atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Michael Lewis <michael.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:03:38 +1100
OK, Peter, I accept that I have expressed my position in excessively
black-and-white terms. Of course non-native speakers have some influence -
but that is not as great as the factors working _within_ the language
community. I would go so far as to say that, when a foreign word is
imported, it's because some part of the native-speaker community encounters
the word and sees it as useful. Examples are "verandah" and "kangaroo". The
words are _supplied_ by non-native speakers, but they _adopted_ by native
speakers because they seem useful, just as native speakers adopt neologisms
such as "byte" and "kleenex".
But grammatical changes are, I think, far more interesting and complex, and
I cannot see that grammar (as opposed to pronunciation) is "exported" into
English by speakers of another tongue. A major example in English is the
almost complete loss of case-related inflexions, whihc we can still see
happening in the misuse and imminent disappearance of the plural inflexions
using the apostrophe.
- Michael
On 19 March 2012 20:00, <Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael:
>
> Sorry, but I don't really see how you can so easily dismiss the influence
> of non-native speakers.
>
> A gentle reminder that you did say: "The vocabulary and grammar have
> changed, but not because of non-native speakers".
>
> But just as the Norman requirements for legal and religious language use
> was imposed on Anglo-Saxons, so the vocabulary of English was expanded --
> one way or another, and most significantly. Normans presumably showed
> Anglo-Saxons how they had to expand their vocabulary to survive in a
> changed world. And somehow or another they had to speak to them and tell
> them what they were talking about. I doubt they always followed the good
> old habit when faced with someone who didn't speak their language of just
> talking louder. So new words joined the English language from Norman
> origins, presumably spoken first by Normans ? Just as Romans spoke to
> their subject peoples, and did it in a version of what we might now call
> English.
>
> Meanwhile, moving right through a few centuries. ...
>
> Is there any doubt that West Indian migrants to England have changed the
> grammar and vocabulary of modern England ?
> Or that the large numbers of migrants in New York changed vocabulary and
> grammar of American English? All right already?
> Did French-origin people in Canada and New Orleans not make similar
> changes?
> And were Afro-American people not similarly active in the West Indes and
> the US?
>
> And these are just some of the more obvious, (ok, jazzy) examples....
>
> When we consider migrant countries like Australia, where about 15% speak
> something other than English at home, and half a million admit to not
> speaking English very well or at all (possibly an optimistic assumption)
> we are presumably just looking at a base level of those who are not expert
> in English, and who add their own flavours along the way.
>
> Coupla days, shuddupaya face, and all that may well be only small surface
> signs of the origins of change.
>
> (And meanwhile, a few "non-native" real natives of Australia had a bit of
> say.... we owe them a look in still..)
>
> I don't think we know for sure very often where the changes that pop up in
> written language come from, before they are written down. But I'd suggest
> 99% or more of them almost certainly come originally from undocumented
> speech.
>
> And if somehow the suggestion is that only the native English literate are
> really generating changes, are the changes in English between Chaucer and
> Shakespeare really to be put down to their numbers?. .. I mean, I know
> evidence is the glove-maker's son got himself an education while quite
> young, but it was hardly the norm.
>
> Meanwhile, flashing back in time, were not Angles, Saxon, Jutes etc, once
> non-native in their own way ? And how come we have today an Indo-European
> language that's a good deal different from Sanskrit and all that ?
>
> Sorry, I'm not convinced non-native speakers don't play a very significant
> part in language change. Perhaps a better generalisation is that people who
> don't know the language well do most to change it by being lazy (or
> efficient or even logical). As we see on this list, a fair swag of the
> literati actually seem to want to work to preserve the patterns of
> language, largely unchanged. Someone has to do the "dirty" work!
>
> But then, who are more likely candidates to be high in the ranks of those
> who don't know the language well than non-native speakers?
>
> Pity we don't have a longer reliable oral history. But then, if we did, I
> couldn't speculate on and on like this... :-)
>
>
>
> *Peter M*
>
>
>
> From: Michael Lewis <michael.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: 19/03/2012 02:30 PM
> Subject: atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes
> - why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> I did "pause a bit". Think about the huge changes in the transition from
> Chaucer's Middle English to Shakespeare's (early) Modern English. Of course
> there were many factors at work, including Henry V's decision to make
> English the language of the court instead of Norman French. No doubt the
> way the Norman overlords used the language of the Anglo-Saxon underlings
> contributed to the changes. But the fundamental changes were due to the
> Anglo-Saxons themselves, influenced by the language of the Normans; in
> other words, other languages themselves affected English, but the changes
> were brought about by the speakers of English, not the speakers of Norman
> French. We need to distinguish between the effects of other languages and
> the actions of the speakers of those other languages.
>
> As for what's happening in places like China and India, your point is
> valid - but we were discussing the changes in English in the mouths and on
> the pages of its speakers and writers in "English-speaking countries" (of
> which, incidentally, India is classed as one, though Indian English is not
> the same as Australian or British or American or Canadian or New Zealand
> English!
>
> - Michael
>
>
> On 19 March 2012 12:25,
> <*Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*<Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
> Michael:
>
> Mmm maybe not "most frequently" ....
>
> But after all, there isn't much of an audit on where the changes take
> place first. Usually we only have first changes in written records....
>
> But I really doubt your assertion that :
>
> "The vocabulary and the grammar have changed, but not because of
> non-native speakers."
>
> Really? Pause a bit.
> Romans. Latin.
> Normans who spoke French and Latin and insisted on, or persisted in,
> their use in England..
>
> And even today, China English for example is pressing in, on matters as
> basically interesting as sentence structures. And the Indian variety of
> English has a good chance of being the dominant one in the near future.
>
> Just because we don't always hear it in the "conventional"
> English-speaking communities doesn't mean English isn't changing in the
> many other countries where it is being used by millions....
>
>
>
> --
> This message contains privileged and confidential information only
> for use by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message, you must not disseminate, copy or use
> it in any manner. If you have received this message in error,
> please advise the sender by reply e-mail. Please ensure all
> e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or
> using.
>
>
Other related posts:
