At 12:53 1/07/98 -0400, you wrote:
>In article <35996492.9D430F09 at banet.net>, skring at banet.net wrote:
>>> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>>>> > Mentipoo, I "grok" the Latin you used just fine. I also consider Latin to
>> > be useful for historians and antiquarians. It's dead. No natural
>> > scientist needs it these days.
>> > If you consider how many words in most modern Western languages are
>> > of Latin or Greek, you would not call either a dead language. If anything,
>> > English is an almost dead language, as there is very little Angle-ish left
>> > in it.
>>>> (Sorry; just couldn't resist this iconoclasm)
>>>I did not write the second paragraph, and whomever claims that most words
>in English are "composed of Latin or Greek" is only showing off his utter
>ignorance of English, indeed, he is only showing off his utter ignorance
>of northern European languages.
hmm, we are stretching things a little here aren't we?
'many words' is not the same as 'most words' for a start.....you only need
to READ the post for that one. Also, there is a second subtext
here.....English is a language that has very little Angle-ish left in it, I
agree, as it has a lot (or even 'many') words with French, German or even
Slavic origins (although I admit I can't think of an example for the last
one right now). The notion of a language being static is not supported by
many people (and IMHO laughable) as language is dynamic, just as its users
(ie: you and me) are similarly dynamic.
a little more constructive debate please.
The Murdoch Institute,
R.C.H. Flemington Rd, Parkville, 3052,
kerrr at cryptic.rch.unimelb.edu.au
Phone (61) 3 9345 5045.
FAX (61) 3 9348 1391.
'The most interesting things about vertebrates occur in the neural crest.'