Re: off topic: language, long

[Zach Wolff <zachary_wolff@YAHOO.COM>]

My last send generated quite a response.  I'll try to
deal with all the key points here:

Jack Uretsky points out the need for standards by
calling my message "utterly semigrlphigpichel."  His
point is well made by this nonsensical word.  However,
the standard I had suggested was intelligibility by a
native speaker, one this word doesn't meet.  Had he
called my message "utterly ungood" (which I think
probably reflects his opinion of it) the example would
be much more relevant.

Brian McInnes had an enumerated list with several
demands, the majority of which I will attempt to meet
here:

interleaved:
--- Brian McInnes <bmcinnes@PNC.COM.AU> wrote:
> (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.
>
> (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.

Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, and Harnish comment in
_Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and
Communication, 4th ed._ (MIT PRess 1995) "English has
thus borrowed freely from other languages, a habit
that partly accounts for its enormous vocabulary."  I
have been lucky enough to study under Demers and
Harnish and it is to them that I must attribute a
large body of my linguistics knowledge.  What I assert
here are the product of a serious study of linguistics
at the University of Arizona, not a series of factoids
or "memorisms".

John Denker also provided a reference for this claim,
for which I thank him.  It is also discussed in W.F.
Bolton _A Living Language: The History and Structure
of English_, Random House Inc NY, NY 1982.

Another comment was made regarding this claim, that
English HAS borrowed the most in the past, but might
not do so anymore.  I was unable to find any
definitive data regarding this, but Bolton does
comment that English borrowed more heavily in the
past, particularly in the transition from Middle
English to Modern English.  I would be happy to cede
the point that some languages may currently borrow
more than English.  I don't believe it is particularly
critical to the debate at hand.

> (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.

Steven Pinker, MIT Linguist and Professor of Brain and
Cognitive Sciences, estimates that one fifth of
English verbs were originally nouns ("Grammar Puss" in
_The New Republic_ January 11, 1994).  He gives
examples such as "head" a committee,  "scalp" the
missionary, "eye" a babe, and "stomach someone's
complaints.  It doesn't seem particularly dangerous.
One purported danger is that the line between verbs
and nouns will be lost, or that new verbs derived from
nouns will be indistinguishable from verbs they
resemble in sound or spelling.  Counterexamples to
this argument are found in the verb from baseball "to
fly out" derived from the noun "a fly ball."  Native
English speakers universally say that a baseball
player "flied out" while remembering that the bug flew
out the window.  They are clearly different verbs.
The same is true of the verbs "to ring" as in a bell,
and "to ring" to form a ring around.  The protestors
ringed the building, while someone rang a bell.  No
one has any trouble with this distinction.

This dangerous mechanism is also often the only
efficient way to deal with changing technologies.  I
don't like to say that I sent an email or a fax.  I
like to say that I faxed and I emailed.  I have
photocopied, telephoned, biked, vacuumed, and ironed
just in the last several days.  These words which stem
from inventions new and old are a handy part of our
language.

> (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.

I apologize for any insult given.  I was only
following the cutting and sarcastic tone of Jack
Uretsky's original comment on this thread, that he
appreciates the difference because he was raised by
people who thought the difference mattered.  This
seems like an insult directed at the education of
those born to speakers of a different dialect of
English.

> (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.

I researched only Shakespeare to respond to this
comment, as the literature was most available for the
bard.  Shakespeare is often recognized as one who
invented language for his own devices.  Bolton (cited
above) comments that Shakespeare borrowed words from
other languages, invented words, and regularly changed
verbs to nouns and vice versa without the use of
suffixes.  I don't believe it is at all uncommon for
writers in all genres to coin words or alter syntax
for stylistic reasons.

> (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 will show that many modern "rules" are only
> former "errors"
> that became the standard.  If native speakers of a
> language 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.  Yet perhaps we should have
> conventions that are
> generally recognized and used by those who wish
> write clearly.

Much of what came from Latin has been discarded, but
some of the remainders are the biggest sources of
debate, mostly in that a few conservatives who call
themselves experts adhere to forgotten rules while the
vast majority of native speakers disregard them or are
entirely unaware of them.  Case-inflexions are
mentioned here as discarded.  It is true that we lost
many case markings such as the distinction between you
and ye.  The distinction between who and whom is a
surviving if ailing example of an identical case
marking.  Don't expect to see it around for long.

The rules "don't split infinitives" and "don't end a
sentence with a preposition" are also relics from
Latin.  In Latin infinitives cannot be split, as they
are one word.  Most English speakers show no objection
to the TV line, "To boldly go where no man has gone
before," (unless it's because of the un-PC use of the
word man).  Prepositions could not appear at the end
of sentences in Latin for reasons irrelevant to
English.  Winston Churchill mocked this rule with his
comment, "It is a rule up with which we should not
put"  (Pinker).

The shall/will distinction is also an example of a
case marking.  This one was invented by scholars
trying to make English appear more Latinate (and thus
"better").  It has nothing to do with the history of
either of these words (Bolton).

At this point in the discussion Bernard Cleyet and
Nancy Seese asked for examples to support my assertion
that former errors have current rules.  The word pea
is one example.  In the past the word was pease, a
mass noun like rice.  It referred to any quantity of
the legume we all know.  Speakers misanalyzed the word
as pea + the suffix -s, and made pea the singular
(Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition, 1989).  The
item we now call an apron was originally a napron,
before misanalysis (OED).  Cactus comes from the Greek
root kaktos, and has the plural cactuses (OED).
However enough speakers have misanalyzed it as Latin
origin and applied the Latin plural rule to create the
alternate plural cacti, now listed in some
dictionaries, such as Webster's New World.  Octopus
from the Greek roots for eight and foot, originally
had the Greek plural octopodes.  It was anglecized to
octopuses (an error?).  Later, enough speakers thought
it looked like a Latin root to add octopi to Webster's
New World.  Bolton cites "mob" an abbreviation of
"mobile vulgus" as a word that was put down as slang
by scholars such as Jonathon Swift.  It is now the
standard English word for the group of people it
describes.

> (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."
> 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

I disagree that the vast majority of prescriptive
rules actually facilitate efficient and effective
communication.  I am not against standards entirely.
That position is clearly ridiculous.  I only ask that
the standard of intelligibility by a native speaker be
the primary standard.  Everything else is neither
correct nor incorrect, but a matter of style.  I
believe that teaching an effective writing style
should be a high priority for our schoools, but I
believe the best way to do this is through practice,
feedback, and exposure to large quantities of good
examples, not through rules like "breech is a noun."
In the end wee can argue the merits of one style over
another, but I don't think any style choice deserves
the reprimand the use of the word breech received.
This habit of noun to verb conversion seems to be
remarkably productive and important in the English
language.

Best,
Zach Wolff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com