Why do Indo-European languages became more and more simple (loss of synthetic character, loss of inflection etc.) during history. Why are ancient languages like Slavic, German, Greek and Latin so complex, while modern languages like Romance and English are relatively simple? Whould it not be more logical that the evolution of languages goes from simple to complicated? As it seems it is exactly the other way round. Are there other examples outside the Indo-European world?
Why do Indo-European languages simplify?
Sam, read the answers to your postings. German isn't an ancient language, nor are the slavic languages. Greek (modern Greek) isn't ancient, too. The ''synthetic character'' of a language is only one part of the total complexity of a language, the complexity of the grammar is another part. The complexity of the phoneme system is a third one.
Why did latin and old english etc, become lose many grammatical features, like inflection over time? Why was it preferred with analitic grammar, like today?
Most ancient and archaic languages are Baltic ones - my language Latvian and Lithuanian.
Baltic languages are even higher inflected like Latin and Slavic languages.
Es esmu lepns, ka esmu latvietis. Dievs sveetii Latviju!
Es esmu lepns, ka esmu latvietis. Dievs sveetii Latviju!
English lost most of its inflection due to extensive contact with peoples whose language was not English. Grammatical features which make a language harder to learn AT FIRST, such as gender, cases, declensions and verb conjugation gradually disappeared to make communication easier.
So its probably the case that where people live in fairly isolated groups or have little need to communicate with anyone who doesn't speak their language, their language might evolve towards a greater grammatical complexity, but once there is extensive contact with non-native speakers, it might then start to go in the other direction.
So its probably the case that where people live in fairly isolated groups or have little need to communicate with anyone who doesn't speak their language, their language might evolve towards a greater grammatical complexity, but once there is extensive contact with non-native speakers, it might then start to go in the other direction.
Yeah, I'm not sure where Sam II has got the idea from that the Romance languages are grammatically much simpler than German.
Ist Deutsch deine Muttersprache, SamII? Willst du deshalb behaupten, dass es sehr schwer sei? Ich bin Englischmuttersprachler, und obwohl mein Deutsch gar nicht perfekt ist, ist es auch nicht schlecht. Ich würde nicht sagen, dass Deutsch sehr schwer sei. Zwar ist die Grammatik ziemlich kompliziert, aber sobald man die Regeln versteht, kann man meistens ohne Probleme richtige Sätze bilden. Deutsch zu beherrschen ist bestimmt nicht leicht, aber das gilt sicherlich für alle Sprachen, sogar die 'einfache' Englisch.
Ist Deutsch deine Muttersprache, SamII? Willst du deshalb behaupten, dass es sehr schwer sei? Ich bin Englischmuttersprachler, und obwohl mein Deutsch gar nicht perfekt ist, ist es auch nicht schlecht. Ich würde nicht sagen, dass Deutsch sehr schwer sei. Zwar ist die Grammatik ziemlich kompliziert, aber sobald man die Regeln versteht, kann man meistens ohne Probleme richtige Sätze bilden. Deutsch zu beherrschen ist bestimmt nicht leicht, aber das gilt sicherlich für alle Sprachen, sogar die 'einfache' Englisch.
>>sogar die 'einfache' Englisch<<
Should be 'sogar das 'einfache Englische'.
Should be 'sogar das 'einfache Englische'.
<<Sam, read the answers to your postings. German isn't an ancient language, nor are the slavic languages. Greek (modern Greek) isn't ancient, too. >>
Modern Greek is very similar to Ancient Greek, like Modern German is very similar to Old Germanic. Greek and German underwent some slight simplification, but these simplifications are not to be compared with the profound changes Romance languages underwent. An average Romance spreaker will not understand one single sentence of "DE BELLO GALLICO" if he did not learn Classical Latin for some years.
Modern Greek is very similar to Ancient Greek, like Modern German is very similar to Old Germanic. Greek and German underwent some slight simplification, but these simplifications are not to be compared with the profound changes Romance languages underwent. An average Romance spreaker will not understand one single sentence of "DE BELLO GALLICO" if he did not learn Classical Latin for some years.
I doubt if German native speakers (I'm one) today would understand Old Germanic.
What do you mean by Old Germanic? Althochdeutsch?
I never heard or read the term ''ancient languages'' refering to the languages you mention. It doesn't seem to be a scientific term at all.
What do you mean by Old Germanic? Althochdeutsch?
I never heard or read the term ''ancient languages'' refering to the languages you mention. It doesn't seem to be a scientific term at all.
He's probably referring to the proto-languages (Proto-Germanic, Proto-Slavic, etc.)
Languages really don't get that much more simple... I could be wrong, but it seems like as time goes on, languages develop more irregularities, and inflections that disappear eventually get replaced.
Languages really don't get that much more simple... I could be wrong, but it seems like as time goes on, languages develop more irregularities, and inflections that disappear eventually get replaced.
Sam II : « Why do Indo-European languages became more and more simple (loss of synthetic character, loss of inflection etc.) during history. »
Ce que tu dis est totalement faux. Le castillan et le français ne sont pas connus pour la perte de leurs inflexions verbales...
Sam II : « Why are ancient languages like Slavic, German, Greek and Latin so complex, while modern languages like Romance and English are relatively simple? »
L'allemand n'est pas une langue « antique ». Et d'où tiens-tu ta curieuse conception de la "simplicité" ?
Sam II : « Whould it not be more logical that the evolution of languages goes from simple to complicated? As it seems it is exactly the other way round. »
Et si c'était tout simplement ta grille d'analyse qui était fausse, et non la logique de l'évolution linguistique ? Pourquoi veux-tu que le portugais soit "plus simple" que le latin ?
Ce que tu dis est totalement faux. Le castillan et le français ne sont pas connus pour la perte de leurs inflexions verbales...
Sam II : « Why are ancient languages like Slavic, German, Greek and Latin so complex, while modern languages like Romance and English are relatively simple? »
L'allemand n'est pas une langue « antique ». Et d'où tiens-tu ta curieuse conception de la "simplicité" ?
Sam II : « Whould it not be more logical that the evolution of languages goes from simple to complicated? As it seems it is exactly the other way round. »
Et si c'était tout simplement ta grille d'analyse qui était fausse, et non la logique de l'évolution linguistique ? Pourquoi veux-tu que le portugais soit "plus simple" que le latin ?
<<I never heard or read the term ''ancient languages'' refering to the languages you mention. It doesn't seem to be a scientific term at all. >>
I call ''ancient languages'' languages that were spoken by concrete and well documented ethnicities in the ancient world before the Latin conquest of Western Europe and the Germanic migration period. German, Greek, Slavic, Celtic and Latin are "ancient languages" that are still alive exept Latin. One cannot call Homers Greek language a dead language like Latin, since modern Greek is not far away from the ancien version. The same is true for German and Slavic and probably Celtic. They all can be characterized as archaic, complex, inflective, difficult to learn as foreign languages.
"Modern languages" are those created during and after the migration period like the Romance languages or English. They were newly-created during the middle ages and are connected to their root languages Latin, Germanic and Celtic only via the etymology of their vocabulary and some grammatical relicts that are common to all Indo-European languages. Especially the Romance grammars are so far away from Latin that they must be considered as constituing "new" languages like Esperanto - very useful, easy to learn, nice to listen to, comfortable like modern buildings.
I call ''ancient languages'' languages that were spoken by concrete and well documented ethnicities in the ancient world before the Latin conquest of Western Europe and the Germanic migration period. German, Greek, Slavic, Celtic and Latin are "ancient languages" that are still alive exept Latin. One cannot call Homers Greek language a dead language like Latin, since modern Greek is not far away from the ancien version. The same is true for German and Slavic and probably Celtic. They all can be characterized as archaic, complex, inflective, difficult to learn as foreign languages.
"Modern languages" are those created during and after the migration period like the Romance languages or English. They were newly-created during the middle ages and are connected to their root languages Latin, Germanic and Celtic only via the etymology of their vocabulary and some grammatical relicts that are common to all Indo-European languages. Especially the Romance grammars are so far away from Latin that they must be considered as constituing "new" languages like Esperanto - very useful, easy to learn, nice to listen to, comfortable like modern buildings.
It seems like there's something fishy about the idea that languages can only "simplify" their morphology. If this were true, over the span of 10000s of years, wouldn't all languages be 100% analytic by now. Doesn't one-way simplification imply that the ancient languages suddenly sprang to life with massive morphological complexity, and then gradually simplified at different rates to their present state?
Surely, there must be some equilibrium, where certain languages are getting more complex and others are simplifying.
Surely, there must be some equilibrium, where certain languages are getting more complex and others are simplifying.