Re: can a subset of a language be transmitted "genetically"?

On Sep 14, 10:21 am, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:46 am, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Trask says for example (words to the effect) that the "respectively"
construct is not known to less educated English spekers.

Are there naturally occuring complete languages within English that
are acquired and transmitted "genetically" by subsets of the English
speaking community?

This subset community would of course be "in contact" with the full
language and might "borrow" from it (like when the John Travolta
character learns about "tea with lemon' from the social-climbing dance-
partner in Saturday Night Fever).

The responses from the menagerie display the usual cluelessness.
With speech communities numbering in hundreds of millions, vast land
areas, the advent of writing, mass visual media etc.  these days a
language would be learnt both organically (my term for what linguist
call "genetically') (from parents, neighbors, schoolteachers, maybe
things like sesame street) and through "contact" - all other means of
language propagation.

Talk about clueless. The word "genetic" in linguistics has nothing to
do with how an individual learns a language.

Do, from your infinite clueless wisdom, tell us what "contact" means
as distinct from "organically."

With visual representation of information, I can see how contructs
like "respectively" can fall into disuse among the less educated - if
A beat B and C beat D in a sporting contest - Joe sixpack can be shown
a table that shows these results on TV - "A and B beat C& D
respectively" becomes an needless component of his use/comprehension
language repertoire.

So "respectively" is yet another word you don't understand.

If A beat B and C beat D, then A and B did NOT beat C and D
"respectively."
.

Relevant Pages