Beautiful weather yesterday, and seeing as we seem to have a little visitor of the mousey persuasion, it seemed time for some good old spring cleaning. This involved cleaning the windows, also from the outside. Our living room window tilted inside out so it was very convenient to clean. Then it was my bedroom window’s turn to be cleaned. This one refused to be tilted properly, but got severely dislocated and ended up about a foot outside the window frame. Still on the hinges though. MG and I must have spent at least half an hour, if not 45 minutes, on trying to forcibly get the window back in place. Success in the end. The rest of the windows were cleaned from the outside by jumping up and down to reach the top of the window. We’re ground floor, officially, but we’re about three steps from ground level, so just enough for me not to be able to reach the top of the window when just standing.
Also did some work yesterday. The East German Marxist linguistics that haunts my Sorbian research reached new heights with this quote from Heinz Schuster-Šewc, ‘Sprache und ethnische Formation in der Entwicklung des Sorbishen’, Zeitschrift für Slawistik 4 (1959), 577–595:
Maybe it’s just me, but I really don’t see much of a difference between evil capitalist linguistics and Marxist linguistics. I wonder if Schuster-Šewc did...
Also thanks to LF for not changing over important things like music license and PA insurance. I got a call from the insurance company on Friday: ‘Your insurance runs out at midnight tonight. Why didn’t you renew your policy?’ Eh... because I didn’t know we had to? An update on the 60th Anniversary Preparations would also be good...
Also did some work yesterday. The East German Marxist linguistics that haunts my Sorbian research reached new heights with this quote from Heinz Schuster-Šewc, ‘Sprache und ethnische Formation in der Entwicklung des Sorbishen’, Zeitschrift für Slawistik 4 (1959), 577–595:
Überhaupt ist es falsch, bei der Beurteilung des Selbständigkeitsgrades einer Sprache bzw. des Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses einzelner Dialekte von der Existenz sogenannter “Ursprachen” auszugehen. Die marxistische Lehre von der Gesellschaft lehrt uns, daß es in der Geschichte derartige “Ursprachen” und “Urvölker” niemals gegeben hat. Die grundlegende gesellschaftliche Einheit in der Urgemeinschaft war der Stamm mit den ihm untergeordneten Sippen. Jeder Stamm bildete auch in sprachlicher Hinsicht eine Einheit. Die weitere Entwicklung in der Urgesellschaft wird charakterisiert durch den Zerfall und die ständig fortlaufende Teilung der Stämme. Im Rahmen des Bevölkerungszuwachses und der territorialen Ausbreitung der Stämme zerfällt ein Stamm nach dem andern in kleinere Teile, aus denen sich im weiteren Verlauf der Entwicklung selbst wieder Stämme bilden. Zusammen mit dem Zerfall der Stammeseinheit zerfällt natürlich auch die Stammessprache, und es entstehen neue verwandte Stammessprachen. (p. 587–588)
Maybe it’s just me, but I really don’t see much of a difference between evil capitalist linguistics and Marxist linguistics. I wonder if Schuster-Šewc did...
Also thanks to LF for not changing over important things like music license and PA insurance. I got a call from the insurance company on Friday: ‘Your insurance runs out at midnight tonight. Why didn’t you renew your policy?’ Eh... because I didn’t know we had to? An update on the 60th Anniversary Preparations would also be good...
1 comment:
As far as I can tell (from babelfish's bad translation) he's talking about the cycle between agglutinating and isolating languages (can't remember if those are the correct terms-lots of affixes and no affixes). First he says "languages didn't stem from one parents languages", then he goes on to say "this is how a language turns into other languages"? Sounds kind of strange, although I admit babelfish translations aren't very reliable.
Post a Comment