Why do Indo-European languages simplify?

Guest   Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:53 pm GMT
Romance languages are not as analitic as English. Verbs are highly inflected. Hence I would not say Romance languages became simpler since they have retained the complexity of the latin conjugations to its maximum.
Guest   Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:04 pm GMT
Except for Romanian, they all lost some tenses, all declensions, and went from 3 genders down to 2.
XYZ   Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:40 am GMT
<<<... I would not say Romance languages became simpler since they have retained the complexity of the latin conjugations to its maximum.>>>

Learning Latin is difficult (see Monty Python’s Life of Brian;-), while learning Romance languages like Spanish is relatively easy. Going from difficult to easy is simplification, isn't it?
guest   Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:35 pm GMT
<<Learning Latin is difficult (see Monty Python’s Life of Brian;-), while learning Romance languages like Spanish is relatively easy. Going from difficult to easy is simplification, isn't it? >>

Easy for a speaker of analytic languages. Who's to say that synthetic languages are not easier for speakers of, say, Agglutinative or other synthetic-type languages?

I am in agreement with Josh...languages are not becoming 'less complex'. They are shifting their complexity from one area to another, and perhaps may shift it back again in the future. Who knows, a thousand years from now, our descendants may be saying, "Wow, how did they keep track of all those different prepositions, and remember when and how to use each one? And the multiple verb combinations like 'will have been being built'? Gosh, their language sure was complex."
Adolfo   Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:28 pm GMT
Speakers of agglutinative languages can grasp analitic languages such as English or Spanish quite easily, while the contrary is not true. I suspect that those speakers of agglutinative languages are in advantage.
Guest   Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:05 pm GMT
<<Learning Latin is difficult (see Monty Python’s Life of Brian;-), while learning Romance languages like Spanish is relatively easy. Going from difficult to easy is simplification, isn't it? >>

I have heard it said that Latin is easier than French because it is much more consistent, if you learn the rules you are fine, whereas with French there are far more exceptions.
Guest   Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:11 pm GMT
The English verbal system would be very simple if only you didn't have to decide each time whether to use the simple or progessive form, or whether to add 'do' for emphasis, or whether to use simple past or present perfect, or 'will' or 'going to'. Unfortunately these aspects of the language are a major stumbling point for learners, as is evident from the frequent mistakes.

But then learners seem to view these mistakes as unimportant, whereas a wrong verb conjugation or noun declension in another language is deemed of great significance.
Sam II   Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:53 am GMT
<<<Adolfo Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:28 pm GMT
Speakers of agglutinative languages can grasp analitic languages such as English or Spanish quite easily, while the contrary is not true. I suspect that those speakers of agglutinative languages are in advantage. >>>

I would support this, but where is the reason? Is it possible that little children in countries with agglutinative languages learn something in their childhood from their mothers that Enlish or Spanish children do not?