Hello, world. This is Sean.
And this is a segue.
The tail end of "Canada has a battleship?!" raised an interesting question. Since language is the metaphorical Soup of the Day at the literal Family Feedbag that is TOK, I'll reiterate this question here:
The English Language, can we kill it? How? Are we doing so now? Did anyone notice the comma I spliced three sentences ago?
This is a closing,
-Scummy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Ah one of my favorite questions, yes yes we can kill english in much the same way latin was abolished and died during the roman empire. Once english becomes the universal language of business, it will die as seen through this gramatic mess, and t3h l33t h4xors. So yes yes it will die assuming, history will indee repeat itself.
I hate to get in the middle of this one, but I don't see how I can't, so here goes:
English will not die because it becomes widespread; it will become (and some might argue is becoming) varied, however, over time. Most languages are variations (or derivations?) of earlier languages; hence the similarities we sometimes observe, for example, between English, French, and Spanish words. It is interesting to note, though, that these three languages actually do not all have their major origins in the same central language (English is classified as a Germanic language while French and, I believe, Spanish are romantic languages), signifying that the way language evolves over time becomes more complex as more languages influence one another.
Yet while the "purists" among us might cringe at the (increasingly accepted) use of the question mark and exclamation point in tandem, we are the same who readily accept aspects of language that the "purists" before us would never have made peace with. The split infinitive is probably the best example. And why shouldn't we split our infinitives, anyway? Do you know that the ONLY reason it is considered "wrong" is because it is impossible to split an infinitive in Latin? We wouldn't want our language to follow different rules than Latin -- oh no! Even if splitting infinitives typically makes more sense than rewording a sentence to avoid this error.
And what of the dangling preposition? Haven't we all heard Churchill's comment of it being (something to the effect of) a rule "up with which I will not put?" (Of course, there are a number of valid arguments that suggest Churchill never said this, but that is a separate matter.) We have become much more accepting of dangling prepositions, allowing them when they allow for better communication.
I would argue, as informal as it appears and as much as it makes my inner English purist cringe, that the combination of a question mark and exclamation point actually allows for better communication in some instances. It is perhaps a fault of standard written English that we do not have a punctuation mark that indicates this sort of passionate bewilderment, thus requiring us to undermine tradition and combine punctuation marks in an effort to make ourselves more clear.
Of course, the example Sean offered does not seem to be the best use of this combination, but that is not an intentional abuse of the English language; rather, it is just another example of the many who don't know how to break those old "rules" the right way.
As for l33t sp34k making its way into written and (ugh!) spoken language, well . . . that is an entirely different issue. Oh em gee.
On the contrary, Miss Hunt, I believe that 1337 has EVERYTHING to do with this topic. It is my opinion and belief that, much like Shakespeare's English has evolved into our modern day english, our English will evolve into |337 3n6|15h. I believe that this will destroy the English language, and force it to become complete unintelligent giberish.
Of course, viewing this through different lenses, one could claim that many people said this of the great vowel shift, and the evolotion from Shakspearean English to Modern day English.
Another words:
0|\| +|-|3 (0|\|+|2@|2`/, |\/|1$$ |-||_||\|+, 1 |}3|13\/3 +|-|@+ 1337 |-|@$ 3\/3|2`/+|-|1|\|6 +0 [)0 \X/1+|-| +|-|1$ +0|*1(. 1+ 1$ |\/|`/ 0|*1|\|10|\| @|\|[) |}3|13|= +|-|@+, |\/||_|(|-| |1|<3 $|-|@|<3$|*3@|23'$ 3|\|6|1$|-| |-|@$ 3\/0|\/3[) 1|\|+0 0|_||2 |\/|0[)3|2|\| [)@`/ 3|\|6|1$|-|, 0|_||2 3|\|6|1$|-| \X/1|| 3\/0|\/3 1|\|+0 |337 3|\|6|15|-|. 1 |}3|13\/3 +|-|@+ +|-|1$ \X/1|| [)3$+|20`/ +|-|3 3|\|6|1$|-| |@|\|6|_|@63, @|\|[) |=0|2(3 1+ +0 |}3(0|\/|3 (0|\/||*|3+3 |_||\|1|\|+3||163|\|+ 61|}3|21$|-|.
0|= (0|_||2$3, \/13\X/1|\|6 +|-|1$ +|-||20|_|6|-| [)1|=|=3|23|\|+ |3|\|$3$, 0|\|3 (0|_||[) (|@1|\/| +|-|@+ |\/|@|\|`/ |*30|*|3 $@1[) +|-|1$ 0|= +|-|3 6|23@+ \/0\X/3| $|-|1|=+, @|\|[) +|-|3 3\/0|0+10|\| |=|20|\/| $|-|@|<$|*3@|23@|\| 3|\|6|1$|-| +0 |\/|0[)3|2|\| [)@`/ 3|\|6|1$|-|.
I see the point about english developing and changind, as cause for optimism, but according to that logic the first language ever spoken still exits it just morphed seperately. I believe that since english is changing quickly and rapidly that the structural basis for english will change enough that it is no longer apparent. Take romance languages for example, they sure all af latin origin, however each is specified enough that is seperate from its predesscesor. This will happen to english through its universality and it itself will collapse, while it remnants will live on.
Also as for the engrish is germanic, it is only in gramatical structure and geographical origin not on a word basis. On a word basis it is essentially latin.
Jared,
On what are you basing that last observation? Yes, many English words (and rules--remember the split infinitive and dangling prepositions for example) derive from Latin, but it is still classified, in the linguistic taxonomy, as a Germanic language.
Anyone know why this is? There is a great historical explanation . . . and it makes for excellent trivia. You know--that kind of knowledge that comes in handy for impressing people at all those dinner parties you attend.
I know I was just to lazy to explain. It is due to the fact that the first people to settle england, and speak olde english were from germany and had adopted it from their barbaric motherland, something like 1000 people popularized the country speaking this language, and thus even though little the language does not resemble german very much it is still considered thusly.
Wow! Lazy is a verb now? INCREDIBLE! Just for conversation, I'm going to diagree with myself. The Evolution of language is a natural thing. If 1337 takes over, then who are we to say it's wrong? Who are we to say that this will bring about the "death" of language? Just because we're used to speaking in our current vernacular? If Shakespeare heard us speak today, he'd/she'd/it'd/they'd be disgusted. We're speaking like a bunch of lower-class yokels. No, the English language is not dying only changing. Discuss.
Another words:
W! Liavn? I!Jfc, Igtdwm. Teoliant. I 1337 to, twawtsiw? Wawtsttwbat"d"ol? jbwutsiocv? IShust,h's'i't bd. Wslabol-cy. N, tElindoc. D.
Yes, however you have just claimed one, and I'll even make it more, points to where the English language CAN, indeed, die. The first is if Capitalism goes. Apparently, this is keeping English alive, therefore if it dies English goes with it. LIkewise, if the media falls. You said that the media was the glue that kept this cute little rocking horse of the English language together, without glue, the horse will break (yes, this is a perfectly valid analogy). Finally, consider this: We become so incredibly xenophobic that we decide that only our locality can be trusted, and all other are either filthy liberals, communists, or terrorists. Then our own language will fluntulate, until we start to usify numericous words, that nover of the Elsers know. Thuslymore, I the luitious language of English will contrampulate into a smaltite magnormox, decapable of being redisherfied in the relnexian morg.
I also stick by my point, that Language can, and will, be destroyed. Although, As I showed above, I am willing to accept the oppostie as a viewpoint, and I'm able to see where you guys are coming from.
Another words:
OMG! Lnge soooooo cn be dstroyed, wanker. Cptilism? R mebbe the DE-struction of da Media? Ur just makin X-cuses, E-van.
im sitckin' ta my pnt, but i can c whare u guyz r commin from.
Post a Comment