In 1990, in rec.arts.sf.written, James D. Nicoll wrote:The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
So, does the language reflect the soul of the speaker, or does the speaker reflect the soul of the language?
Giles: "We few, we happy few."
Spike: "We band of buggered."
In 1990, in rec.arts.sf.written, James D. Nicoll wrote:The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
So, does the language reflect the soul of the speaker, or does the speaker reflect the soul of the language?
I think Mr Nicoll was referring to American English.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
In 1990, in rec.arts.sf.written, James D. Nicoll wrote:The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
So, does the language reflect the soul of the speaker, or does the speaker reflect the soul of the language?
I think Mr Nicoll was referring to American English.
I don't think so.
Consider:
"English is the result of Norman men-at-arms attempting to pick up Saxon barmaids and is no more legitimate than any of the other results."
- H. Beam Piper
Language represents the trains of thought of those who speak it. English began as a Creole of (Norman)French and Olde Anglish, possibly with a bit of Gaelic and Norse thrown in. Although to hear the Etymologists tell it, any word in English that looks non-Romance must come from the Noble, Upright, Teutonic German and not from the disgraced, deplorable gutter argot known as Irish. (I am paraphrasing the Etymologists here, as I understand them.)
I have an affection for Gaelic, though I don't speak it worth a damn. But my patterns of thought are Gaelic. And they tell me that Irish speech patterns in English are modelled on constructions found in Gaelic. As in my Mother telling me "You're very through-other!" (Your clothes are disordered.)
One Irish habit is to add "...so it is" (or the like) to any declarative statement. It sounds less odd when you learn that Irish has an Emphatic Mood (or whatever it is) to their verbs.
Another is to say "It is" rather than "Yes" as Irish has no single word for "yes".
My Father used to say "Sowl, and you're a boy!" as an ejaculation.
I thought he was saying "Soul", but it seems equally likely he was saying "Saol" - the Irish for "life".
Regardless of "Soul", which is a contentious expression, I'd say that the individual's ideas are confined and limited by the language they are compelled to use, but an imaginative individual will find a way to express their ideas beyond the normal limits of the language.
perrins57 wrote:I think Mr Nicoll was referring to American English.
I very much doubt it. All the use-words from Irish, Hindi and Chinese were introduced by the English, not Americans. And the many French and Latin use-words come directly from the English love affair with all things continental.
djm
I'd rather be atop the foothills than beneath them.
Innocent Bystander wrote:Regardless of "Soul", which is a contentious expression, I'd say that the individual's ideas are confined and limited by the language they are compelled to use, but an imaginative individual will find a way to express their ideas beyond the normal limits of the language.
I actually struggled with what word or phrase to use where I used "soul". Perhaps "true nature" would have been a better choice.
I must say that I was somewhat surprised to see a serious reply to my question, which was asked half in jest (but half seriously). Thanks!
Giles: "We few, we happy few."
Spike: "We band of buggered."
It's fuel for fodder and humor I guess, but put simply, English is a complex language reflecting a complex history. That's all it means.
It also offers many choices and levels of complexity for the speaker. I think it's a fantastic language, but not the most beautiful to hear spoken or for me, to speak. Its ability to absorb words from other languages is an asset, to my way of thinking, but dissatisfying to someone trying to keep it within a box. It's least likely to become a dead language for that reason, I guess.
A very interesting, recent documentary, on the history of the English language (by Melvin Bragg) reckons more people now learn American English than UK English. At what point will the English start to get 'overruled' in terms of what is, or isn't, considered 'correct English'?
The English spoken officially by the European Union has already evolved away from UK English. Singapore has a form of English most British people could not understand. In the future, development of the 'English' language may be mostly done by the non-English.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
perrins57 wrote:A very interesting, recent documentary, on the history of the English language (by Melvin Bragg) reckons more people now learn American English than UK English. At what point will the English start to get 'overruled' in terms of what is, or isn't, considered 'correct English'?
The English spoken officially by the European Union has already evolved away from UK English. Singapore has a form of English most British people could not understand. In the future, development of the 'English' language may be mostly done by the non-English.
I think that's true. Think of the Portuguese language, vastly overwhelmed in numbers of speakers by its former colonies, mainly Brazil. At one point, they even moved some of their royalty there and declared a unified kingdom of the two [story]
I mean, part of it was the Napeolonic situation. But I thought that was a telling turn of events regarding colonialism.
Last edited by The Weekenders on Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
perrins57 wrote:A very interesting, recent documentary, on the history of the English language (by Melvin Bragg) reckons more people now learn American English than UK English. At what point will the English start to get 'overruled' in terms of what is, or isn't, considered 'correct English'?
The English spoken officially by the European Union has already evolved away from UK English. Singapore has a form of English most British people could not understand. In the future, development of the 'English' language may be mostly done by the non-English.
I wonder English and the weight of its its variants could grow to such size that some day it would necessarily be considered a linguistic group itself, like Goidelic.
- Said the non-linguist.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Balochi musician
