As Alexander Humez will inform you, Latin is an Indo-European language, and gives a kind of history that is often elaborated, but is pure wind. Linguists would almost claim to know the Indo-European flag, and the history of its people, but there is really nothing there, not even the Caucasian origin of the race. All that they have are existing (including classical) languages, and from this they construct fables about how they must have originated, like the tale of how the elephant got his trunk. It is a good story, with much intelligent reasoning, but it is just a story and one can learn no causes from it. No Indo-European survives, and no appropriate wanderings are historically attested. Scraps of information are swept together into a heap that it is hoped will pass for a science. How languages change with time is especially obscure, though what is well-described. The Romans thought Latin descended from Greek, but it did not, it is merely cognate. Modern "romance" languages are not evolved forms of Latin, but created languages that existed in parallel with Latin. Each has its peculiar ontogeny, which is mainly unknown. Anglo-Saxon is a Germanic language, but English, not being Anglo-Saxon or any evolution of it, is not. English was created by people who spoke Anglo-Saxon (and other tongues), however, so the similarity is not unreasonable. In fact, such classifications are largely useless and devoid of meaning. At least so I believe.
« Older Keep Burberry British.... | Eat food. Not too much. Mostly... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt