The Evolution of Language

[loveme4whoiam]

This thread has prompted, in part, by Marxist Barstard's interesting answer to the "Favourite Games" part of the profile (not getting at you Marxist, but it provides a nice lead-in to the debate :D ). By saying that the British spelling of favourite with the U in is incorrect, he makes the point that there is a definitive version of a language. Not withstanding my own viewpoint (how can "favourite" be the incorrect spelling when it is the original spelling of the word prior to the American bastardation of English?) it asks several questions that might be fun to debate for a bit.

 

Namely, these are thus:

 

1. Can there be a definitive version of a language since it is apparently evolving all the time?

 

2. Should we embrace this evolution of the language if it is, in fact, a devolution?

 

Oh, thats all I can think of. Well, they'll do for a start. And to give everyone something to argue against, I'll state my own highly jaded beliefs first.

 

I don't think there can be a definitive version of a spoken language, since the huge number of dialects makes it impossible - try telling a load of Glaswegians that they speak wrong and tell me its possible. I think that as a written language I can't see why there can't be. The written word is much more precise than the spoken, and I don't see any logical reason why there should be all sorts of differences. The question of an evolving language should not come up as generally language has evolved, at least recently, in spoken form only.

 

As for evolution of the spoken language, I think it should be utterly resisted when it will be to the detriment of the language; ie, making a greeting from the words "'Ear bey" and an appropriate response to any question or comment (and this is really quite hard to show in written form), "Eein-aht". Having a language devolve into a series of guttaral grunts serves no purpose whatsoever, and is a symptom of the idiocy that has infected society in general.

 

*Quickly scans for any spelling mistakes* Now then, I'll let you rip my opinion to shreds. Enjoy :D

[ThetaOrionis01]

  loveme4whoiam said:

try telling a load of Glaswegians that they speak wrong and tell me its possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ho, Jimmy - wha's wrang wi' the Weegie banter, eh? Aye, ye'd be a right numpty tae come up tae Shettleston an' tell tha' tae the wee neds - ye'd gonnae get yer heid kicked in, so ye would, aye!

[Malchik]

I think you'll find that grammatically it should be Glaswegians speak 'wrongly' (an adverb) but I wouldn't say that too near to Theta. Perhaps a quick edit to Aberdonians?

 

(Too late I see!)

 

I don't quite follow your arguments. If you agree with the continuing evolution of the spoken language how can the written language not evolve as well? UK English has more words than any other language simply because it

absorbs from other languages including 'current' slang.

 

I'm not quite sure I see us speaking in text message English. Unless you have mastered Navajo I suspect a word like 'thx' is hard to pronounce.

 

So why do you worry that we'll all be grunting in future?

 

Wot I say is - I don't give a tinkers 'ow we all speak, long as we unnerstand. Right?

 

As for how words should be spelled you must recall that the American nation was forged from the coming together of many tongues (and still is) and that the English had to be simplified for them all to get their heads around it. They have since then stayed at the Kindergarden stage but that need not worry us.

[KzinistZerg]

yooo no i reeleee think thisss langwij iznt all that deevolvd, beekawz it's stilll understandabll, kA?

 

:D

 

But seriously, langages MUST evolve. They are what they are... would you have us go back to thou and thine? what about going back to cuneiform? That would be resisting the changes in pronounciation and spellings and such..

 

Language, such as knowing proper spelling(s) and knowing how to put 'ing' rather than 'in' on the end of a word and such is all good... but language must change and adapt. Actually languages wil never devolve into "wut u doin cause i are near..." simply because, while the words may be switched to the point of us going, "WTF?" to them, they all have meanings- language won't devolve unless the IQ of the civilizatoin using it devolves! People will create words for concepts, no matter how odd or non-grammatical they are to us. The 'split' between Euro and US english is all it is for now- but all the world languages will likely meld except for old languages kept for refrence (i.e., latin). This type of split would have resulting in something such like french/italian/spanish in another few thousand years, BUT with the communication nowadays it won't.

 

Did that make sense?

[4donathi3l]

This topic would have my Dad wetting himself. He's one of the many Brits that would say 'Why can't those bloody American's spell OUR words properly.' While I don't necessaril;y agree with this, I think Marxist male without a father's comment almost prompts people to have that kind of attitude. So English is the origin of American (I refuse to say European and US English - its like a contradiction...), but that doesn't make either language WRONG, as loveme4whoiam implies. Any English-speaking country will have their own form of words. In effect, you could even argue that Engish isn't the proper way, because it's derivd from Anglo-Saxon, or Celtic. Or Latin.

 

So my humble opinion is that Yes, you can have specific languages - definitive ways of spelling and all. BUT, these languages have evolved from something before, so by disregarding the influences or origins of your language, you are effectively negating it. Which is no good. The American spellings of 'color' and 'favorite' or even (*shudder*) 'Aluminum' is not wrong. It's just different. In fact, apparant Americanisations, such as 'coney' for rabbit, or 'fall' for Autumn, are actually derived directly from the Anglo-Saxon orogins. So you COULD say, if you were so inclined, that the words rabbit and Autumn are a bastardisation of Old English.

 

  Malchik said:

I'm not quite sure I see us speaking in text message English. Unless you have mastered Navajo I suspect a word like 'thx' is hard to pronounce.

This is pretty much an extension of the whole evolution of language argument. If you accept that your language has evolved from whateve origins it has, you must be able to accept where it's going. Just like English is often Americanised ('Yeah, man. That's a cool TV show' or whatever), English is, and will continue to, evolve. With cyber technologies such as text-speak and the internet, weird 'l337' and txt languages become the norm. It's commonplace to see the number 2 representing 'to' or 'too', and equivalent shortening or words.

 

It leads me to ask a question: is the growing use of txt-language due to the growth of these cybercultures, or is it because modern humanity is just too lazy to type words out properly?

 

(S'cuse my poorly-structured argument, I'm tired :P )

[Malchik]

Ah you took a long time to spot this thread. My quoted comment does not say we will not USE text language but that we will not SPEAK it simply because much of it is unpronounceable.

 

Some abbreviating may derive from cost considerations (even from telegramme days when you were charged by length of message/numbers of words/ whatever). Some is laziness, some convenience. But some of the development of spoken language is also down to laziness, too.

 

Your example of using 2 for two, too and to is interesting. In spoken language you can use them interchangeably. So many posters seem not to be able to change '2' back into the correct written form though. Nor do they distinguish your and you're and their, there and they're. This is a combination of laziness and poor teaching IMO. Until formal communication uses text message English - and I can't see that being for a while yet - such mistakes reflect poorly on the writer. If you are after a job and can't even spell your application correctly you are making a rod for your own back. Why should people choose you over people who have made the effort to learn? It reflects adversely on the attitude of mind of the writer and is perceived that way by a reader. Even if it is sometimes unfair, it is the way it is.

[4donathi3l]

  Malchik said:

Ah you took a long time to spot this thread. My quoted comment does not say we will not USE text language but that we will not SPEAK it simply because much of it is unpronounceable.

 

Oops - I didn't notice it was a fairly old thread... Apologies for thread necromancy :closedeyes:

And, you are right. I did use your quote to illustrate something it wasn't directly referring to. What a poor post it was.. :rolleyes: However, since you continue this discussion, I will too!

 

I must admit, I sometimes get annoyed by the lack of being able to grasp your and you're, to and too, and other similar phrases. But such is language and grammar - some people get it, others don't. In many ways, it could be attributed to dyslexia, too, but IMO, I agree with what you say, Malchik. I think often it is down to poor teaching. I remember in college, my very intelligent girlfriend of the time couldn't get her head around the distinction between, say "John's" or "Johns" - where to put the apostrophe and why. She was, as I say, a very intelligent girl, but she was simply never taught it. And this was in an English A-Level that the topic was brought up. I couldn't believe it!

 

Perhaps education systems don't worry about grammar as much anyway, perhaps there is an over-reliance on spell-checkers in computer software (which as we all know, isn't infallable).

 

Therefore, my conclusion is to blame technology. Mobile phones and emails, chatroom, forums, etc. mean people use abbreviations for speed (and partially out of laziness), causing language to become sidelined in favour of teaching people in how to use computers. Technology causes people to 'save time' (aka 'be lazy') anyway. Curse you, technology!

 

 

 

(I'm sorry, technology... I love you really :happy: )

[Malchik]

  4donathi3l said:

(which as we all know, isn't infallable).

 

Well observed, as we can see from the reference - it certainly isn't infallible. We all make mistakes. Some are typos, sometimes we are sure we know how to spell a word when we don't, sometimes we are not in a position to check easily. Making mistakes is not an issue. Laziness is when you are aware you are writing badly and yet can't be arsed to change it.

 

Spellchecking can sometimes help, but not if the mistake produces another recognisable word - their and there for instance. And you can't use it if writing in text where few words are complete. Grammar checks are IMO a waste of time. Unless you understand the rules in the first place, how are you to know what to do with your split infinitives and dangling participles when it tells you you have them? (BTW, if you do get those problems, I know a good seamstress in Balmora who can certainly stitch you up.)

 

Generally the rules of grammar are simple (despite the long words used). Even if you don't end up with perfection it isn't hard to appear educated. So anyone who doesn't know (and perhaps hasn't been formally taught) the difference between 'your ' and 'you're' should take the trouble to find out. It is very easy. The same is true of 'its' and 'it's', 'the boy's books' and 'the boys' books', 'whose and who's' etc.

 

Any non native speaker learns these things. How come we native English speakers don't?

 

And I wouldn't blame technology. You can learn about all these things on the PC. It is about laziness.

[KzinistZerg]

Part of learning a language is making sure you know what you're saying. For instance, I’m a LOT more careful in German than I am in English. The reason? I’m so familiar with English that if I say something that is shortened or slang I know the related words and what will be implied by the sounds so well that changing a few around does not matter to another English speaker. But German? I don't know what a change will do. Will spelling 'zwei' as 'zwie' change the meaning? Does it just come across as a misspelling? What about word order? in German you could say, "mir ist schlecht' which translates literally to 'to me is bad' but the conveyed meaning, once you switch the word order around is more like, 'it is bad to me' which makes more sense in English- the closest translation being 'I’m not feeling well' or similar. Which is why foreigners speak English better than natives often do. They have to be more careful because they don't know what the effect will be of a small change.

 

Like, what happens if you accidentally misspell ‘hit’ and stick an 'S' in there? Well it's minor spelling-wise but it really changes what it comes over as…or changing 'as' to… well, need I say it? It’s easy to both misspell and mispronounce and have it come over and a bad word rather than as an indefinite article! After all, s can be pronounced zzz or sss and it's easy to tap the 's' key twice when typing by accident.

 

EDIT: and also, I check spelling and grammar when posting in debates, for the same reason that a teeny misspelling may destroy my whole argument!

 

SECOND EDIT: And, besides as and its amusing counterpart, another one of those 'really bad misspellings' is friend and fiend. Changes the meaning completly.

[Alanador]

Hi all. I love words, they're like flowers...or snowflakes. I'd have to guess that 'American - English' has evolved away from its original model of 'European - English' due to the rich diversity of ethnicities that have shaped it here, over the years. Even within the microcosms of culture here in the U.S., english has it's distinctions. Pop culture has a huge effect on what words are used most commonly (though it's hard to tell if the cart is before the horse in that example), and of course slang has branched out as well in many different directions. Technical jargon now permeates most peoples' everyday conversations. My guess is that it must be happening like this all over the world. Some of the replies above, within this thread, apply to the the written word exclusively. With the digital revolution, most folks are typing and reading now more than ever, some perhaps more than they'd like to. Or maybe certain key phrases have become so redundant to type over and over that we abbreviate them for simplicity sake, IMHO. Some folks have thoughts running so fast through their heads on a given topic that they intentionally forgo grammar and punctuation to be able to communicate with text at a more natural rythym. And of course there is the generation younger than myself that has adapted truncated conversation as there own pig latin in a sense. I'm fairly obsessive compulsive about things like typo's (where did we get that word?!), but I choose not to double-space after a "." and a few other rules I throw to the wind. I'm not sure if anyone is using the strictest form of grammar anymore, although many people use different amounts of restraint depending on where, what, and with whom they are conversing. In all of this I'm reminded of a story from my grandfather. He was at a bar drinking when a Native American friend of his came into the bar. His friend walked up to the bar and said something he didn't understand to the bartender, who also didn't understand. "What's the matter?" he said, "Don't you speak American?" ;D