NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/9907

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 6.6 KB | 133 lines

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!news.cs.indiana.edu!ethome.et.iupui.edu!indyvax.iupui.edu!harvey
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 121
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:47:50 -0500

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>[much deleted]
>>>     My only contention was that English spread to other lands from
>>> England. She is the mother country of the English language. Hence, the
>>> English used in England is the yardstick by which other dialects must
>>> be measured.
>>
>>Sheesh.  Well, suppose MY contention is that Latin spread to other lands
>>from Italy.  She is the mother country of the Latin language.  Hence, the
>>Latin used in Italy (now considered a distinct language, Italian) is the
>>yardstick by which all other dialects of Latin must be measured.
>>
>
> Let me make myself clearer. The language spoken in Italy is NOT Latin
> but Italian (as you yourself concede). Hence, it can no longer govern
> Latin in other lands. However, if the differences in present day Italian
> and Latin were minor enough to justify their being NOT called separate
> languages, then Italian Latin would be the standard.

Granted it was not the best analogy in the world.

So go back a thousand years to a time when Latin wasn't a dead language.
What is your "standard," the typical speech of a barbarian bopping around
in Italy or that of the court in Byzantium?  (that's not in Italy BTW).
Or maybe something else?  The Latin of Livy?  Tacitus?  The Pope?  Why?
What do you mean by "govern?"  Is there a little committee that goes around
telling people they can't use words they find useful?

>
>        To stir up a little dust, I proclaimed a while ago that the
> language the Americans use, isn't English and shouldn't be termed so.
> Immediately, indignant Americans pointed out that I was mistaken and
> how the language they speak is indeed English. Well then, why are
> they vain enough to deny the superiority of English English and its
> existence as a standard? I certainly bow down to this standard. The
> reason of their defial goes back to the war between Britain and America.
> In their effort to break away from the British, the Yanks have waged war upon
> the language. And, they refuse to accept the superiority of English
> English, because they are afraid that if they were to do so, it
> would somehow be linked to an acceptance of the British as their
> overlords. Can these blind persons not see that acknowledgement of
> English English as a standard is NOT linked!

You must be confused.  So the Yanks just started talking funny because
they wanted to piss off the mother country, huh?  Mandar, American and
British English were beginning to diverge much earlier than that.  Some
words that remained in use here became obsolete in Britain.  Some words
were introduced here for things that didn't need words to refer to them
in Britain, like words for topographical features.  Some words became obsolete
here but remained in use in Britain.  Sometimes new words for new concepts
were invented in both places at about the same time.  And a lot of slang
terms, many of which have since fallen out of use even here.  Your idea
that we were intentionally waging war on the language is just silly.

And you keep claiming that English English (whatever that is) is "superior."
What is so superior about it?  I'm not saying it isn't superior for the people
who speak it, but what could make it superior for US?  Isn't the language and
dialect best understood by the person you are communicating with superior?

Do you deny that each dialect has contributed to the other?  If you don't,
then how would the language be better if this did not happen? (assuming you
find a way to implement whatever you meant by "govern" above)

Did you know that Swift once proposed an academy, like those of France and
Italy, to purge the English language of "corruption?"  However, the eminent
Dr. Samuel Johnson frowned on the idea as inimical to the "spirit of English
liberty."  This effectively killed it.  That was over two hundred years ago,
Mandar.  So I think you are a bit late...

>>
>>>[more deleted]
>>>[about his opinions, if you find them...]
>>> offensive, DON'T read them. Or, if you would like to dispute them, present
>>> cogent arguments.
>>
>>Others have done so.  You appear to be completely immune to the effects of
>>any rational argument.  This causes people to become frustrated, abandon the
>>use of rational arguments, and flame you instead.
>>
> I am NOT immune to rational argument. But shouldn't this argument be
> effective enough to convince me? So far, all I have seen are feeble
> attempts to disprove me. In cases where I have misunderstood the
> person or seen the flaws in my argument, I have willingly admitted
> it. However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
> that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
> reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
> English spread from England to other lands.

Sure it did.  But there is nothing superior about it other than your baldfaced
assertion that it is superior.  Sorry, but that's just not good enough.

Hey, I prefer the word "lift" to "elevator."  But if I am trying to catch
one, and yell "Hold the elevator!" the people inside are much more likely
to know what I'm talking about (assuming I'm on this side of the pond).
So I use "elevator."  What's so difficult to understand about that?

Oops.  Now that I think about it, I'd probably just say "Hold the door!"
But can't you see the point I'm trying to make?

>>>[more deleted]
>>> Learn how to make a kill file and you'll be rid of the "nuisance called
>>> Mandar".   ;)
>>
>>Excellent suggestion.  Welcome to my kill file.
>>--
>>James Harvey
>>[e-mail]
>
> Killing me won't solve all your problems.   ;)

Not kill YOU, but mark your articles as already read, silly.  :-)

Yes, it won't solve all my problems, but it will be one less know-it-all
engineer I have to listen to, babbling on and on about something he doesn't
know much of anything about...

--
James Harvey
[e-mail]