That's simply not true. Languages change, and with the exception of idiom and accent, the written word in English is still mutually intelligible regardless of what kind of English you speak.
Can you define objectively the difference between "degradation" and "change" of a language?
When I first started learning sign language, I tried to sign (and when I didn't know the sign, fingerspell) in the same way that I would talk or write. The looks I got! Even though this communication used by the deaf has its roots in English, the shortform employed is interesting. Especially when you consider English shortforms like slangs used by every generation.
An example I remember early on from an episode of Barney Miller, where Levitt was playing interpreter, the question was "Where were you born?" The signing was WHERE BORN.
Currently, I have a medical condition with my voice (laryngeal papilloma) that has me minimizing my speech, often with very abrupt, incorrect usage. People have commented to me about how I talk "way different" than the the way I write.
For some, maybe communication is all about getting a point across and not worrying too much about how it sounds. Just an observation. I ain't got no point...
Can you define objectively the difference between "degradation" and "change" of a language?
We used to have case endings on our words, like Latin. We don't anymore. That's change.
I wouldn't define degradation in language, as it's a moral position. Degradation assumes that language can be "corrupted," which also assumes that language was, at one point, not degraded, which assumes that it was, at one point, perfect. It wasn't. Ever.
Quote:
For example, how would you classify Ebonics?
Ebonics was a teaching methodology developed by some teachers in California, if I remember correctly. The idea was that black kids spoke BEV (black English vernacular [characterized by a simplification of tenses, among other things]) among their peers and at home English in the same way they would teach them a foreign language.
When I first started learning sign language, I tried to sign (and when I didn't know the sign, fingerspell) in the same way that I would talk or write. The looks I got! Even though this communication used by the deaf has its roots in English, the shortform employed is interesting. Especially when you consider English shortforms like slangs used by every generation.
An example I remember early on from an episode of Barney Miller, where Levitt was playing interpreter, the question was "Where were you born?" The signing was WHERE BORN.
Currently, I have a medical condition with my voice (laryngeal papilloma) that has me minimizing my speech, often with very abrupt, incorrect usage. People have commented to me about how I talk "way different" than the the way I write.
For some, maybe communication is all about getting a point across and not worrying too much about how it sounds. Just an observation. I ain't got no point...
My old History of the English Language prof insists that ASL is not English.
My old History of the English Language prof insists that ASL is not English.
True, in regards to the signs, but the fingerspelling is definitely based on the English language. Although I never further studied whether other languages default to English fingerspelling.
Reminds me of how wherever you go in the world, the stop sign has the word STOP on it, except Quebec. And the air traffic controllers all speak English, except Quebec. English is a universal language, but if it is so universal, one wonders why there is no universal authority on its usage.
We used to have case endings on our words, like Latin. We don't anymore. That's change.
I wouldn't define degradation in language, as it's a moral position.
Not at all. Langauge is a set of rules that follows a certain set of specifications in order to serve a particular purpose(s). Degradation can then be defined (although other definitions are possible) as such implementation of these rules that the system is not able to serve its original inteded purpose. There is no morality in that anywhere.
Quote:
Degradation assumes that language can be "corrupted," which also assumes that language was, at one point, not degraded, which assumes that it was, at one point, perfect. It wasn't. Ever.
I highly doubt that you know whether any language was ever perfect or not. One doesn't have to assume that any "perfection" existed at the start... just that it was more suited to its original purpose before at some point prior time.
If you want, you can say that the purpose has changed, but then it's a whole another argument.
Quote:
Ebonics was a teaching methodology developed by some teachers in California, if I remember correctly. The idea was that black kids spoke BEV (black English vernacular [characterized by a simplification of tenses, among other things]) among their peers and at home English in the same way they would teach them a foreign language.
That's the definition of which I'm also aware of. My question was whether you would classify it as a "change" or "degradation" and why?
Certainly you would not call it a separate language...
Not at all. Langauge is a set of rules that follows a certain set of specifications in order to serve a particular purpose(s). Degradation can then be defined (although other definitions are possible) as such implementation of these rules that the system is not able to serve its original inteded purpose. There is no morality in that anywhere.
Technically, I'd argue that grammar and syntax are the rules and that language—or even semiotics—is something else, but that's another discussion.
But let's get down to brass tacks: for you, "degradation" is a kind of falling away from a prior, better, condition. To which I ask: why is it not, instead, a progression towards a newer, better condition?
Still think there's no morality in there?
Quote:
I highly doubt that you know whether any language was ever perfect or not.
Am I a specialist in the History of the English language? No. Do I know more about it than the average joe? Yes. English was never perfect. It has never been perfect. There was never any moment when English was in its optimal condition or best "suited to its original purpose."
English is the kind of language that roughs up other languages in dark alleys and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
Quote:
One doesn't have to assume that any "perfection" existed at the start... just that it was more suited to its original purpose before at some point prior time.
What time was that, specifically? 1975? 1900? 1850? What country? What accent? Do southerners speak better English than Yankees? Is it OK if I use "fixin'" (as in, "I'm fixin' to go to the store") if I explain that it's an old naval term that goes back hundreds of years?
Can I be fast and loose with apostrophe usage? Jane Austen was. Can I be fast and loose with the usage of the letter "K," which didn't really sort itself out until the 18th century?
And yes, your argument does hold at its core that English must have, at some point, been perfect. If there has been degradation, there must, logically, have been a point at which there was no degradation.
Quote:
That's the definition of which I'm also aware of. My question was whether you would classify it as a "change" or "degradation" and why?
Certainly you would not call it a separate language...
The only people I know of who insisted it was another language were the right wing nutjobs calling into Limbaugh in 1996 or so. It's a dialect. Just like Southern dialects or Yankee dialects or these weird people in Utah who say "mou'ain" instead of "mountain."
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
That's simply not true. Languages change, and with the exception of idiom and accent, the written word in English is still mutually intelligible regardless of what kind of English you speak.
Can you define objectively the difference between "degradation" and "change" of a language?
For example, how would you classify Ebonics?
When I first started learning sign language, I tried to sign (and when I didn't know the sign, fingerspell) in the same way that I would talk or write. The looks I got! Even though this communication used by the deaf has its roots in English, the shortform employed is interesting. Especially when you consider English shortforms like slangs used by every generation.
An example I remember early on from an episode of Barney Miller, where Levitt was playing interpreter, the question was "Where were you born?" The signing was WHERE BORN.
Currently, I have a medical condition with my voice (laryngeal papilloma) that has me minimizing my speech, often with very abrupt, incorrect usage. People have commented to me about how I talk "way different" than the the way I write.
For some, maybe communication is all about getting a point across and not worrying too much about how it sounds. Just an observation. I ain't got no point...
Originally posted by skatman
Can you define objectively the difference between "degradation" and "change" of a language?
We used to have case endings on our words, like Latin. We don't anymore. That's change.
I wouldn't define degradation in language, as it's a moral position. Degradation assumes that language can be "corrupted," which also assumes that language was, at one point, not degraded, which assumes that it was, at one point, perfect. It wasn't. Ever.
For example, how would you classify Ebonics?
Ebonics was a teaching methodology developed by some teachers in California, if I remember correctly. The idea was that black kids spoke BEV (black English vernacular [characterized by a simplification of tenses, among other things]) among their peers and at home English in the same way they would teach them a foreign language.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
This is a bit off-topic, but...
When I first started learning sign language, I tried to sign (and when I didn't know the sign, fingerspell) in the same way that I would talk or write. The looks I got! Even though this communication used by the deaf has its roots in English, the shortform employed is interesting. Especially when you consider English shortforms like slangs used by every generation.
An example I remember early on from an episode of Barney Miller, where Levitt was playing interpreter, the question was "Where were you born?" The signing was WHERE BORN.
Currently, I have a medical condition with my voice (laryngeal papilloma) that has me minimizing my speech, often with very abrupt, incorrect usage. People have commented to me about how I talk "way different" than the the way I write.
For some, maybe communication is all about getting a point across and not worrying too much about how it sounds. Just an observation. I ain't got no point...
My old History of the English Language prof insists that ASL is not English.
Originally posted by midwinter
My old History of the English Language prof insists that ASL is not English.
True, in regards to the signs, but the fingerspelling is definitely based on the English language. Although I never further studied whether other languages default to English fingerspelling.
Reminds me of how wherever you go in the world, the stop sign has the word STOP on it, except Quebec. And the air traffic controllers all speak English, except Quebec. English is a universal language, but if it is so universal, one wonders why there is no universal authority on its usage.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
one wonders why there is no universal authority on its usage.
You want to try to get England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada and America to agree on usage?
Originally posted by midwinter
You want to try to get England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada and America to agree on usage?
And Australia?
Originally posted by tilt
And Australia?
Nah. Australia doesn't count.
Originally posted by midwinter
Nah. Australia doesn't count.
It has to count more than Scotland, Ireland, or Wales. Well, at least Ireland. Those damn Gaelics. . .
Originally posted by midwinter
We used to have case endings on our words, like Latin. We don't anymore. That's change.
I wouldn't define degradation in language, as it's a moral position.
Not at all. Langauge is a set of rules that follows a certain set of specifications in order to serve a particular purpose(s). Degradation can then be defined (although other definitions are possible) as such implementation of these rules that the system is not able to serve its original inteded purpose. There is no morality in that anywhere.
Degradation assumes that language can be "corrupted," which also assumes that language was, at one point, not degraded, which assumes that it was, at one point, perfect. It wasn't. Ever.
I highly doubt that you know whether any language was ever perfect or not. One doesn't have to assume that any "perfection" existed at the start... just that it was more suited to its original purpose before at some point prior time.
If you want, you can say that the purpose has changed, but then it's a whole another argument.
Ebonics was a teaching methodology developed by some teachers in California, if I remember correctly. The idea was that black kids spoke BEV (black English vernacular [characterized by a simplification of tenses, among other things]) among their peers and at home English in the same way they would teach them a foreign language.
That's the definition of which I'm also aware of. My question was whether you would classify it as a "change" or "degradation" and why?
Certainly you would not call it a separate language...
Originally posted by skatman
Not at all. Langauge is a set of rules that follows a certain set of specifications in order to serve a particular purpose(s). Degradation can then be defined (although other definitions are possible) as such implementation of these rules that the system is not able to serve its original inteded purpose. There is no morality in that anywhere.
Technically, I'd argue that grammar and syntax are the rules and that language—or even semiotics—is something else, but that's another discussion.
But let's get down to brass tacks: for you, "degradation" is a kind of falling away from a prior, better, condition. To which I ask: why is it not, instead, a progression towards a newer, better condition?
Still think there's no morality in there?
I highly doubt that you know whether any language was ever perfect or not.
Am I a specialist in the History of the English language? No. Do I know more about it than the average joe? Yes. English was never perfect. It has never been perfect. There was never any moment when English was in its optimal condition or best "suited to its original purpose."
English is the kind of language that roughs up other languages in dark alleys and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
One doesn't have to assume that any "perfection" existed at the start... just that it was more suited to its original purpose before at some point prior time.
What time was that, specifically? 1975? 1900? 1850? What country? What accent? Do southerners speak better English than Yankees? Is it OK if I use "fixin'" (as in, "I'm fixin' to go to the store") if I explain that it's an old naval term that goes back hundreds of years?
Can I be fast and loose with apostrophe usage? Jane Austen was. Can I be fast and loose with the usage of the letter "K," which didn't really sort itself out until the 18th century?
And yes, your argument does hold at its core that English must have, at some point, been perfect. If there has been degradation, there must, logically, have been a point at which there was no degradation.
That's the definition of which I'm also aware of. My question was whether you would classify it as a "change" or "degradation" and why?
Certainly you would not call it a separate language...
The only people I know of who insisted it was another language were the right wing nutjobs calling into Limbaugh in 1996 or so. It's a dialect. Just like Southern dialects or Yankee dialects or these weird people in Utah who say "mou'ain" instead of "mountain."