Posted by Christopher O'Regan on 1:19 10/1/01
In reply to: Cadhinor through the ages posted by Mark Rosenfelder on 21:50 9/28/01
I quite like Cadhinor through the ages since it gives an indication of the depth of Cadhinorian/Verdurian literature. After all, reading Chaucer's English is a fascinating look at our tongue (or tung) in the days of its youth. Likewise, the massive amount of Latin literature changes a fair bit between the "Manios" broach and the writings of Cicero, and again during mediaeval days. The new material really adds depth and life to the Central languages.
I have to admit though, as far as Revouse's grammar goes, I find it a bit too misguided; I'm aware that (a) it's not meant to be a scholarly work and (b) Verdurians haven't yet gotten rid of all their hangups about language, but surely even so they'd be capable of some objectivity? I mean, since so pere rhon has been reconstructed, awareness of Cadhinor's place in the grand scheme of things must be growing. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. After all, on 21st-Century Earth, people still ask me: "which is the purest descendent of Latin, Italian or English?"
-Shoelaces of the world, untie!
You have nothing to loose but your brains-
The Verdurian scholars who reconstructed so pere rhon are certainly better-informed than Shm Revouse; after all, they understand, as he does not, that Cadhinor developed from another language.
Still, they would have some ideas that would strike us as retrograde. I'm now reading Max Müller's Science of Language, published in 1861. In some ways it has 'modern' attitudes (Müller derides Americans for their support of slavery, says that Hottentot is as interesting for the linguist as Latin, thinks that language change is inevitable), but in other ways not (he talks about sound change as "phonetic decay", talks about how the languages of "savages" changes faster, talks about the excellence of Sanskrit as opposed to the "impure jargon" of Hindustani).