atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:00:22 +1100
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> 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:
