tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post8332542281399654677..comments2024-03-11T16:29:13.619-05:00Comments on Lingwë - Musings of a Fish: English ascendant — long foreseen?Jason Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-55376808267355149482009-02-05T10:33:00.000-06:002009-02-05T10:33:00.000-06:00Thanks, Gary. I’ll definitely read it. :)Thanks, Gary. I’ll definitely read it. :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-26906189366146236642009-02-05T09:46:00.000-06:002009-02-05T09:46:00.000-06:00For me, one of the definitive articles on this sub...For me, one of the definitive articles on this subject is the Stanford linguist Geoffrey Nunberg's <A HREF="http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/norton.pdf" REL="nofollow">"The Persistence of English,"</A> which traces the geographical and temporal spread of English while also considering whether there's something intrinsic to the language itself that could account for that ascendancy.<BR/><BR/>It's a long essay, but chock-full of worthwhile information. Like your post was! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-84573362335419505432009-02-04T17:38:00.000-06:002009-02-04T17:38:00.000-06:00Hello, Ardamir; thanks for the input. Your indictm...Hello, Ardamir; thanks for the input. Your indictment of English spelling (or pronunciation) is a point well-taken. I mean, what can one make of an orthography where nearly every single last one of our twenty-six letters may be silent in a word?! Much of the problem there, however, is with words absorbed from other languages (e.g., letters silent in French will usually be silent when those words are adopted into English).<BR/><BR/>There are many explanations for the innumerable oddities of English pronunciation, but they are of little help to people trying to learn the language, I admit. Old English, I might point out, was pronounced with great regularity.<BR/><BR/>I might also point out that languages with artificially perfect regularity (e.g., Esperanto) feel emotionless to most people. Deader than the so-called ‘dead languages’, to paraphrase Tolkien.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-66448834867473627712009-02-04T17:31:00.000-06:002009-02-04T17:31:00.000-06:00Alex:Great stuff on the Latin.While I’m on this su...Alex:<BR/><BR/><I>Great stuff on the Latin.</I><BR/><BR/>While I’m on this subject, you might also like this, from the turn of the 20th century: “My impression has been that the Genius of the English language is widely different from that of Latin; and that the worst and most debased kinds of English style are those which ape Latinity. I know of no purer English prose than that of John Bunyan and [... more examples ...]. Yet Latin literature and these masters of English had little to do with one another.” — Thomas Henry HuxleyJason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-62123452639778690782009-02-04T17:29:00.000-06:002009-02-04T17:29:00.000-06:00Haha, that's brilliant. Personally, I think we sh...Haha, that's brilliant. Personally, I think we should go back to Anglo-Saxon.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13721162340739400165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-51672799352088728632009-02-04T17:13:00.000-06:002009-02-04T17:13:00.000-06:00Some comments from a non-native speaker of English...Some comments from a non-native speaker of English...<BR/><BR/>English is certainly not very logical in its spelling - or, perhaps you can turn that around and say that it's not very logical in its pronunciation, given its spelling. I believe there are other languages that have an edge over English in this respect. Of the languages I have knowledge about, Finnish is the language that comes closest to having a perfect spelling-pronunciation relationship. Swedish (my native language) is also better in this regard than English, and I don't see how English would be more logical in its consistency and structure than its Germanic sister language. Like German, Swedish has articles, though - two.<BR/><BR/>If English would ever be made some sort of world language, there will probably be many people who would want to make its spelling more logical. However, this example illustrates how "improvement" of English spelling might go too far: http://www.greaterthings.com/Humor/English_as_the_official_language_of_Europe.htm ;)Ardamirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12535734219325255452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-20183221665954653072009-02-04T15:14:00.000-06:002009-02-04T15:14:00.000-06:00Though, I might add, I will always maintain that b...<I>Though, I might add, I will always maintain that both he and Lewis, though quite modernist thinkers, had very dep and radical strands of what we might call postmodern thought.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you’re right about that. Walking Tree has a collection in preparation that deals with this subject extensively, so you can look forward to <A HREF="http://www.walking-tree.org/callForPapers.php?call=klinger" REL="nofollow">this</A>.<BR/><BR/>Brevity? Nailed it. ;)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-62070857134759891682009-02-04T14:28:00.000-06:002009-02-04T14:28:00.000-06:00It had not occurred to me to consider the etymolog...It had not occurred to me to consider the etymology of "logical," no, though I probably should have - I've been a Greek student for a long time, haha. <BR/><BR/>But I would not worry about being cheesy - I think it was a pun Tolkien would've liked. I often wonder how he would respond, as a philologist of a thoroughly modern school, to recent philosophy of language. As much as I would like to say otherwise, I think he would consider (as, probably our dear Mr. Partridge) a bit of hoo-hash.<BR/><BR/>Though, I might add, I will always maintain that both he and Lewis, though quite modernist thinkers, had very dep and radical strands of what we might call postmodern thought. Indeed, the line of reasoning that lore says he used to convert Lewis to Christianity has deep linguistic-postmodern undertones.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13721162340739400165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-30709019360738554482009-02-04T13:53:00.000-06:002009-02-04T13:53:00.000-06:00So it’s a framework disagreement.I dig that! Insta...<I>So it’s a framework disagreement.</I><BR/><BR/>I dig that! Instant argument-stopper! :)<BR/>—“No, no, no! You have it all wrong!”<BR/>—“Wrong? No, we’re both right; it’s just a framework disagreement.”<BR/><BR/><I>But I think your statement about adjectives does not follow from your statement about logic as a universal framework. Perhaps you were being ironic?</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, notice my winky-face? I was being droll — or <I>trying</I> to be. The etymology of <I>logical</I> is Greek λογοσ “word, reasoning”; hence, languages, made up as they are of <I>words</I>, must be “logical”. You see? No intellectual contortion is too extreme when I’m trying, lamely, to be clever. ;)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-64102749931047455872009-02-04T13:10:00.000-06:002009-02-04T13:10:00.000-06:00Yeah, definitely Jason, "putting down" would be wh...Yeah, definitely Jason, "putting down" would be what I'm referring to. It's how it's used in anthropology. Dictionary.com does a good job with the noun form, "colonialization": the act of bringing into subjection or subjugation by colonializing. But the Encarta catches it with "try to restructure." Colonizing isn't such a terrible thing, provided it's done certain ways respectful to the indigenous culture (assuming there is one), but colonialization is always bad.<BR/><BR/>Jason said (sorry, I can't figure out how to do cool italics :) :I’m inclined to disagree with how you define logic here. I’m of the opinion, and I think Partridge would agree, that there is, in fact, a “singular principled form or force” — i.e., logic. Moreover, languages are “logical” by the force of the etymology of that adjective! ;)<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I'm a more postmodern thinker (I would prefer "post-postmodern, but whatev), and I think you have a bit more modern flavor. So it's a framework disagreement. But I think your statement about adjectives does not follow from your statement about logic as a universal framework. Perhaps you were being ironic? If not, I would say you're making my point for me :).<BR/><BR/>Great stuff on the Latin. Tolkien was so cool.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13721162340739400165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-13718760708532173612009-02-04T12:41:00.000-06:002009-02-04T12:41:00.000-06:00Thought-provoking stuff, Alex. Let me respond, in ...Thought-provoking stuff, Alex. Let me respond, in brief:<BR/><BR/><I>Just a small semantic point: I’m speaking definitely about colonialization, not colonization, which are different, if not related, things.</I><BR/><BR/>I’m not sure I see the semantic difference you’re angling for. The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., has only <I>colonize</I>, not <I>colonialize</I>. I’m not sure the latter is a widely accepted word. Encarta Online has both, but gives as their meanings:<BR/><BR/><B>Colonialize</B> (trans.): Make into colony: to enter a nation or other landmass and try to restructure it into a colony.<BR/><BR/><B>Colonize</B> (trans./intrans.): Establish colony: to establish a colony in another country or place.<BR/><BR/>Pretty similar. What’s the difference in your view? Is it that <I>colonialize</I> carries a greater sense of “putting down” an established native population?<BR/><BR/><I>I have a quibble with Partridge — a language, I’m not sure, can be more “logical” than another, since logic does not transcend language, and indeed, logic COMES FROM language. So as there are languages in the world, so there are logics; logic as a singular principled form or force within the world does not, I would contend, exist. Therefore, a language has to be judged as coherent (so I do appreciate his use of the word “consistent,” though in ultimate disagreement) according to its own logic, or incoherent.</I><BR/><BR/>Now it’s my turn for a small semantic point. :) I’m inclined to disagree with how you define <I>logic</I> here. I’m of the opinion, and I think Partridge would agree, that there is, in fact, a “singular principled form or force” — i.e., logic. Moreover, languages are “logical” by the force of the etymology of that adjective! ;)<BR/><BR/><I>And come to think of it, though I’ve always lamented this fact, Latin is a versatile language as well, and I think has much incorporating power. […] So strong a presence it was that it ruined English (via the Church and Old French). A rather boring language, really; I’ve never forgiven those damned Romans.</I><BR/><BR/>Latin is versatile, but it tends to erode through dissemination. Subjugated populations don’t tend to master half a dozen declensional paradigms very well, hahae; hence, why the different cultures the Romans mastered developed their own distinct (but clearly related) dialects, then languages: French, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, Romanian, et al. Latin itself evolved into Italian. For similar reasons, the declensional forms of Old English wore away, gradually but inexorably. I chuckled (in some agreement) at your choice of words, that Latin <I>ruined</I> English. It reminded me of something Tolkien wrote, tongue in cheek, in 1943:<BR/><BR/>“Col. Knox says 1/8 of the world’s population speaks ‘English’, and that is the biggest language group. If true, damn shame — say I. May the curse of Babel strike all their tongues till they can only say ‘baa baa’. It would mean much the same. I think I shall have to refuse to speak anything but Old Mercian.”<BR/><BR/>(I think I failed in my aim for brevity. Oh well, maybe next time. :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-64820946938674003872009-02-04T12:06:00.000-06:002009-02-04T12:06:00.000-06:00Just a small semantic point: I'm speaking definite...Just a small semantic point: I'm speaking definitely about colonialization, not colonization, which are different, if not related, things.<BR/><BR/>I think you are right, at least to some extent, about the acceptability of English, but I can't think of any anthropologist or sociologist that would disagree that the main reason was not colonialization. And I have had non-English speakers tell me English was, for them, one of the hardest languages to learn. Two of my friends that know fluently more than 4 languages (and one of them does not count English in that category, although he speaks it better than some of my native friends :) told me that English is the hardest, except for Mandarin.<BR/><BR/>Still, it is hard to imagine, as you pointed out, Finnish, or even Mandarin or Russian, becoming so prevalent, even with a similar opportunity. I love Firefly the TV show, but I always wonder how well two vastly different languages/cultures would integrate, and if one would not take obvious precedence over the other. Of course, anthropologically speaking, it would probably depend on the area. But...well, now, I'm chasin' rabbits.<BR/><BR/>I have a quibble with Partridge - a language, I'm not sure, can be more "logical" than another, since logic does not transcend language, and indeed, logic COMES FROM language. So as there are languages in the world, so there are logics; logic as a singular principled form or force within the world does not, I would contend, exist. Therefore, a language has to be judged as coherent (so I do appreciate his use of the word "consistent," though in ultimate disagreement) according to its own logic, or incoherent. In fact, I appreciate Jespersen's comment much more, and I think it much more becoming of a philologist - that language is inextricably interwoven within the culture that speaks it. This goes with my comment that English, though spoken in Zimbabwe, is not the same as our English - it reflects and informs (all at once) the culture that is speaking it.<BR/><BR/>I'm babbling. Again, I think you might be on to something. Even that one prevalent trade language (gosh, I can't come up with what it is called; it has very few native speakers, but interestingly enough, has a Bible translation) is mostly based on English. <BR/><BR/>And come to think of it, though I've always lamented this fact, Latin is a versatile language as well, and I think has much incorporating power. Of course, English is a Teutonic language, not Romance, but still, this could explain why Rome was so able to spread their language so vastly. So strong a presence it was that it ruined English (via the Church and Old French). A rather boring language, really; I've never forgiven those damned Romans.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13721162340739400165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-41798376351508382272009-02-04T09:42:00.000-06:002009-02-04T09:42:00.000-06:00Alex, thanks for the great comment.I don't want to...Alex, thanks for the great comment.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't want to belittle your point, but British and American imperial colonialization is definitely the main reason English is so prevalent.</I><BR/><BR/>I certainly do not discount the colonial explanation, but I’m not as certain as you are that it is the <I>main</I> reason. I think this is an oversimplification. Clearly, colonization gave English the <I>opportunity</I>, but I think it is something about English itself that made a success of that opportunity. Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese empires all had their day, but while those languages did spread, they couldn’t get quite the toe-hold that English has gotten.<BR/><BR/>Imagine world-wide colonization with a much more “difficult” (admittedly, subjective) language, like Irish or Finnish. While the colonization could certainly occur, it’s hard to see the conquerors’ language supplanting native one(s) so well as English has done. It’s also possible that part of the colonial impulse itself is rooted in whatever it is that makes <I>English itself</I> so assimilative. I don’t know that, but it seems plausible. The emergence of English <I>in England</I> came about through “colonization” from the nothwest of the European mainland, after all.<BR/><BR/><I>An African friend of mine once told me, “English was born in England, grew up in America, grew old in India, and died in Africa” (imagine said with a native Zimbabwean accent).</I><BR/><BR/>That’s a wonderful image, especially with the accent. I’ve seen this adage before, in a slightly different form (“got sick in India”).<BR/><BR/><I>And I would add that English, in a great deal of the places it is spoken, is hardly English as we would recognize it. Still, another African friend of mine (this one from the Congo) said he could understand the logic of those a Haitian friend (who spoke French) better than two other African friends from Kenya and Zimbabwe who spoke English. This exemplifies a Wittgensteinian "logic of language" on a very base and banal level. If a language possesses a logic (which all do), then perhaps some are more inviting.</I><BR/><BR/>Which goes all the more to its flexibility. Would such a thing be possible with German? Or Hungarian?<BR/><BR/>Eric Partridge (a native speaker) has said that “[a]lthough no language is wholly consistent, wholly logical, yet it is true to say that, with the exception of cultured Chinese, English is the most logical of the modern languages” (<I>The World of Words</I>, 3rd ed., 1948).<BR/><BR/>The great linguist Otto Jespersen (a native Danish speaker) has said that “[t]he English language is a methodical, energetic, business-like and sober language, that does not care much for finery and elegance, but does care for logical consistency and is opposed to any attempt to narrow-in life by police regulations [i.e., one thinks of the Académie Française] and strict rules either of grammar or of lexicon. As the language is, so also is the nation” (<I>Growth and Structure of the English Language</I>, 9th ed., 1938).<BR/><BR/><I>It is a dizzying and impossible question - but fun to consider. Thanks Jason!</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. As I tried to hint in the post, there’s nothing <I>conclusive</I> here. But I do think that there are features of English which suit the language particularly well to growth and distribution — and these elements have been apparent in the language for centuries.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-20904492031001182522009-02-04T00:17:00.000-06:002009-02-04T00:17:00.000-06:00I don't want to belittle your point, but British a...I don't want to belittle your point, but British and American imperial colonialization is definitely the main reason English is so prevalent.<BR/><BR/>That being said, English does have a certain versatility - being so heavily influenced by Romance and Teutonic languages, and then, part and parcel of being such an expansive language, being able to take on so many forms. An African friend of mine once told me, "English was born in England, grew up in America, grew old in India, and died in Africa" (imagine said with a native Zimbabwean accent). As you noted in your post, it is hard to gauge how this compares with other languages, as we are not native speakers of those languages, and are thus quite limited in our cultural-linguistic framework. <BR/><BR/>And I would add that English, in a great deal of the places it is spoken, is hardly English as we would recognize it. Still, another African friend of mine (this one from the Congo) said he could understand the logic of those a Haitian friend (who spoke French) better than two other African friends from Kenya and Zimbabwe who spoke English. This exemplifies a Wittgensteinian "logic of language" on a very base and banal level. If a language possesses a logic (which all do), then perhaps some are more inviting.<BR/><BR/>It is a dizzying and impossible question - but fun to consider. Thanks Jason!Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13721162340739400165noreply@blogger.com