> >The point is that for several centuries, the only
> >'written form' of Italian, French, etc, _was_ Latin.
>Which means that Italian, French, etc did not have a written
>form. [...] Their Gloranthan analogues, however, do, and its
>shared.
It seems to me that this is a case of oversimplification of linguistics. It's very difficult to say when two forms of spoken communication are differnet languages - I think the statment about the west imlpies people can't communicate verbally but, if they are literate, can read any documents.
Only one hundred years ago in England, you could take someone 100 miles away from their home and, although they spoke English and their new neighbors spoke English speaking, they'd have great difficulty making themselves heard. These people probably couldn't write however, if they had, they would have been able to communicate through writing - the reason being that they didn't speak what they wrote - they would have written English - the King's english - and spoken a dialect of English. I imagine the same is true, though possible to an exaggerated extent in the west.
Peter Metcalfe:
>> Ooh, like a medieval society based on social mobility,
> Napoleon's France.
Last time I looked, Napoleon's France wasn't medieval: although the social ranks were sill in place the society was considerably different. After all, we still have Dukes and Lords in blighty.
Cheers
rog
Powered by hypermail