|
 |
Common errors vs language evolution | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| drygramul Tetraglot Senior Member Italy Joined 4264 days ago 165 posts - 269 votes  Speaks: Persian, Italian*, EnglishC2, GermanB2 Studies: French, Polish | Message 33 of 72 18 November 2013 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Just to be clear, if you were to use in the future a language similar to 1984's Newspeak, you would still dispute the derogatory undertone in the term I've used? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| yong321 Groupie United States yong321.freeshe Joined 5338 days ago 80 posts - 104 votes Studies: Spanish | Message 34 of 72 18 November 2013 at 6:08pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
Ari wrote: 'How come emigrant populations use more consrvative language than that which is used in the "heartland" of the language?'
Chung wrote: "linguistic innovation moving toward the periphery of the speech community rather than the other way around" Indeed, linguistic innovation occurs more in the center and less toward the periphery of the speech community. But what is the center? The location of the original speech community? What if the population in this location is lower than that in a different location? In the case of Britain vs. the US, the center may still be in Britain, in order to explain the fact that American English is more conservative than its British counterpart; e.g. southern England lost ending -r as in "car" (rhotic) in the 18th and 19th centuries but it remains in American English in most areas. What if the original location further reduces its speech community population, or maybe more relevant, population density? Will innovation not occur more in the emigrated population than this "center"? So there must be a threshold beyond which the "center" generates less innovation than the "peripheries". Then the fundamental factor is not center or not, but something else, maybe speech community population density. By the way, Nicholas Ostler in his "Empires of the World" uses population density to explain the language change of Egyptians (which had "stubbonly" resisted change for thousands of years) from the ancient Egyptian to Arabic in the 7th century, because of a large group of migrants coming from Arabia. So I think density, not the sheer number of people, matters more. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4503 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 35 of 72 18 November 2013 at 6:31pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Newspeak was forced on people by an institution that censored people's utterances. This is a completely different situation from natural language evolution. People speaking dialect is a normal thing. It has nothing to do with government-based descriptions of how language should be used (in fact, Newspeak is much closer to standardization of the language in that sense, because dialects imply freedom to deviate from the "linguistic norm". Terrible analogy. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 5024 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French | Message 36 of 72 18 November 2013 at 6:45pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
I think the fact that--out of all the non-fictional dialects in the world you could've picked--you had to use a fictional one to make your point speaks volumes. But I'll bite: 1. No, I would not dispute the derogatory undertone if you used it to describe Newspeak (presuming you were talking about something actually worth denigrating in Newspeak, and not, for example, whether or not an article was used in the expression for "next week," to use one of your examples). 2. No, this is not relevant at all, because: a. No dialect (on point, no dialect of Italian, which seems to have been your target) is similar to Newspeak in that certain vocabulary has been purposely removed (and remained so removed) to prevent revolution or some other thought or behavior. b. Query whether such a language is even possible. c. Newspeak is indeed "objectively" impoverished. Certain concepts simply can't be expressed. There is no way to say "free will" in Newspeak. But in Italian, even in vulgar Italian, even in vulgar, foreign-influenced Italian, there is no parallel "objective" impoverishment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_(sociolinguistics) "Despite common perceptions that certain dialects or languages are relatively good or bad, correct or incorrect, "judged on purely linguistic grounds, all languages--and all dialects--have equal merit"." I answered your question. Here's mine. You complained that certain language is "dumb-downed" and relied on Wikipedia's article on the topic to explain what you meant. I pointed out that even your own citation said "dumbed-down" is a subjective appraisal. Given that, will you admit that what you think is dumb-downed is just your subjective opinion? Because if you'll admit that, I will be happy--although you think I love to argue--to stop this dispute immediately. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| drygramul Tetraglot Senior Member Italy Joined 4264 days ago 165 posts - 269 votes Speaks: Persian, Italian*, EnglishC2, GermanB2 Studies: French, Polish | Message 37 of 72 18 November 2013 at 6:50pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Terrible fallacy. Edited by drygramul on 18 November 2013 at 6:51pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| drygramul Tetraglot Senior Member Italy Joined 4264 days ago 165 posts - 269 votes Speaks: Persian, Italian*, EnglishC2, GermanB2 Studies: French, Polish | Message 38 of 72 18 November 2013 at 7:31pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
That's not relevant to your argument, I was trying to convey what I meant. Basic English applies too. And it goes without saying that these changes require an amount of time, I am perfectly aware of that.
I think that the term "example" implies that the list is not exhaustive.
I think my perception, living in Italy, and reading more Journal Articles than a foreigner for instance, is more authentic.
Of course that's my opinion, and for the time being I am convinced of my thesis. As it is yours that there's no good/bad language. Edited by drygramul on 18 November 2013 at 7:46pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 5024 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French | Message 39 of 72 18 November 2013 at 8:08pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
My argument was no human language is impoverished related to another. Obviously, I wouldn't be silly enough to say something like "no fictional language is impoverished relative to another," so yes, this is completely irrelevant. And Basic English is another constructed language. Did you think we were discussing constructed languages? There's no reason to think such a thing. The reason you keep picking these examples instead of, you know, an actual language spoken by anyone is because no spoken language would support your point. If you want to talk about fictional and constructed languages, then I'm happy to do it, and happy to admit that some are impoverished. But that wasn't your claim. Your claim was certain, real-life, Italian dialects are impoverished. And you've given us no reason to think that's the case other than a rather lame, "Well, I live in Italy and I've read some articles, so I know." Congratulations, it's a beautiful country, but you're going to have to give us a wee bit more reason to believe your appraisals of the status of Italian tongues.
Why even bring up such a thing if not to divert the discussion? I said I was borrowing one of your examples, not presuming you'd made an exhaustive list. Hence me saying "to use one of your examples."
Your residency in Italy does not make you an expert on the linguistic merits of languages. Are you saying that, in your Italian-residing perspective, there are certain Italian dialects that are objectively impoverished? Because I want to know which ones and how and why the linguistic community hasn't learned about this.
I think you're smart enough to realize that's a blatant equivocation on the word "opinion." Are you saying you're convinced that your view has no objective merit, that it is mere opinion (i.e., the question I was asking)? Because, you know, that's what the very article you linked to said. My statement that there's no such thing as an impoverished language is not an opinion, but an objective fact. You know how we can tell? Because I actually produced a quote from Wikipedia (the source you originally relied on) that supports it. You know how we can tell your view of Italian has no merit? Because the only citation you produced said the very opposite of what you were trying to prove. Here's the quote I gave. "Despite common perceptions that certain dialects or languages are relatively good or bad, correct or incorrect, "judged on purely linguistic grounds, all languages--and all dialects--have equal merit". I want to know if you disagree with this quote and I want to know why. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 5024 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French | Message 40 of 72 18 November 2013 at 8:11pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
What is advanced without support can be dismissed as easily. 3 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
