The Maygars and the Finns: Lost cousins

[Reno]

Could somebody speaking Finnish tell me what a müsta is?

Musta means black (like was said). The letter ü is not found in Finnish, it's found in languages such as Estonian (a close relative of Finnish) and German.

 

[klazlo]

Musta means black (like was said). The letter ü is not found in Finnish, it's found in languages such as Estonian (a close relative of Finnish) and German.

... and in Hungarian.

 

[Aion]

Finnish uses the letter y for the same sound. In this case, it's probably only a heavy-metal-umlaut

 

[Vrylakas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrylakas
A people simply do not give up on their own language and start speaking another, even in situations of occupation or conquest.

I'm not convinced by this. What of the Persian Christians, who gradually gave up speaking Syriac and switched to Arabic under the Abbasids?

Syriac refers to a whole range of Semitic (i.e., not Iranian or Indo-European) languages spoken in the territories of ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) in late Classical times. It refers roughly to the written (literary) form of Aramaic. When it's called "Persian", they are referring to the empire whose border (along with Rome) its speakers straddled (i.e., did not involve Farsi-speakers). It remained in use by the old Syriac churches until the Arab invasion, but that's just it - Mesopotamia (the region) suffered a catastrophic invasion by a well-organized and ideologically-driven conquerer in the 7th century who flooded the fertile region with colonists. The original "Syriac"-speakers were displaced to the outter deserts of Iraq - where they still can be found today, still speaking a modern derivative of the ancient Aramaic/Amorite languages. (I think in English today it's called "Chaldean".) The people themselves were physically removed, and replaced by foreign speakers. It wasn't that the population remained constant and started speaking another laguage; it was another case of displacement.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's true, or at least, it's not all the truth. Many Persian Christians remained within Mesopotamia: many of them were socially quite high ranking or wealthy, and they were not among those deported to the eastern borders. These people stayed where they were, and became more and more culturally influenced by their conquerors (taking Arabian-style patronymics, etc). So you can see this in a figure such as Catholicos Timotheos I, who ruled from 780 to 823, and who was apparently bilingual in Syriac and Arabic. He spoke the former in church and the latter when debating with the caliph. He represents a transitional stage, since throughout the ninth century Arabic was increasingly spoken by the Christians within Persia, displacing Syriac by the tenth century. Evidently the more marginal Christian communities continued to speak Syriac, but it was not the language of the church's heartlands by this stage.

You shouldn't over-stress the catastrophic nature of the initial Muslim invasions, either. In fact the Persian church, for the most part, did just as well under the Muslims as it had under the Zoroastrians. There was a bit of a decline in the later centuries, but really it was the invasions of Tamerlane in the fourteenth century that did this church in, not the earlier invasions of the Arabs.

 

[Israelite9191]

I blame bad sources for my mistake. I submit to the superior sources of Vrylakas.

 

[Vrylakas]

I think you're confusing my use of the term “peoples”. I am referring to an established community with a single common identity marked by certain markers (religion, language, traditions, etc.) whom all members share, and whom all members (as well as outsiders) recognize to be a community.

It was originally posited that the Uighurs, as such a “people” (re: definition above), had at one point in their history as a community spoken not just another language, but one completely outside their current language's linguistic family. This is absurd and highly unlikely. Peoples (definition above again) do not just change languages. Individuals do, small groups of humans do in different circumstances, but peoples do not. Though identity markers for what makes a community of people have changed over time, language has almost always been one of them. Giving up a language for a group more often than not means something catastrophic for the community – outside invasion, extreme economic or environmental distress, etc.

Your example of the Syriac languages is just such a case of a catastrophic event for the peoples using that language. That some scattered remnants of the culture survived and were tolerated by the invaders means little – some almost invariably always do. When I say “catastrophic” I don't mean burning buildings and mass slaughter; I mean conditions which are hostile to a community (the whole community) and its practices. Syriac forms of Christianity still survive in isolated enclaves in Iraq and Turkey today, but these are the mere fragments of a once large and locally dominant culture that did not survive the Arab invasions. Of those Syriac language-speakers who did adopt Arabic, they did so because their own community had been destroyed; the Syriac community had ceased to exist, except for a few outposts.

This is the difference between, say, modern Basque (whose community of speakers have survived countless foreign rulers) and the native language of most modern Irish - English - which is a case where the common community was really formed after the experience of foreign onslaught.

No community ever just gives up its own language. When members of a community do start resorting to a foreign language (supplanting their former native language) it is because their former community has in some way been destroyed or dismantled. Language is a crucial identity marker for humans and they do not give it up lightly. In those cases where circumstances undermine a culture - like the fragmentary Syriac-speakers or the Latin-speakers who wandered the Balkans for centuries after the western Roman collapse - even yet, the new replacement language always bears the imprint of its predecessor, unless there's been a complete population change (like the French to English in 18th century Nova Scotia). Israelite9191's case of Uighurs completely shifting gears and dropping their native language completely and adopting a foreign langauge with no resulting trace of their Ugric period is unprecedented.

 

[Israelite9191]

Ya, I admited I was wrong. Please stop saying that I still claim it. Also, I can think of a better example of a people that have given up their language. That would be the Manx. They remain a distinct people despite their having given up their language. There is a current movement to revive the language, but it is a most certainly dead language formerly spoken by a still living and unique people.

 

[Vrylakas]

Relax Israelite9191, I wasn't "rubbing it in". I was merely bringing up what started the whole discussion of language changes in a population.

Manx is a better example, but still not really a case of a population just giving up its own language. The core problem for Manx (the language) is in the 19th century it rapidly began to run out of "new blood" as young Manx-speakers moved to the UK (or the US) in droves and adopted to the English-speaking world. Those who returned brought their sense of Britishness with them, and the older Manx culture - not just the language, but many Manx cultural traits - were overwhelmed and undermined by the powerful economic and political pull of English. It's not that Manx-speakers just decided to start speaking another language; it's another case of a local culture coming under tremendous external pressures.

 

[Israelite9191]

But the Manx are still a unque culture that because of circumstances, in this case external pressure (actually the reason I suggested for the Uighur loosing their language), gave up their native language in favor of an unrelated, foreign one. Though they lost some of their cultural traits, they still maintained a unique identity. I think that this shows that it is possible for a people to give up their language and still remain unique.

 

[Plotinus]

Your example of the Syriac languages is just such a case of a catastrophic event for the peoples using that language. That some scattered remnants of the culture survived and were tolerated by the invaders means little – some almost invariably always do. When I say “catastrophic” I don't mean burning buildings and mass slaughter; I mean conditions which are hostile to a community (the whole community) and its practices. Syriac forms of Christianity still survive in isolated enclaves in Iraq and Turkey today, but these are the mere fragments of a once large and locally dominant culture that did not survive the Arab invasions. Of those Syriac language-speakers who did adopt Arabic, they did so because their own community had been destroyed; the Syriac community had ceased to exist, except for a few outposts.

I still say this isn't an accurate account of what happened in Persia: the Christian communities remained large and did pretty well throughout the period of Arabian dominance. It was only in the fourteenth century, with the Mongol invasions, that they were reduced to "scattered remnants". But they mostly switched from Syriac to Arabic in the ninth century, while they were still doing well.

Still, the Manx example is an interesting one. What of Welsh, Gaelic, etc, which became virtually extinct before their recent re-introduction? Isn't their displacement by English an example of people changing languages? And isn't their return an even more striking example? There are very many Welsh people who speak Welsh as their first language, where a century ago virtually no-one spoke it at all.

One could also cite Singapore, where a deliberate effort was made to have everyone speak English as their first language. The attempt only half-worked (everyone speaks English, but not necessarily as well as their ethnic mother tongue, and it's pretty weird English at best), but here you have a country which under no foreign pressure at all decided what language to speak and then implemented it.

 

[Israelite9191]

Welsh, Gaelic, and Scots Gaelic are interesting examples, but the last two in particular, don't fit in all the way. The language never lost native speakers entirely, only most of them. In parts of West Ireland Gaelic remained stronger than English throughout, while in Scotland the same can be said for Sctos Gaelic in the Highlands. I think with Welsh you have a slightly better case, but not quite enough.

Another language I was thinking of that lost, if I remember correctly, all of its native speakers was Cornish. In that case the Corns are not even recognized by the British government as beign seperate in culture from the in English in any way more than the position of Duke of Cornwall. This lack of respect from the ruling nation and the relative poverty of the Corns in relation to English and other British Celts resulted in them giving up their language and much of their culture, yet they still maintianed a good level of uniqueness to them.

Another example would be Breton, a Celtic language now spoken by only a few people in Brittany, France. The French government has not alloud language preservation movements in their country, this has stiffled any chance for Breton revitalization. Yet, the Bretons remain extremely unique. They tend to appear to be a mix of the more traditionally associated Celtic peoplese (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc.) and the neighboring French.

Furthermore, you can see an example of people giving up their language when Italian and French were derived and made into the official languages of much larger areas than in which they were originally spoken. When French was introduced, the other oil languages nearly disapeared completely. In fact, those that have survived (an ever smaller number) have been mitigated to the poition of French dialects, rather than individual languages. The same can be said of Italy. In Italy each of the regions, and sometimes subregions, had its own language. Today the only relativley secure pre-Italian Italian language is Sicilian (although some of the northern languages have been given a boost in recent years). Griko is spoken by only a scattering of Calabrese and Puglise, while both of the regional languages have disapeared. Sradinian is likely to go in one or two generations, and the same can be said of most of the south and central Italian languages. The people of both Italy and france willingly gave up their languages in order to attain both the national unity and acceptance that would come with adopting the new French and Italian languages.

Furthermore, another very good example would be the Normans. They were a Viking culture that undoubtably spoke a Norse dialect, but when they settled in France they adopted the French language within only a couple generations, wuite willingly I might add. Whiel they adopted many French cultural traits, they maintianed many of their own individual ones. For instance, they maintained a very militaristic and seafaring culture that allowed them to later on conquer England, Ireland, Siciliy, Southern Italy, and numerous other conquest here and there. Then, when they moved on to England and other areas, they quickly adopted the language of that civilization. It took a few generations, but the English Normans adopted English, as did the Scilian Normans Sicilian, the Calibrese Normans Calibrese, etc.

I am quite sure that there are numerous other examplesto draw on. For instance, many Native American languages. However, it seems to me that the above examples should be more than enough to prove the fact that it is possible for a people to give up their native tongue in favor of another language.

 

[jonatas]

When French was introduced, the other oil languages nearly disapeared completely.

Well, French properly speaking is Langue d'Oil. It was Langue d'Oc which was subsumed, a more heavily latinized language/dialect which we could say had more in common in many ways with modern Portuguese than modern French, which is to say Langue d'Oc was a dialect of the lingua franca of the Southwestern Mediterranean portion of Europe.

Furthermore, another very good example would be the Normans. They were a Viking culture that undoubtably spoke a Norse dialect, but when they settled in France they adopted the French language within only a couple generations, wuite willingly I might add.

Yes, but they spoke bad French

 

[jonatas]

In those cases where circumstances undermine a culture - like the fragmentary Syriac-speakers or the Latin-speakers who wandered the Balkans for centuries after the western Roman collapse - even yet, the new replacement language always bears the imprint of its predecessor, unless there's been a complete population change (like the French to English in 18th century Nova Scotia).

With regard to the Nova Scotia, keep in mind that 18th century Nova Scotia referred to a much larger area than the modern day province of Nova Scotia. In the 18th century "Nova Scotia" also included the modern day province of New Brunswick. And Nova Scotia was the english name for what the French called Acadia, which was had the same large, blurred range. The French were largely taken out of modern day Nova Scotia, though by no means entirely. However they remained in the modern province of New Brunswick, which even today is the only truly "bi-lingual" province of Canada, with about 40% french, more or less. They still "are" French to this day. So I agree with you in the point your making with regard to Nova Scotia , I just wanted to add a bit more detail to it. Nova Scotia is also interesting because they also had speakers of Celtic languages in Cape Breton, until about 100 hundred years ago, when it began to die out. However it is now being revived to some extent.

 

[jonatas]

The people of both Italy and france willingly gave up their languages in order to attain both the national unity and acceptance that would come with adopting the new French and Italian languages.

The Occitans did not "willingly" give up their language. There was something called "the Albigensian Crusade", led by the dog Simon de Montfort, which destroyed and raped the true flower of early medieval European civilization in Southern France. Hardly something to be proud of or which came easily to Southern France.

 

[Israelite9191]

The Occitans were not the only speakers of other oil languages (I am referring to the family when I use this term). The only speakers of French at the time were the Parisians. Burgundians, Aquitanians, Walloons (who still, to some extent, speak a unique language), and others still spoke other oil languages.

 

[jonatas]

The Occitans were not the only speakers of other oil languages (I am referring to the family when I use this term). The only speakers of French at the time were the Parisians. Burgundians, Aquitanians, Walloons (who still, to some extent, speak a unique language), and others still spoke other oil languages.

Occitans did not speak Langue d'Oil, they spoke Langue d'Oc. Hence the name. They are different languages, with d'Oc more akin to Spanish and Portuguese. And as I was saying, they were subsumed by a violent crusade and the gradual effects of loss of power and external pressure, rather than willingly joining the Oil speakers.

 

[Israelite9191]

Very well, but you are missing the main point of what I said. The Occitans were not the only ones who gave up their language with the introduction of Parisian French as the national language. Every region spoke a different language, most being from the oil langauage family, but not all of them. While the Occitans were the target of a crusade, the others have up thier language much more willingly. In fact, if I remember correctyl, the Albigensian Crusade was conducted on the basis of religious differences that seemed to be threatening the political stability of the region. If language was the reason than we would have seen similar crusades to erradicate the Breton language, even less realted, and other non-oil languages.

 

[jonatas]

Very well, but you are missing the main point of what I said. The Occitans were not the only ones who gave up their language with the introduction of Parisian French as the national language. Every region spoke a different language, most being from the oil langauage family, but not all of them. While the Occitans were the target of a crusade, the others have up thier language much more willingly. In fact, if I remember correctyl, the Albigensian Crusade was conducted on the basis of religious differences that seemed to be threatening the political stability of the region. If language was the reason than we would have seen similar crusades to erradicate the Breton language, even less realted, and other non-oil languages.

Well I was simply correcting some inaccuracies in what you said with regard to Occitan, because it's an area I happen to be interested in. That's all. My point was not to say that language was the reason for the crusade either. The Albigensian Crusade had to do with religion, but it's misleading to say that the political stability of the region was threatened by it, or that religion was the only factor. Southern France had always been more urbanized, cosmopolitan and part of the Southern Mediterranean culture, exposed to diverse influences, especially Muslim, and had a stronger latin/Roman influence than in the north of France. It developed the idea of courtly society and trobadors. It was stable, and had always been different from the North. We're talking about different cultures here. Anyway, I'm not too sure how much it directly impacts your point about language, it's just that I don't agree with how you were characterizing Southern France. Like I said, it's an area I find interesting, so I will nitpick you on it

 

[Israelite9191]

My original statement, about the replacement of regional languages with Parisian French, was not in reference to the Occitans. I was refering to the oil languages and other languages, I actually must admit my not knowing that Occitan was more closely related to Portuguese than French. I must also point out that I said the religious differences seemed to be a causing political rift. This was enhanced by the cultural differences that you point out. The Parisians, if I am not mistaken, were concerned about unifying their country at the time and any opposing force was a problem. The Occitan "heresy" was a particular threat due to the fact that if not dealt with it would allienate the Papacy. The Parisian French saw the religious divide as being just the first step towards a political divide, the regions were already too independent as it was.

Woohoo!!!! 1,000 posts!