3 ms·
Does it mean the Lombard dialect of northern Italy is colonial sociolect too?
by ithkuil 2mo ago
Does it mean the Lombard dialect of northern Italy is colonial sociolect too?
- Lumich 2mo agoNo. How did you arrive at that conclusion? The equivalent for Italian would be colonization of some area (say, somewhere around the Mediterranean or Black Sea) by Venetians and other Adriatic or Northern Italic peoples, founding new urban centers, developing a mish-mash of their original Romance dialects, and exerting cultural influence via their more advanced culture/technology ; and then some local non-Italic people adapting to that via economic/cultural exchange, losing their native language in the process, as they had already lost their original religion by converting to Judaism. Read Koestler's book to understand (or get an AI summary).
- ithkuil 2mo agoGermanic tribes did colonize northern Italy and eventually used the local latin language with heavy borrowings from their original language. Not sure why you used the word "colonizer" for Jews living in Germany. Perhaps I misunderstood, but given the book you referenced I made an educated guess
- Lumich 2mo ago« used the word "colonizer" for Jews living in Germany » I didn't. Rather, "Germans" (Suebians, Saxons, etc) settled in ("colonized") Eastern Europe, beyond the Empire, typically at the invitation of the local rulers. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochmittelalterliche_Ostsiedlung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochmittelalterliche_Ostsiedlu... That's where the contact with Eastern Jews happened, which, according to Koestler, gave rise to Yiddish. Yes, the Langobards and the Goths settling in Italy and Spain lost their language, but the medieval Germans settling in Eastern Europe a couple hundred years later did not.