What is a mixed language?

Since about 1984, when the 10th Edition came out, I have been an avid reader of The Ethnologue, a resource that lists, categorizes, and describes every language known to science--all terrestrial, by the way.

Every edition--which comes out approximately every four years--lists more languages than the one before. The main reason for this is that formerly listed languages are constantly being examined and determined to actually consist of two or more languages closely related, but distinct enough for each to rate its own listing.

In addition to the usual Language Family taxonomy (which has also grown and evolved over the years), several languages are also listed in group headings such as Gypsy Languages, Creole Languages, Pidgin Languages, Jewish Languages, Deaf Languages, and Mixed Languages. One category, listed as a Language Family, should also be listed here, which is Artificial (made-up) Languages. All 3 of the ones currently listed could also be listed under Indo-European Languages--although there are more recent ones, not yet listed, that couldn't. More specifically, these 3 (and, to some extent, all others) are all based on Latin, so they could even be further described as Romance Languages.

Here, however, we encounter a problem of classification: What about languages that trace their immediate ancestry back to two different language families? The artificial language Esperanto, for example, borrows just as heavily from the Germanic family as from the Romance. So, some have pointed out, does English. Why then is English listed in the a Germanic Family, then, when only about half of its basic vocabulary (and almost none of its technical vocabulary) comes from its Germanic parent Anglo-Saxon?

The answer could be that the definition of a Mixed Language has never been nailed down. Linguists encountering a tribal language that combined grammatical elements of one language family with vocabulary of another were quick to list it as a "mixed language," never realizing that their own native tongue did exactly the same.

The main gypsy language spoken in England, Angloromani, has undergone an interesting transformation over the years. Listed in the Ethnologue until 1988 as a Indo-Aryan language akin to all the other Romani tongues, it was suddenly found in the 11th Edition to be a Germanic Language more closely related to English than any Germanic language of the Continent. What gives? Merely because Angloromani is replete with English-derived nouns and sentence structure, an expert had reclassified it as a form of English. This classification was perpetuated clear through to the recently released 15th Edition, which wisely compromised by assigning Angloromani to the Mixed Language category.

This phenomenon is sure to continue. Take Pennsylvania Dutch, a Mennonite dialect of German that is now at least 35% English and grows more so with each passing generation. Even stereotypical Pennsylvania Dutch phraseology like "throw the horse over the fence some hay" is usually now heard only in ethnic jokes. The language is changing because all Pennsylvania Dutch speakers, monolingual as they typically are their first few years of life, are educated in English, and they find it impossible to resist slipping words, phrases, and even whole sentences of that language into their everyday conversations.

Guess what: It's the same exact thing as happened to English itself, some 800 years earlier. All education in England was conducted in French and Latin, with the result that words from those two languages so overwhelmed the native language of Englishmen that they ceased to speak it altogether in its pure form. So English itself is a mixed language of Saxon and French.

But how about French? Well, it was the result of cosmopolitan Franks learning Vulgar Latin. Frankish was a Germanic tongue that left its heavy footprints all over the result of the mixture with Vulgar Latin. Add to that the influence of Norse, and you have the Norman French that became the language of Norman England for several centuries until it was subsumed into the new mixed language of Middle English.

Vulgar Latin--what was that? Well, it was somewhat of a mixture of educated Latin and the Celtic dialects native to Gaul, which was later overrun by the Franks.

You can see how this goes on. Latin itself bears a lot of influence from Greek; Greek from Hebrew; Hebrew from ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Persian. No language that is spoken by people educated in another language can long remain pure.

Take Maltese, for example. Originally the Arabic tongue spoken by Muslim conquerors in the 700's, it suffered a long and unrelenting pressure first from the Norman French spoken by the counter-invaders of the 800's, but then from the Italian spoken by Malta's greatest trading partner once it was wrenched once and for all from the Caliphate. Then the English took possession, and for the last two centuries all linguistic development has tended in their direction. Today, a native of either Italy or Arabia respectively, fluent in English, could read a Maltese publication with quite a high level of comprehension--depending on whether the subject matter is technical (Italian/English) or conversational (Arabic/Italian). A mixed language--or just a dual vocabulary?

So what exactly is the difference between a language that is merely influenced by another, and one that is actually a mixture of two distinct languages? It's still hard to say, but expect this category--still limited to only 9 languages in the 14th Edition of the Ethnologue but up to 21 by the 15th--to keep growing as linguists come to grips with the reality of the situation. Maybe, someday, even English will make the list.

Nature had it first--and had it right the first time!

There appear to be two languages spoken by scientists. Here is an example of the one, in which they study nature in a detached and condescending way, as if they could have done a far better job if they were in charge:
* * * * *
"Phylogenetic group contributed in a highly significant way to explain the considerable variation in bird flight speeds that remained, even after the biometrical dimensions of the bird species had been taken into account," Alerstam reported.

This matches what would be expected from evolution, says Tobalske. Instead of making a perfect bird, evolution does the best it can from the animals that are around to evolve flight. What’s more, he said, the real world is always changing in unpredictable ways that require birds to adapt to keep pace or die out. Few adaptations that help different birds survive also make them the best fliers.

It’s an example of what’s called the Red Queen Hypothesis, said Tobalske, referring to the character in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass.

"The Red Queen is running just to stay in place," Tobalske told Discovery News. Evolution does the same with birds: keeping them in constant evolutionary motion, but never allowing them to get any closer to aerodynamic perfection.
--from discovery.com

* * * *

Here is an example of the other, in which they stand in awe and practically stutter at the perfection they observe in nature, one far beyond their ability to produce or even predict (I lost the example I was going to use, but this will have to do for now):

"The researchers found that the major factors involved in determining ideal wing position were speed, and the angle of the wings relative to the ground. Not surprisingly, extended wings were best for slow gliding, since they increase lift and allow the bird to float longer on a breeze. As speed picks up, drag forces increase and swept-back wings become more advantageous.

The results on turning were more surprising. In general, extended wings are better for turns, providing stability and lift that smooth the turn. For high-speed turns, however, swifts invariably sweep back their wings, and the researchers discovered that this behavior is due not to aerodynamics, but to the fragility of their wings. Extended wings can fracture under the extreme force generated during a fast turn, while swept-back wings are safe, mostly because they don't flutter.

The realization that extended wings are vulnerable to breakage during fast turns is one of several aspects of the study that may be useful in designing aircraft. Another is the proof that fully extended wings are best for generating lift; previous studies with artificial wings had suggested that swept-back wings actually give a better boost. A few high tech planes, such as the F-14 Tomcat fighter plane, already use flexible wings, but Lentink hopes his findings will help make aircraft wings even more efficient. Tomcats can sweep back their wings when they fly at super high speeds, but their abilities are primitive compared to those of swifts. "The swifts are just better at it," he told news@nature.com. "The amount of feathers and muscle involved is challenging for us to imitate."
-from worldalmanac.com

* * * * *
For some odd reason, articles of the second sort are typically rife with factual errors. Articles of the first sort could often be considered free of these, but only because they are almost pure hypothesis, without any factual claims subject to being disproven.

I'm Back!

Due to technical difficulties beyond our control . . .
I haven't been able to access my own blog because my computer for some reason isn't accepting javascript. This causes the Blogger signing page (and any Blogger comment page I open) to continually refresh.
Solution?
I'm using Firefox now instead of Internet Explorer. No problem!

Some articles I'm tossing around in my head right now include:
Are the Amish a Cult?
What is a Mixed Language?
Is Linguistic Taxonomy Eurocentric?
and a few others I can't think of now but will later.

Stuck on Stupid

From the AFA:
For the 13th month out of the last 15, the boycott of Ford Motor Company by AFA and other pro-family groups has helped cause Ford to lose sales. Sales dropped 6.8% during May when compared with May 2006.

The drop came as sales for GM [up 9.6%], Chrysler [up 4.3%] and Toyota [up 14%]were all increasing. Of the big four, only Ford showed a loss.

AFA has identified Ford as a leading corporate promoter of homosexual marriage and the homosexual agenda. More than 700,000 individuals have signed the Boycott Ford Pledge.

Even while losing billions of dollars and laying off of thousands of employees, Ford continues to financially support various homosexual groups.*
I must admit I'm at a loss to see what Ford's purpose is in all this. Surely they realize that the conservative voting bloc outnumbers the pro-homosexual voting bloc by several orders of magnitude in this country. Or did no one notice when Jerry Falwell died?

One of my hobbies is taking surveys, and now that I think of it, even though I've taken several automobile-related surveys in the past year, none of them linked to my conservative stance--unlike all of the political surveys I took, and I don't even vote.

It appears to be a bad case of Head In The Sand Syndrome. Or Stuck On Stupid Disease.

UPDATE 2013
Ford Motor Company sales zoomed after AFA called off their boycott.

Head Covering and History

Should Christians be baptized in the nude?

My readers may wonder why I've started out an article on head covering with such a startling question. What reason, they may further inquire, could there possibly be for such a practice?

Well, this is an important question to keep in mind as we consider the historical ramifications of The Head Covering. Because you see, it is recorded in Church History that the early Christians practiced Nude Baptism. Despite a widespread desire to return to the practices of the Early Church, I know of no such practice today among adult Christians--in fact even the most modesty-obsessed sects today practice Mixed Baptism, as opposed to the practice of our spiritual forefathers who were accustomed to being surrounded only by members of the same gender when they emerged from the baptismal waters in their Birthday Suits.*

No Nude Baptism? Then we cannot use the practice of the Early Church as an infallible guide for own own. But how about the beliefs of the Church Fathers--can we not use them as a guide to understanding Scripture?

Is it of any significance that the women of the Early Church covered their heads in prayer, and that it was universally believed that such a covering must consist of something other than their own natural covering of long hair?

As it turns out, an entire treatise on the subject has come down to us from antiquity. Let's take a look at it. It's by Tertullian, who wrote around the turn of the 3rd century, and it's called On the Veiling of Virgins.

Let's establish a few things right off the bat:

1) By veil, Tertullian refers to a cloth covering coextant with the unbound hair:
The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled.

2. In Tertullian's world, all Christian women recognize a need for such a distinct covering, although they are not always consistent in wearing one of sufficient size:
(who) even when about to spend time in prayer itself, with the utmost readiness place a fringe, or a tuft, or any thread whatever, on the crown of their heads, and suppose themselves to be covered?

3. It can be seen from the above quote that the recognized primary purpose of the Head Covering was to comply with the specific requirements of 1 Corinthians 11, although Tertullian's main point in this tractate was to urge the use of the Head Covering for reasons of modesty as well.

Tertullian assumes three basic points about the Head Covering; these are the undisputed facts, universal custom based on Scripture:

1) It is to characterize, along with long hair, the feminine gender
2) It is to be worn in conjunction with public worship and prayer
3) It serves two purposes: not only as a symbol of headship, but also as a protector of modesty.

Building on these assumptions, Tertullian makes the following applications, which he realizes are not universal in the Church, but supposes that they should be:
1) All females who have reached puberty should wear this sign of their gender--not just wives.
2) Women should customarily wear their hair completely covered so as no not have to grab for any old thing to plop on their heads when circumstances arise to require it.
3) Women should keep their hair out of view, not only among strangers, but also in the relaxed confines of the church.

Did Tertullian's applications establish an obligation for Christians of all time? No, he was giving his opinions and was certainly entitled to them, but they do not reflect the direct teaching of Scripture, nor the universal understanding of the Church.

But do Tertullian's writings serve any other purpose? Yes, they certainly do. They demonstrate that the undisputed interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, among those who were in the best position to know, did not allow for the modern notion that Hair is the Covering. Whatever else it may have going for it, this interpretation flies in the face of two millennia of Church History.

Should we baptize in the nude? We have no reason for it, nor has any enduring sect of Christians seen any need to resurrect this ancient custom. It is not so much as hinted at in the New Testament, and goes against so much of what we do find there.

Should we cover our women? We have every reason to: the direct teaching of the Apostle, the testimony of saints of every age, and the unbroken custom of Christian women down through the centuries. Should it militate against the customs of our age, so be it; since when can any feature of Christianity be made comfortable to the unrepentant?

Postscript on Febuary 3, 2010:
Philip Payne posted the following interesting, but very misleading list of patristic quotes on the topic:

Macarius Aegyptius (d. c. AD 390), Homiliae spirituales 12.18, explicitly identifies the covering: “Question: Why is it said, ‘a woman praying with uncovered head?’ Answer: Since in the present apostolic time they have been permitted hair instead of a covering.” He specifically interprets 1 Cor 11:5 as referring to hair, not to a veil. Cf. See H. Dörries, E. Klostermann, and M. Kroeger, Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarius (PTS 4; Berlin: DeGruyter, 1964.

Ambrose (c. AD 339–397), Duties of the Clergy 1.46.232, writes, “Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered; doth not nature itself teach you that ‘If a woman have long hair, it is a glory unto her’? It is according to nature, since her hair is given her for a veil, for it is a natural veil.” NPNF2 10:37.

Chrysostom (c. AD 354–407) quotes 1 Cor 11:6b followed by 11:14b–15. He notes in hom. 26.4, “he said not, ‘let her have long hair,’ but, ‘let her be covered,’ ordaining both these to be one … he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one. . . But with regard to the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair, that he so forms his discourse. ‘Every man praying or prophesying, having any thing on his head, dishonoreth his head.’ He said not, ‘covered,’ but ‘having any thing on his head;’ signifying that even though he pray with the head bare, yet if he have long hair, he is like to one covered. ‘For the hair,’ saith he, ‘is given for a covering.’”

Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11, writes, “It is enough for women to protect their locks, and bind up their hair simply along the neck with a plain hair-pin, nourishing chaste locks with simple care to true beauty.” ANF 2:286.

A detailed commentary by John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 11 can be found here. Clue: It can't possibly refer just to hair.

And as for Clement, he writes in the very same treatise,
"Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, pure in body, pure in heart, fit to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled."

*UPDATE JULY 2014
It has come to my attention that the audiences at Christian baptisms were not this restricted.

 "Another Syrian woman, a servant called Mahya, was also stripped naked at her trial, but instead of feeling ashamed, she responded by saying:

It is to your shame … that you have done this; I am not ashamed of myself … I have been naked in the presence of men and women [referring to baptism] without feeling ashamed, for I am a woman – such as was created by God."  --Brock, S.P. and S.A. Harvey, 1987, Holy Women of the Syrian Orient, Berkeley.

However, I don't believe it. I looked up this quote, stripped of all the ellipses, and there is no reference to baptism--just to a loud, boisterous, and masculine woman who bragged of having been publicly naked many times.

*UPDATE SEPT 2018
Here is a video of an Ethiopian Orthodox infant being baptized in the nude, as part of the annual Tikmat purification ceremony that hearkens way back to their Jewish origins.