Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Э.Сепир Язык.docx
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
01.05.2025
Размер:
438.38 Кб
Скачать

It was different in German. The whole series of phonetic changes

comprised under the term "umlaut," of which _u_: _ü_ and _au_: _oi_

(written _äu_) are but specific examples, struck the German language at

a time when the general drift to morphological simplification was not so

strong but that the resulting formal types (e.g., _Fuss_: _Füsse_;

_fallen_ "to fall": _fällen_ "to fell"; _Horn_ "horn": _Gehörne_ "group

of horns"; _Haus_ "house": _Häuslein_ "little house") could keep

themselves intact and even extend to forms that did not legitimately

come within their sphere of influence. "Umlaut" is still a very live

symbolic process in German, possibly more alive to-day than in medieval

times. Such analogical plurals as _Baum_ "tree": _Bäume_ (contrast

Middle High German _boum_: _boume_) and derivatives as _lachen_ "to

laugh": _Gelächter_ "laughter" (contrast Middle High German _gelach_)

show that vocalic mutation has won through to the status of a productive

morphologic process. Some of the dialects have even gone further than

standard German, at least in certain respects. In Yiddish,[162] for

Instance, "umlaut" plurals have been formed where there are no Middle

High German prototypes or modern literary parallels, e.g., _tog_ "day":

_teg_ "days" (but German _Tag_: _Tage_) on the analogy of _gast_

"guest": _gest_ "guests" (German _Gast_: _Gäste_), _shuch_[163] "shoe":

_shich_ "shoes" (but German _Schuh_: _Schuhe_) on the analogy of _fus_

"foot": _fis_ "feet." It is possible that "umlaut" will run its course

and cease to operate as a live functional process in German, but that

time is still distant. Meanwhile all consciousness of the merely

phonetic nature of "umlaut" vanished centuries ago. It is now a strictly

morphological process, not in the least a mechanical phonetic

adjustment. We have in it a splendid example of how a simple phonetic

law, meaningless in itself, may eventually color or transform large

reaches of the morphology of a language.

[Footnote 162: Isolated from other German dialects in the late fifteenth

and early sixteenth centuries. It is therefore a good test for gauging

the strength of the tendency to "umlaut," particularly as it has

developed a strong drift towards analytic methods.]

[Footnote 163: _Ch_ as in German _Buch_.]

IX

HOW LANGUAGES INFLUENCE EACH OTHER

Languages, like cultures, are rarely sufficient unto themselves. The

necessities of intercourse bring the speakers of one language into

direct or indirect contact with those of neighboring or culturally

dominant languages. The intercourse may be friendly or hostile. It may

move on the humdrum plane of business and trade relations or it may

consist of a borrowing or interchange of spiritual goods--art, science,

religion. It would be difficult to point to a completely isolated

language or dialect, least of all among the primitive peoples. The tribe

Is often so small that intermarriages with alien tribes that speak other

dialects or even totally unrelated languages are not uncommon. It may

even be doubted whether intermarriage, intertribal trade, and general

cultural interchanges are not of greater relative significance on

primitive levels than on our own. Whatever the degree or nature of

contact between neighboring peoples, it is generally sufficient to lead

to some kind of linguistic interinfluencing. Frequently the influence

runs heavily in one direction. The language of a people that is looked

upon as a center of culture is naturally far more likely to exert an

appreciable influence on other languages spoken in its vicinity than to

be influenced by them. Chinese has flooded the vocabularies of Corean,

Japanese, and Annamite for centuries, but has received nothing in

return. In the western Europe of medieval and modern times French has

exercised a similar, though probably a less overwhelming, influence.

English borrowed an immense number of words from the French of the

Norman invaders, later also from the court French of Isle de France,

appropriated a certain number of affixed elements of derivational value

(e.g., _-ess_ of _princess_, _-ard_ of _drunkard_, _-ty_ of _royalty_),

may have been somewhat stimulated in its general analytic drift by

contact with French,[164] and even allowed French to modify its phonetic

pattern slightly (e.g., initial _v_ and _j_ in words like _veal_ and

_judge_; in words of Anglo-Saxon origin _v_ and _j_ can only occur after

vowels, e.g., _over_, _hedge_). But English has exerted practically no

influence on French.

[Footnote 164: The earlier students of English, however, grossly

exaggerated the general "disintegrating" effect of French on middle

English. English was moving fast toward a more analytic structure long

before the French influence set in.]

The simplest kind of influence that one language may exert on another is

the "borrowing" of words. When there is cultural borrowing there is

always the likelihood that the associated words may be borrowed too.

When the early Germanic peoples of northern Europe first learned of

wine-culture and of paved streets from their commercial or warlike

contact with the Romans, it was only natural that they should adopt the

Latin words for the strange beverage (_vinum_, English _wine_, German

_Wein_) and the unfamiliar type of road (_strata [via]_, English

_street_, German _Strasse_). Later, when Christianity was introduced