Re: language (was Quartz/Halogen incandescent bulbs)

["Bernard G. Cleyet & Nancy Ann Seese" <georgeann@REDSHIFT.COM>]

Interleaved:

Brian McInnes wrote:

Hi Zach,
Your epistle to fellow physicists and physics teachers, bringing us up
to scratch on the use of the English language, was couched in true
magisterial mode.
I crave your indulgence to make a few comments.

(1) "The flexibility of the English language is one of its greatest
strengths."
A fair enough comment.  I am not enough of a linguist to compare its
flexibility with that of the many other languages.

What do you people mean by flexible?   Has any one found a functional relationship between flexibility of language and Physics Nobel Prizes or, more germane, Literature?

 

(2) "English borrows from other languages at a rate greater than any
other known modern languange."  Again I haven't the expertise to know
whether that is true.  What is your reference for the claim.

The borrowing, I suspect was mainly due to conquest -- both directions.
-- I do think that one may find here a functional relationship with imperialism
and vocabulary -- and culinary diversity.  What has borrowing done
to grammar rules?

 

(3) "English converts verbs to nouns and back to verbs with remarkable
ease."
Again you make a claim without support that I have not the expertise
to quibble with.  I can only note that such borrowing can be a
dangerous exercise.

(4) "This may make it a bit hard for the elderly to keep up"
Now, this may well be taken as insulting by those of us who are
elderly; for example, I may not be able to keep up with you in a
foot-race, although I may well jog as far as you, but I am quite sure
I and many other oldies can keep up with developments in use of
English as well as you.  To keep up with something does not mean we
approve of it.

(5) "but it expands our expressive power."
Ah, but perhaps all that expressive power is there in the language and
you are unaware of its power.  Hundreds of writers from Shakespeare
through Dickinson and Hopkins and Housman and our (Australian) White
have found no difficulty in expressing themselves with both power and
subtlety.

 

(6) "The grammarian view point is rapidly dying.  The rules quoted are
generally ridiculous leftovers from Latin with little or no
application to modern English.  A review of the history of the English
language willshow that many modern "rules" are only former "errors"
that became the standard.

Please provide some examples.
> If native speakers of a lanuage understand
> an utterance it is correct. Language is about communication, not
> arbitrary standards"
> It seems to me that much of what came from Latin, such as
> case-inflexions has been discarded and our language has become easier
> and more graceful.
Strange, I'd heard that English was considerably harder to learn than the
Romance languages.  English's spelling and pronunciation rules are
observed "more in the breach."   It's a mishmash of other languages.
 
Italian is considered the most graceful language -- at least my wife
the gate keeper and singer says so.  Remember, of Mozart's five great
operas, four have Italian libretti!

Not completely.  We still have the nominative, accusative, and genitive. We lost the ablative and dative.   To indicate those cases words now require additional words such as to, for, by, at, etc.  Furthermore, with Latin, order was considerably less restrictive.

Oh yes, gender; what little remains is attacked as PIC.
 

> Yet perhaps we should have conventions that are

> generally recognized and used by those who wish write
> clearly.

>  
Hear hear!  Rules of grammar and social behavior are instilled in
a similar manner.  I've noticed a degeneration in both!

 

.
(7) "The real use of these rules is only to make distinctions
regarding class and education.  What
grammar books call "right" is only a prestige dialect. Knowing this
dialect is beneficial, as its use
implies that the user is a member of the prestige class that speaks
this dialect.  It is not more
correct than other options."

I suppose education does confer prestige.  That's why the Mexican
students are striking.

 
Zach, you are making a political statement here, which, of course, is
your right.  On the other hand, I will claim, that these "rules' help,
nay, are necessary for efficient and effective communication.

Brian McInnes