From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu Dec 19 05:53:45 PST 1996 Article: 86655 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!news.ac.net!pacifier!gatech!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: email@example.com Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Where are we? Date: 16 Dec 1996 16:02:45 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Lines: 109 Message-ID: <19961216160200.LAA13911@ladder01.news.aol.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: email@example.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (ibokor) writes: >In response to the suggestion that it is implausible >for, say, a Czech to communicate with a Pole when >neither speakes a foreign langugae, d.A. wrote: > > >Czech, Slovak, Ruthenian, Ukrainian are all northern Slavic >languages, close enough to each other that anyone speaking >one can understand rudimentary parts of another. It does >not take an IQ of 163 to understand the Czech or Slovak >equivalent of "Where are we?" if you speak Polish > > >To this , Alles andere als ehrlich responded: > >Inexact. Czech and Slovak are _West_ Slavic, along with Polish and >numerous semi-dialects. > > > >d.A. responds: > >You are are correct in tour linguistic classification. >I was using the geographical, rather than linguistic >classification. > >What I had in mind is the fact that the geographical >locations where Slavic languages are spoken as the local >language are divided into two distinct and separate >regions, with Austria, Hungary and Roumania physically >separating them into a geographically southern and >a geographically northern one. > >However, careful reading of my posting would have >prevented misunderstanding. As I understand the situation >--- and correct me if I am wrong --- the Slavic (or >Slavonic languages) are divided into three groups: >East Slav(on)ic, West Slav(on)ic and South Slav(on)ic, >with the first two spoken north of the Austria-Hungary-Roumania >line (if I may be allowed a little licence) and the last south >of it. There is no North Slav(on)ic group. > >The observant reader will have noted that when referring >to the linguistic grouping, the words "West", "East" >and "South" are captilised, as is the adjective "British", >whereas the geographically descriptive "northern" in my >text is not. This is a good example to show the importance >of orthography to prevent potential misunderstanding. > > >It is a pity that Alles andere als Ehrlich has overlooked >this fact. That is all the more noteworthy remarkable since >Alles andere als Ehrlich has claimed sunstantial expertise >in matters of language in a variety of languages. > >d.A. > > Sajnos hogy Uborka uram nem tud erteni amit irtam vagy ir hibassal rolam. Sokat nyelvet olvashatok, pedig nem jo beszelek. Es -- tudjak. Niemals habe ich hier gesagen, das ich ein Meister der Sprachen war, nur habe ich geschrieben dass ich sieben oder acht Sprachen lesen kann (mit einem Woerterbuch, naturlich!). Potomu chto my znaem Vy ne ponimaite russkiy yazik, ne napishu Vam etim yazikom. What struck me about your post was the fact that you were apparently unaware of the Slavic family groupings, because, if you had been aware, you would not have characterized Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian, and Ruthenian as four separate languages in the same family. What you _do_ have are essentially two languages with two names each (for politico-historical reasons) in two related families. This surprised me: after all, your claimed linguistic expertise is even more notorious than mine. The argument that it is irrelevant because they are all *northern* in a geographic sense doesn't help you much, because if you made the same assertion about, say, the *west* Germanic languages, or the *west* Romance languages, let alone the *northern* Caucasian languages you would simply be creating opportunties for, as you say, *licence-tious* mirth. The dialectal spread among Slavic languages _even in all three families_ is probably not as great as the spread between German and English alone in our family, and that includes the *northern* ones as well as the *southern* ones that somehow you forgot to mention. Your statement would not have attracted as much attention if you had stated that _all_ Slavic languages show mutually intelligible similarities in the most basic vocabulary. [Shift from K to G, tendency toward zero copula in Eastern Slavic, but would in any case have been replaced with the intensive particle *zh* which would be devoiced by position, are all trivial differences, and even more trivial phonologically, etc.] Instead you insisted on this *northern* group, which seemed an unconscionable error given your penchant for calling others *frauds* when _they_ make mistakes, whether it be me or jbelling. Of course, it is only natural that those who insist on gleeful displays of Schadenfreude whenever anyone else makes a mistake are soon reduced to the rearguard defense of proving that they never make any. Be my guest. In the meantime take my original comment as a lesson on how to correct someone politely. This post caught my eye because I am renewing acquaintances with old languages and learning some new ones, too. Given your *more noteworthy remarkable* response, so are you. Tschau, bebe!
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor