🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Ct014x.509@lgc.com>
wow@zycor.lgc.com (--[ wally ]--) writes:
 
>
>In article <Csvytu.FC9@inter.NL.net> mcv@inter.NL.net (Miguel Carrasquer) writes:
>>In article <300ts4$77t@csi0.csi.uottawa.ca>,
>>Mark Israel <misrael@csi.uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>(2) We know that geographical displacement correlates negatively
>>>with language change:  U.S. English and Quebec French are more
>>>archaic than British English and French French.
>>
>>I doubt that is a "constant".  It's true that U.S. English is more
>>archaic in some respects. In others, it is clearly not.
>
>I would love to see examples of ways one is more archaic than the other.
>
Well, concerning not English but French, one could argue that Quebec
French inovated with regard to its European counterpart in having a
much more simpler (yes/no)question formation: adding "-tu" after the
verb while keeping the rest of the sentence as is. (This also exists
in some dialects of France, which could be considered "archaic" hence
refuting the argument (2), esp. Norman (I think) where "-ti" is added.)
 
                                        - Marc