Creation of the English Language

quote:

---

There's a much larger player in the story of English-language domination; let's see if you can guess who it is.

---

As in a person? I know not.

quote:

---

All languages are not equally pliable.

​

First: dene pliable. Second: provide evidence showing that English is more pliable than other languages.

---

English emerged differently from other languages, whereby we can actually trace its emergence, and not so with other languages. This, and the fact it contains more outside words than any other language, makes it a true microcosm. That english is the only global language today, nicely answers your question it is more pliable.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

By far, the native speakers are the worst writers, often unintelligible, who constantly confuse homonyms and end up using the wrong words.

---

This appears very true and commonplace. It is most probably related to taking one's own for granted and an indifference, while a new immigrant must make greater input to adapt and is usually far more enthusiastic of making it in the new scenario. Here, the native can well fear the new comer.

quote:

---

alphabetical phonations

​

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

---

I mean here, what the alphabet 'V' sounds like, when it is spoken. The latin and arabic, for example, did not possess the V sound, while the Hebrew did. Many such alphabetical sounds are missing in european languages, and thus there is a displacement factor, resulting in different pronounciations of words. We call this accents, but mainly it is resultant from the lack of alphabetical sounds.

quote:

---

they have not a clue how the universe came about, and appear in a path which will not yield any answers.

​

Would that be the path where they study biological entities as opposed to star clusters?

---

The problem is, your analogy refers to a post-universe process, namely the B to Z, with the 'A' factor remaining outside it. There is a difference in exploring the process of an action, and the factors which predate it.

From the Wikipedia article, "English language", at English language - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Unlike other languages, there is no Academy to define officially accepted words.

---

In the article, "List of language regulators", at List of language regulators - Wikipedia, it is noted in the comments for English:

quote:

---

None, though some dictionaries and style guides (particularly Webster's in the United States and the Oxford English Dictionary in the Commonwealth) are seen by many linguists (including their authors) as serving an extremely weak quasi-regulatory function.

---

Most other major languages has some kind of academy which formalizes the language, even to the point of periodically calling for a "language reform" to update their language -- Dutch was going through one when I was trying to research that language back in the early 70's and German has gone through one since that time. The extremely poor fit between the pronounciation of English words and their spellings (which often do more to reflect the historical development of their words rather than how they sound) is further evidence that no English Academy exists and that English has not gone through any language reform.Com'on now. Even Scots and Scottish Gaelig have academies. But not English.So what happened to this supposed English Academy of yours?

No, rather it's that they don't know grammar and, apparently because of solely phonetic approaches, they don't realize that words mean something and so spelling is very important. I'm not entirely up on what happened after my time (eg, I'm fairly sure I predated phonics, so I read entire words instead of sounding them out), but think back to your English classes. They tried to teach you grammar, but did you bother to learn it? Parts of speech? You learned enough to get your homework grade and to pass the test, but then you forgot it. Choosing between right and wrong usage? You already "knew" how to speak English, so you just chose what sounded right and, in the cases where what you thought sounded right wasn't right, then you memorized those special cases -- again, just long enough to get the homework grade and to pass the test, then you prompted forgot it until you needed to relearn it the next year.However, when you learn a foreign language, you have no idea what "sounds right". Grammar is the structure of the language. Grammar tells you how that language is put together and describes to you how it works and tells you how to construct sentences and how transform words and phrases and sentences in that language. When you learn a foreign language, you absolutely must learn its grammar!Don't slough off what Lessing wrote, even though he was only an 18th century German:

quote:

---

"Man kennt die eigene Sprache nicht, bis man eine fremde Sprache lernt."

---

"You do not know your own language until you have learned a foreign language." Because you just picked up your native language by osmosis, whereas you need to study a foreign language. And in doing so, you learn what a grammar is and how important it is. And you learn how languages, including your own, function.Here's an example:
Is it "just between you and I"
or
"just between you and me"?
And why?The one is chosen by those who have no idea about grammar. Or else, like my ex who's tri-lingual in English (native), Spanish (native), and French(acquired), mainly only knows uninflected languages with very little explicit concept of case.The correct one is chosen by those who understand the fundamental concept of case.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

quote:

---

Unlike other languages, there is no Academy to define officially accepted words.

---

And my position is, this is not the case, that an academy was formed, and that english begat its formal construction here, as well as the 'purposeful and improvising' incorporation of words from many languages into english - performed by this body, and established and initiated by a British king. Further, that its purpose was to challenge the french, and use english as the weaponry. There seems to be an alluding to this here, but w/o sufficient detail:Q: 'In this period the reshaping of the grammatical system of English from the originally synthetic to the present-day analytical pattern was completed' UnQ

quote:

---

http://www.ucm.sk/...tina/sylabus/sylabus2/uvoddoljazyka.doc

​

The most famous invasion of all, led by Duke William of Normandy (William the Conqueror) in 1066 came to identify the second main period in English language history - Middle English period. In this period the reshaping of the grammatical system of English from the originally synthetic to the present-day analytical pattern was completed. This period runs from the beginning of 12th century until the middle of the 15th century. The main influence on English was, of course, French.

​

Following the accession of William the Conqueror, who was to become the 1st of the Norman kings ruling over England, French was rapidly established in the corridors of power. The places of the domestic nobility were taken over by the Norman aristocrats. The written records show that there was very little use of English among the hierarchy. French remained in England the official language of law-suits until 1362- only after that date it was to be replaced by English.

​

Later on, English was winnig back its old positions. The new literary standard of English was no longer based on the dialects of south-western England (in Old English), but on the dialects of central England. (in Middle English). This was due to the increasing political, economic and cultural importance of London and its area.

​

Among many linguistic developments which identify the period of Middle English belongs the first translation of the Bible by John Wicliffe (the latter half of the 14th century) and the work of Geoffrey Chaucer (died in 1400), the author of Canterbury Tales. (1390s).

---

quote:

---

but think back to your English classes. They tried to teach you grammar, but did you bother to learn it? Parts of speech? You learned enough to get your homework grade and to pass the test, but then you forgot it.

---

This is what I concurred. The issue of what factor causes this syndrome, is less important than that it is prevalent. It is because one takes what he has for granted, while a foreigner immigrating has a far more existential reason to 'learn' the new grammar.The learning of a language trait becomes diminished with age, whereby this is an inherent attribute which is triggered, more than learnt: a parent does not teach a child to speak - they merely click a switch, and the rest follows. Language [speech] is a mysterious factor, on a plane with such elusive phenomenons as soul, thoughts, emotions, desires, etc., namely it is an action predating and independent of the action, and the only factor which separates humans from all other life forms. It is also the sole item which enables our survival and to go forth and attain dominance of the universe; without it, humans would be just another of the billions of life forms, and probably we would not have survived. equally, another life form improvising speech, would not achieve the same results as do humans. Speech is correctly indefinable.

You haven't shown this to be true regardless of how many times you write it. You haven't shown this to be true either. Its not enough to insist that its mysterious, you have to show why. A definition that differs from all the others that have been presented to you would be a good start. Define dominance. I would suggest bacteria has us beat hands down. Of course you say that. Without the mystery in your definition you have nothing to debate.You suggest mysterious qualities to English in much the same fashion as speech. It has no foundation. I could insist in much the same way that any language has mysterious properties and is magically imparted on our youth; as long as I do not specify what I mean by mysterious.French! Now thats a real mystery.

Fine if you want to stick to such credibilities. There is in your view, nothing of transcendence, and everything is equal in different ways. Life on this planet is no different from other planets without life: its just different forms of differences, but there is no special differences. Speech being unique is negated because zebras have unique stripes too. Thus the aspect of unique is superfluous thing, and not a reality, because all things are unique. Hot is not hot.The other side of this coin says you have no arguement.

Read the sentence after the one you quoted. I said that I still think of things that I can't get the word for because I've simply forgotten it.Case in point--two summers back, I forgot the word 'mallard', a type of duck. In sweden we saw some mallards, and I was trying to tell me relatives what it was in english. I obviously knew what I was talking about but didn't have the word. A half hour later I remembered it. I blink my eyes without thinking. It's something that happens without need for thought. My heart beats at about 70 bpm without me thinking about it. Kick my balls and I will scream without thinking "hey, I should scream to reveal my pain".
Actions don't need thoughts. Fallacy of composition. It does not necessarily follow that because the components are finite the whole must be, or that because the whole is the constituent parts must be. An example: Humans are visible to the naked eye, and humans are made of atoms. Therefore, atoms are visible to the naked eye. In fact, if physics is right, every single one of the particles that make up our bodies are flitting in and out of existence. By your illogic, that would mean we are flitting in and out of experience constantly. Also, a particle can be in two places at once. By your illogic, that would mean we can be at two places at once. You've never taken math, have you? What happens when you expand infinity? You get infinity. Oh, okay. You never have taken higher level math. I guess that makes sense, given that it seems you don't know any foreign languages and think that native speakers are far better than non-native speakers. False.

quote:

---

the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community

​

audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs

​

a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings

---

And that's from merrian-webster.And I see you still don't understand your contradiction. If nothing existed before the universe (such as forces), and language (the 'word') is a force (as you do describe it), then the 'word' cannot be used to create the universe, for to create implies to exist before the creation. What you have is this:force not exist before universe.
force create universe. Um, okay. Then why do you say: This implies that at least you know how languages originally came about. If you can explain it, it is not inexplicable. Do you not read what you write? I doubt it, when you can't even handle the math on infinity.

So you say. I have not. See above. See above. Define special. I am sure I am correct in your definition of "stripes", so what is your definition of "speech"? They appear to be similar in that ones uniqueness disqualifies the other, why is that? Be sure to specify that this is your opinion and not mine. While attempting to insert what you think is my outlook its important to then specify what is your opinion to alleviate confusion. This is an odd conclusion to make. I must say its a unique perspective. I haven't presented mine yet. Yours is much more interesting.

I'm beginning to wonder if he's talking about the attempt to standardize the language.I believe I found what he's been talking about. It also fits with his circa 800 c.e. date.Old English - Wikipedia

quote:

---

the bulk of the surviving documents from the Anglo-Saxon period are written in the dialect of Wessex, Alfred's kingdom. It seems likely that with consolidation of power, it became necessary to standardise the language of government to reduce the difficulty of administering the more remote areas of the kingdom. As a result, paperwork was written in the West Saxon dialect

---

Granted, he is naturally dead wrong on why this standardization occurred. It wasn't to stuff it to the french. At the time, it was the vikings invading england (yay ancestors!), and they controlled the northern tip of scotland. Alfred apparently managed to merge many anglo-saxon kingdoms in 876, and given that old english was highly variable (kirke, churke, kurke, churche are some examples I believe), it makes sense for him to standardize it for administrative purposes.Let's see how he manages to twist this to try and support him.

IAJ, I think we may finally be onto the identity of this mysterious king of yours. That link you gave makes a reference to an event in 1362 during the reign of Edward III. This article here Edward III of England - Wikipedia has very relevant information so I'll quote some of it:

quote:

---

...the fear of a French invasion helped strengthen a sense of national unity, and nationalise the aristocracy that had been largely Anglo-French since the Norman conquest. Since the time of Edward I, popular myth suggested that the French planned to extinguish the English language, and like his grandfather had done, Edward III made the most of this scare. As a result, the English language experienced a strong revival; in 1362, a statute ordered the English language to be used in law courts and, the year after, Parliament was for the first time opened in English. At the same time, the vernacular saw a revival as a literary language, through the works of William Langland, John Gower and especially Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer.

​

Yet the extent of this Anglicisation must not be exaggerated. The statute of 1362 was in fact written in the French language and had little immediate effect, and parliament was opened in that language as late as 1377. ... Edward III”himself bilingual”viewed himself as legitimate king of both England and France, and could not show preferential treatment for one part of his domains over another.

---

Some things to note1362 is definitely NOT circa 800 by a long shot.The language at this time would have been MIDDLE ENGLISH. And Middle English would have ALREADY been incorporating French words slowly over time well before this date of 1362. But again, I say, it was during the time of Middle English, not Old English.Although France and England were by this time engaged in the Hundred Years' War with each other, the idea that the French planned to extinguish the English language was a myth used for political purposes. The French probably had enough to worry about with the war.All that happened was that a statute in 1362 ordered that English be the language for lawsuits. THAT'S ALL. English for lawsuits. Not an academy, not the formalising of English (English was already there!), and not an important book of law. As the article says, "the extent of this Anglicisation must not be exaggerated. The statute of 1362 was in fact written in the French language and had little immediate effect" (!)I think some of the others in this thread might even agree that even if this event had not taken place -- if Edward III had not issued this decree about using English -- it would not have meant the extinction of the English language, its position usurped by French. More responsible, probably, for the revival of English in the Establishment was the literary revival of English as mentioned in the quotation above.Most significantly for your theories, there was no academy or group of scholars, or formalization of the language, or purposeful incorporation of words. The incorporation of words had already been taking place for quite some time, and there was still much change yet to take place (e.g. the Great Vowel Shift of the 1400s)I want to know if you can admit something? Can you admit that the emergence of English from Anglo-Frisian roots has taken place gradually over a number of centuries (500s - present day)? ("Gradually" means there were changes throughout the time period. A big change one year and then no changes for centuries is not gradual) And can you admit that these changes were not purposefully planned? (What I mean is that was not the intention of people who spoke Old English that the language change to the Modern English we know today.) In other words, can you say that English came about through the slow accumulation of gradual, random, non-directed changes over many centuries?

Boy, you sure don't read very well, or do research very well.Links to the histories of all western european languages:
Swedish--Swedish language - Wikipedia
Norwegian--Norwegian language - Wikipedia
Danish--Danish language - Wikipedia
German--German language - Wikipedia
French--French language - Wikipedia
(note that it says 300 million people speak french as either first or second language. that's no small number. In fact, that's the total population (roughly) of the US).
Spanish--Spanish language - Wikipedia
Italian--Italian language - Wikipedia
Portuguese--Portuguese language - WikipediaDo I really need to show you more? We know the histories of many, many, many languages. French is spoken by 300 million people. It is the official language in 29 countries. It is the official language of every UN agency.Spanish is official language of 18 countries latin america countries, Spain, one country in Africa. It's spoken by at least 300 million native speakers. It is one of the official languages of the UN.German is spoken my roughly 130 million people, mostly native speakers.Chinese has over 1 billion native speakers (mandarin over 850 million). It is an official language of the UN, and in my opinion could become one of the new global languages. That is, if you want to survive in the world, you'll need to know it.English is spoken by up to 1.8 billion people, and is the native tounge of up to 380 million. English is a official language in 53 countries, but many of these have two or more official languages (an example being Pakistan. I highly doubt those in the NWF speak english on a daily basis, but more likely Urdu).The point is--there are multiple global languages. Further, the reason that english is spoken by so many has more to do with the UK's empire than any 'pliability'. In fact, I highly doubt pliability has anything to do with why english is spoken by up to 1.8 billion people.

Besides which English is not easy to learn. Trying to sight-read must be a nightmare with its poorly fitting orthography (ie, the written language does not match the spoken word very well). Just remember that skit on "I Love Lucy" where Lucy has Ricky read a bed-time story and its filled with words containing "ough" which is pronounced differently every single time. "Rough", "bough", "through", "trough", "thought". Be a non-native speaker encountering those for the first time. How would you fare?And our sounds are different from most other languages and slide all over the place. Years before Robin Williams used the same line in "Moscow on the Hudson", a Yugoslavian girl I knew in college said that after English class their mouths would hurt from all the contortions they had to go through.I agree that the British Empire had a lot to do with spreading English throughout the world. But I would think that the economic and political might of the US after WWII also had something to do with it. Simple economics; you use the language that will make you the most money.