
- how badly it fits and what they did with it.) It is therefore supposedly
- doomed.
-
- Along the same lines, English verb agreement is very limited and poorly
- integrated. It supposedly is also doomed.
-
- Both of these predictions are supported by popular tendencies in certain
- kinds of English to merge [ai] and [oi] and to eliminate verb agreement,
- so we can't really claim that they're just theoretical predictions.
- So it don't matter if we bile the water, sez me. :)
-
- --Leo Connolly
- I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.
-