|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: 2.7182818284590...2.7182818284590... Date: Jun 11, 2008 21:11
When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals
there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the
East. Moreover, in modern-day-England, they only spoke a Celtic
language, but not Latin. Was a Latin-based language ever spoken in
England?
When the Ottoman Turks controlled Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya area,
they were never able to supplant the language of the people, but they
were able to replace the religion. However, the Seljuks eventually
spread their religion *AND* their language from Eastern Anatolia to
Istanbul. Of course, it took ~400 years to do so (from Battle of
Manzikert to Fall of Constantinople in 1453). Why was it easy for the
Seljuks to spread Turkic language?
Also, the Arabs were unable to spread Arabic language to Pakistan/
Afghanistan. Why?
Why was it impossible to replace Albanian/Bosnian/Chechnyan language?
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
|
| | 382 Comments |
|
|
Author: jerry warnerjerry warner Date: Jun 11, 2008 22:32
"2.7182818284590..." wrote:
> When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals
> there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the
> East. Moreover, in modern-day-England, they only spoke a Celtic...
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Martin EdwardsMartin Edwards Date: Jun 12, 2008 00:03
2.7182818284590... wrote:
> When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals
> there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the
> East. Moreover, in modern-day-England, they only spoke a Celtic
> language, but not Latin. Was a Latin-based language ever spoken in
> England?
>
As far as I know, no, except by the elite who still had to speak Welsh
to the general population.
> When the Ottoman Turks controlled Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya area,
> they were never able to supplant the language of the people, but they
> were able to replace the religion. However, the Seljuks eventually
> spread their religion *AND* their language from Eastern Anatolia to
> Istanbul. Of course, it took ~400 years to do so (from Battle of
> Manzikert to Fall of Constantinople in 1453). Why was it easy for the
> Seljuks to spread Turkic language?
They simply did not spread it as far.
>
> Also, the Arabs were unable to spread Arabic language to Pakistan/
|
| Show full article (2.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: NorahNorah Date: Jun 12, 2008 00:20
"Martin Edwards" yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:jT34k.119924$Zs3.106847@newsfe20.ams2...> 2.7182818284590... wrote:
>> When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals
>> there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the
>> East. Moreover, in modern-day-England, they only spoke a Celtic
>> language, but not Latin. Was a Latin-based language ever spoken in
>> England?
>>
> As far as I know, no, except by the elite who still had to speak Welsh to
> the general population.
>
>> When the Ottoman Turks controlled Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya area,
>> they were never able to supplant the language of the people, but they
>> were able to replace the religion. However, the Seljuks eventually
>> spread their religion *AND* their language from Eastern Anatolia to
>> Istanbul. Of course, it took ~400 years to do so (from Battle of
>> Manzikert to Fall of Constantinople in 1453). Why was it easy for the
>> Seljuks to spread Turkic language?
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jack Campin - bogus addressJack Campin - bogus address Date: Jun 12, 2008 01:27
> When the Romans took over Eastern and Southern Europe, the locals
> there didn't adopt Vulgar Latin. They instead spoke Greek in the
> East. Moreover, in modern-day-England, they only spoke a Celtic
> language, but not Latin. Was a Latin-based language ever spoken in
> England?
>
> When the Ottoman Turks controlled Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya area,
> they were never able to supplant the language of the people, but they
> were able to replace the religion. However, the Seljuks eventually
> spread their religion *AND* their language from Eastern Anatolia to
> Istanbul. Of course, it took ~400 years to do so (from Battle of
> Manzikert to Fall of Constantinople in 1453). Why was it easy for the
> Seljuks to spread Turkic language?
|
| Show full article (1.85Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mbmb Date: Jun 12, 2008 02:37
On Jun 12, 1:27Â am, Jack Campin
>
> Â "2.7182818284590..."
...
>> When the Ottoman Turks controlled Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya area,
>> they were never able to supplant the language of the people, but they
>> were able to replace the religion. Â However, the Seljuks eventually
>> spread their religion *AND* their language from Eastern Anatolia to
>> Istanbul. Â Of course, it took ~400 years to do so (from Battle of
>> Manzikert to Fall of Constantinople in 1453). Â
Why was it easy for the
>> Seljuks to spread Turkic language?
>
> They didn't. Â Ottoman Turkish became the language of administration,
> but most of Anatolia spoke Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Laz and Arabic
> until the early 20th century. Â The Ottoman system was constituted in
> such a way that it couldn't have that much impact...
|
| Show full article (2.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Craoibhin66Craoibhin66 Date: Jun 12, 2008 03:38
On Jun 12, 10:03 am, Martin Edwards yahoo.com> wrote:> 2.7182818284590... wrote:
>
>> Afghanistan. Why?
>
>> Why was it impossible to replace Albanian/Bosnian/Chechnyan language?
>
> It isn't one language. Albanian is probably descended from Illyrian.
> Chechen is a Turkic language.
This is, of course, wrong. Chechen is a Caucasian language, i.e. it
belongs to one of the small language families of the region, which are
called "Caucasian languages" for convenience. It is definitely not a
Turkic language.
> Bosnians speak Serbo-Croat.
True, although it should be called "cultured Neo-Shtokavian".
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: António MarquesAntónio Marques Date: Jun 12, 2008 04:12
Norah wrote:
> As I understood it reading Roman Historians and others works there were
> different situations in south eastern England than up north on the border to
> the 'barbarians' in today's Scotland.
The most romanised part of Britain (the SW) was the one first affected
by germanic conquest.
In many of the cases in discussion, the difference is between a
permanent settling on conquered land vs simple administrative/military sway.
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter T. DanielsPeter T. Daniels Date: Jun 12, 2008 04:35
On Jun 12, 12:11Â am, "2.7182818284590..." gmail.com>
wrote:
[the question in the header]
Language contact is a robust field of linguistics. Read about it.
As with any matter of human history, there are no overall rules
governing it.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Craoibhin66Craoibhin66 Date: Jun 12, 2008 04:54
On Jun 12, 2:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" verizon.net> wrote:> On Jun 12, 12:11 am, "2.7182818284590..." gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [the question in the header]
>
> Language contact is a robust field of linguistics. Read about it.
>
> As with any matter of human history, there are no overall rules
> governing it.
No _overall_ rules, but of course certain general tendencies could be
discerned.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
