Hmmmm.
Crawdaddy
Crawdaddy
Your quote leaves out kine, though the spelling doesn't (necessarily) show its plurality.[I said:language[/I]]Quote:
Then you either haven't read or have not understood---or reject outright? (with what evidence?)---the points of the posts I have referred you to. There will never be such a standard in so large and dynamic (as in "motile", growing, and diverse) a populace! Ever!a language [I said:system[/I]]Quote:
No speech, no writing. Period.How would you fit computer languages into this statement?
They're homoPHONES (exact sound-alikes that mean different things and have distinct etymologies), not homoNYMS (a harder concept to grasp and define, but involving the same lexeme ("word") having different meanings but the same historical origin).grammar said:Quote:
Again, I'm unsure what you're getting at with this challenge, and it makes it hard for me to give an intelligent response. Everything I have to say pertains to what linguists call natural language or, to be more precise, natural human language. As mathematical language, computer language, and the like do not fall into the category of natural human language, I make no claims about them whatsoever.
I still fail to see what that has to do with my statement. In case it has been misapprehended, it means to say that, without spoken language ("speech"), there would be, and can be, no writing at all. Writing is, properly speaking, not language, but a highly imperfect representation of language.
Note, I did not say "no speech, no language", so I suspect that your challenge actually reveals the common bias that has been inculcated in this and most "Western" societies that "writing = language", which just 'tain't so.
I will be glad to address that question once I understand why you are asking it in a thread that's been about standards within the English language proper (as well as about "proper English").The reason I ask is that your challenge to Joe struck me more as a rebellion against the "power elites" than a refutation of Joe's basic argument, which I simply took as a desire to have people write or speak English better. You have a point in Joe's possibly mistaking "of" for "'ve," but when you pointed out the origin of "acs" you seemed to be saying that it was all right to use "acs" as a legitimate substitute for "asc." (Maybe I misinterpreted your comment here.) While "acs" may have been accepted at one time, anyone using it now should be politely told that it is clearly NOT acceptable and makes the user appear ignorant.
I don't think anyone here is advocating locking down the English language at its current state (not that there even is a true state); there will always be transitions in usage, grammar, and vocabulary. But what is wrong with wanting people to know what is currently proper usage? I think most people would agree that someone who says, "Me go to store" rather than "I am going to the store" needs to be corrected, even if the underlying meaning of his phrase is perfectly clear.
As for speech vs. writing, I concede the point that the former was a prerequisite for the latter. I also think, however, that you're not giving writing the credit it deserves. While it's true that, as you say, writing is an imperfect representation of speech, can it also be said that some things are more richly conveyed in written form?
Why? Will someone die, if it isn't? (My definition of "necessity".)That illustrates the basic difference in our opinions. I don't think correcting grossly outdated or non-standard usage is life or death either, but I believe that encouraging my children to think "Me go to store" and "I am more poorer than John" are suitable phrases will severely affect their ability to succeed on this planet.
I still don't see what such legislation would have to do with the "quality" of English among native speakers---it certainly won't affect that, but I'll say this: whatever I personally think of such efforts, I believe that they won't successfully do what their supporters think they will do. They'll just get a few politicians elected or re-elected in the near term. When those politicians are gone (and forgotten) the "problems", if such they be, will still be there and still need to be addressed properly (and effectively).[I said:deaf and dumb[/I]]Quote:
but I believe that encouraging my children to think "Me go to store" and "I am more poorer than John" are suitable phrases will severely affect their ability to succeed on this planet.You don't need to encourage that, normal children (meaning children that don't have serious learning deficits, or brain damage) will learn all but the most arcane grammatical points (for speaking!) automatically, without explicit 'encouragement'. All the child needs is simply exposure to speech from other people.
The truth is, the sinlge most influential source of linguistic information is a child's peer group, family is certainly influential, but much less so compared to his or her peers.
OTOH, encouragement and explicit training is needed for writing.
"Me go to store . . ." Have you heard them say such a thing? If so, where did they hear it?
"I am more poorer than John . . ." more poorer is an example of a hypercharacterized comparative construction, as I said before. With its two, redundant markers, I don't think it's long for this world (but, I've heard enough people use it. . .).
There will always be pressure to conform, no doubt about that,---that's what makes for group coherence---and degree of conformity is always a factor in societal "success". Teaching one's children reasonably is one thing, making a crusade of it to others, as some people here and elsewhere have seemed to suggest, is another.
"Me go to store . . ." Have you heard them say such a thing? If so, where did they hear it?Of course not, it was just a hyperbolic example. What I have heard (as a real-world example) is "I had went to the store" rather than "I had gone to the store." Or, "I seen the movie" as opposed to "I saw the movie" or "I had seen the movie." While I view such mistakes as relatively minor, they are nonetheless mistakes. Clearly you feel they are not.
By the way Rex, I think your knowledge of the English language and linguistics is impressive and believe it is false humility for you to say you often confuse "there" and "their" or "then" and "than." Perhaps you occasionally make the mistakes as typos (don't we all?) but I'm confident that you don't really confuse them.
Sorry that this post is off-topicHardly offtopic! This thread has drifted far from its original question...but it's been a fun ride.
Thanks for posting that, it's an interesting study...I hope I get to see the results.
BTW, I'd be very interested to hear some reading recommendations from Rex, maybe some books for language enthusiasts, or general audience?
I've already posted a few in this thread, but I will add:
The Symbolic Species: the co-evolution of language and the brain
Genes, Peoples, and Languages
This is not a linguistics book per se, but language figures into the discussion of ancient human migration.
Rex's recent post shows a reason why English is a difficult language to learn. Another thought is: why do we make the world's languages (including English) difficult to learn and complicating? Why not make them easiler or simplier?Interesting question.
The first thing I would say is that no one makes languages simple or easy, languages change and mutate by way of communities of speakers. The French have tried to legislate away the infiltration of English (mostly technology-related) words. It's not working because language change isn't a top-down, executive style process, it happens via groups of individual speakers (the sole exception being the use of threat, coercion and so on to enforce a decreed change in speech, and even this has a limited effect). As Rex has made clear, it's not a guided process and it's not 'logical', it's capricious and arbitrary. Although some amount of change from generation to generation is simply a young group of people setting themselves apart from the older generation, exactly how they go about creating change is unpredictable.
The second part is a bit more complicated. When you say English is hard to learn, I must assume you mean as a second language...because children have no problem learning English if they were born and raised in a community of native speakers, even without any formal education. Of course, this is true of any language on Earth. In fact, children born and raised in a bilingual community are capable of learning two languages equally well (and show an overall improvement in IQ).
Language is effective for us humans because all normally equipped people can learn it without effort, mostly before the age of 4. It's probably no coincidence that language acquisition happens during a time when the brain is still being 'wired', neurons are growing and changing their connections to each other. And this, in turn, is why it's difficult for adults to learn second languages. The major brain regions are set, rewiring still occurs but on a much smaller scale. One thing is certain...if you didn't acquire at least one language as a child, you will never learn one at anything approaching a native level, or even the level of a 3 year old.
In some sense it is a function of language to be easily acquired by children. I know that sounds strange, but think about it; if a given language was difficult for children to learn, it would probably end up being partially learned or learned poorly, which would then threaten it's primary function - communication. If languages were easy for adults to learn, then they probably wouldn't be very effective or expressive. It's hard to ponder 'what if...' scenarios about language because our evolution (especially our mental/brain evolution) is closely tied to the evolution of language. Once language got started sometime in the last few million years, it altered the course of our evolution, and in so doing altered its own properties and characteristics.
So to address your original question, Karl. Languages are specialized for acquisition by developing brains. All the developing brain needs is sufficient exposure to a language to learn it. Once brain development is 'done', acquiring a new language is difficult...but because you have acquired (at least) one native language already, your brain is at least capable of adding more, but this learning must be done through hard work, study and concentrated effort.
(By the way, it might be of interest to you second-language people that words in your 'new' language actually occupy their own 'territory' in your brain. Words from each language are segregated (usually only millimeters from each other), and categories of words, like nouns, verbs, etc are kept separate as well, this is true of native language words as well - so our 'folk' distinction of nouns from verbs from adjectives reflects the way they are actually divided in the brain!)
We might still choose to correct them in a piece of writing, but we could no longer see the speakers as strictly being "in error", as so many of us do now.I think we agree more on this subject than you'd like to admit.
Despite what you may think, Rex, I too am fascinated by language though not to the degree you obviously are. Your posts are like a virtual textbook on the evolution of English. But at the end of the day, we have current standard usage and current nonstandard usage. While it's a fun academic exercise to point out why someone may be deviating from the norm, it matters little--from a practical standpoint--whether the nonstandard usage stems from an outdated construction or a "new and improved" version that may (or may not) become standard in the future.
Little Johnny in school: "I seen Harry Potter yesterday."
Teacher: "You mean, 'You saw Harry Potter yesterday.'"
Little Johnny: "No, I am correct. In future enlightened generations, 'I seen' will be the favored usage because the preterite and perfect participle have the same form."
Teacher: "Very impressive, Johnny. But for now, please say 'I saw.'"
EdR,
With an infant son, I am very interested in the processes of children learning a second langauge. I had read about the ease children have in learning multiple languages and how it becomes difficult as an adult. Would you recommend teaching a young child a second language, and if so, at what age should he begin? It sounds as though there's a limited window of opportunity before his brain is "wired."