atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: "Jim Rountree" <James.Rountree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:47:07 +1100
I've heard the idea that a lot of language change is the removal of
exceptions, and the idea seems plausible enough to me (and the people
saying it evidently have data to back it up). And, rather than English
(for example) degrading just in the last couple of generations (as I
think someone suggested) ... people have been complaining about the
decay of the language for centuries. (I understand every other language
is also supposed to be in terminal decline, according to some.)
So, what I don't understand is where the complexity came from in the
first place ... there must have been a period where languages built up
the complexity that they're then able to shed. But it's hard to believe
that we have two different modes of natural language use ... one
building up (unnecessary) complexity, and another wearing it down. The
subjunctive is perhaps an example ... "if I was..." is perfectly
understandable, and no meaning at all is lost in contrast to "if I were
..." (at least, that I can see ... tell me if I'm wrong), so why did we
ever come up with "I were ..." in this context in the first place?
Cheers
Jim
Jim Rountree
Lead Technical Writer
Biosystems Division
telephone +61 3 9211 7587
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Lewis
Sent: Monday, 19 March 2012 11:13 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why?
Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Frequently, yes - but "most frequently"? Hardly - unless by "don't know"
you mean "don't know it the way I do". Generations ago, well educated
people used expressions like "methinks he is a dastard knave" and "it
meseems that the apocalypse is nigh". The vocabulary and the grammar
have changed, but not because of non-native speakers.
There's an underlying point that is valid, though. Native speakers are
like non-native speakers in that they over-regularise. That's why most
nouns finish up taking the normal -s (or -es) in the plural, instead of
the earlier forms like "sistren" (though we still retain "brethren" in
special contexts, and "children" is still more common than "childs").
We can see this happening with young children. They use the correct form
"men" at first, then learn the rule about adding "-s" and change to
"mans" for a while, then they re-learn "men" as an exception to the
general rule. Much language change is simply the fading away of
exceptions, especially the rare ones - the verb "be" retains its odd
inflexions because we all use it too often to get a chance to forget the
specifics, but "leaped" has superseded "leapt" in most cases.
- Michael
On 19 March 2012 10:26, <Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Michelle:
Language is most frequently changed by those who don't know the language
rather than those "who really care about it".
Other related posts:
