The following is just an addendum to the thoughts expressed in my (off topic) post to the "Re: Henry S. Whitehead-personal life" thread. They are merely my personal thoughts--always a danger for me to express in this forum, I realize, lol!-- but I hope that their relevance to the work of CAS is evident.



To hear the linguistic descriptivists speak, one would think that 20th-and 21st-Century changes in language usage, such as acceptance of split infinitives--which are driven mostly by ignorance, thoughtlessness, or outright semi-literacy--were comparable to those of the Elizabethan period. It makes me laugh, albeit a bit sadly.

It is also amusing to hear descriptivists hold forth about the "evolution of language", and its necessity. Descriptivists complain of "outmoded" or "outdated" forms of expression. To me, it is highly questionable to claim that, merely because a word or a linguistic form has fallen out of use or fashion, that fact should necessarily consign it forever to oblivion. After all, if clothing fashions can make "comebacks", then why not certain words or rules of usage? If, as descriptivists tend to claim, language is ever-dynamic and evolving, then it seems that the revival of an older word or usage is as fair an embodiment of this principle as the idea of constant linguistic novelty.

I should add that I do not necessarily accept the "dynamic evolution" metaphor for language development. It amuses me, though, that many descriptivists seem to share the widespread misunderstanding and misuse of the word evolution, which many today mistake for "progress", or for other purely forward- or linear-thinking mental models. To use a biological analogy: The finch's beak both lengthens and shortens; it does not simply continue to grow longer and longer. Evolution, including the evolution of language (if one accepts that idea), can move in many directions, and yet still constitute evolution per se.

The thing about the evolution of language is that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it---it proceeds regardless of what you think of it. If you are dissatisfied with the direction it is taking, you are nevertheless, ironically enough, constrained to express those concerns within language as it currently stands. Otherwise nobody would understand you.

>>You are mistaken. Prescriptive dictionaries have existed since at least the time of Dr. Johnson (who was hardly an "academic" in the sense you mean, by the way).

Really; I had no idea that the dictionary for the English language existed FIRST, and that the language which we use was derived therefrom. How very interesting. What is the name of this Ur-source, may I ask? At what point did the compilers decide to switch from Old English to Middle English? Was the original copy in the hands of the Aryans, perhaps? Did the Indo-Europeans secret it in Shamballa?

Didn't Dr. Johnson also define "oats" in his dictionary as "A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people"? Prescriptive, indeed -for rebellion.

Don't worry, Jojo Lapin X, I think I understand Kyberean all too well, whose railing against "ignorance, thoughtlessness, or outright semi-literacy" bring to mind the worst of HP Lovecraft's latter-day imitations of Cicero or Cato, or the 19th century attacks on Noah Webster's American Dictionary, Irish-American slang, or Ebonics, etc.:

"It is found that a work of this kind is absolutely necessary," Webster announced, hoping to drum up advance orders, "on account of considerable differences between the American and English language." [...] Seventy thousand entries and a quarter century later, in 1825, he wrote his last definition, much to the relief of his wife and seven children and, toward the end, the grandchildren who stomped up and down the stairs while he toiled away, A to Z, in a study whose walls had been packed with sand to keep out the noise of even their whispers. (Although, for those brave enough to open his study door, Webster stocked a desk drawer with raisins and peppermints.)
[...]
In June of 1800, Noah Webster's proposal for an American dictionary made national news. No news might have been better. Within a week, a Philadelphia newspaper editor called Webster's idea preposterous (it is "perfectly absurd to talk of the American language") and his motives mercenary ("the plain truth is . . . that he means to make money"). Two American dictionaries, published just months before, had been badly drubbed, too. The first promised "a number of words in vogue not found in any dictionary." One reviewer, dismissing "sans culotte," "hauter," and "composuist" as, respectively, French, not even a word, and just plain silly, deemed the dictionary "at best, useless." No better were notices of the Massachusetts minister Caleb Alexander's "Columbian Dictionary," containing "Many NEW WORDS, peculiar to the United States." "A disgusting collection" of idiotic words coined by "presumptuous ignorance," one critic wrote, referring to Americanisms like "wigwam," "rateability," "caucus," and "lengthy" (lengthy? what's next, "strengthy"?). "The Co-lumbian Dictionary," as he saw it, was nothing more than "a record of our imbecility."

You might think it would be hard to top that kind of clobbering, at least without thumbing through a thesaurus for synonyms for "worthless" and "tripe," but Webster's critics were.... [...]

The snootiest opposition to Webster's plan came from members of his own Federalist Party: well-heeled men who loved England, hated France, favored a strong central government, and despised all that was common. Webster was such a snob that even the Federalists called him “the Monarch.” But when it came to the dictionary, Webster was a republican. He believed, radically for his time, that the mass of common people, not a select few, form language and establish its rules. Federalists couldn't stomach this idea. English writers were miffed at Webster's claim that his dictionary would surpass Samuel Johnson's. One English writer scoffed that “Americans were addicted to innovation.” It wasn't just the Federalists who wanted nothing to do with the dictionary. The Republicans attacked it because they hated Webster's Federalism…" (“Noah’s Mark: Webster and the Original Dictionary Wars” by Jill Lepore, New Yorker, Nov. 2006)

JoJo Lapin X:

I fail to understand your point in relation to my post, which merely states that the evolution of language is not so simple as many linguistic descriptivists would have us believe. We may not control how language develops, but we each have the chance to influence it, however little we may succeed.


Gavin Callaghan:

I think Gavin knows perfectly well that his out-of-context caricature of my reply to his post in the "Whitehead" thread is not what I mean, at all. I will, however, spell everything out for the sake of others who may read his post without having first read my "Whitehead" post.

1. In the "Whitehead" thread, Calonlan wrote, quite rightly, that such words as "homophobia" make little sense, because the roots of which they are constructed do not mean what their proponents intend that they mean.

2. After casting a banal and witless aspersion upon "academics" (whoever they may be), Gavin replied that "historically it can be shown that definitions are based on usage, and not the other way around."

By this, I take Gavin to mean that denotative definitions and etymologies are less important than what "the people" mean when they (mis)use language. Gavin upholds for us the noble and logical ideal of Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty: "'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean'". If I have misunderstood Gavin's meaning, then I apologize.

3. I responded to Gavin's assertion, as I understand it, by stating the following:

Usage may, indeed, be based upon definitions (i.e., "the other way around"), such as those found in prescriptive dictionaries, and I mentioned Dr. Johnson's dictionary as one example of that. What Gavin's ranting attempt at misdirection* has to do with this simple and irrefutable point of mine, I have no idea.

At any rate, Gavin's ad hominem attack is gratifying, as it reveals his incompetence to refute the substance of what I wrote in reply to his original response to Calonlan. I also notice that he does not even attempt to reply to my original post in this thread, which is no doubt wise of him.


*Gavin's insinuations are equally confused and confusing. Which am I? A Tory? An Aryan supremacist? Or both, as they are all the same, to Gavin, anyway?


P.S. Apropos of Dr. Johnson's definition of oats, and his reference to the Scottish, Gavin may want to educate himself on this subject by reading the following article:

Lane Cooper, "Dr. Johnson on Oats and Other Grains", PMLA, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Sept., 1937), pp. 785-802. Here's an excerpt:

"Did he [Johnson] mean to vex the Americans as well, when, following what he got through an amanuensis out of Miller, he said of maize, 'This plant is propagated in England only as a curiosity, but in America it is the principal support of the inhabitants'? Did he find amusement in the objectivity of Arbuthnot? 'Panick affords a soft demulcent nourishment, both for granivorous birds and mankind.' Again, if the reference of Arbuthnot to oats had not been colorless, would not Johnson have marked it for one of his half-dozen helpers to copy? Then the Dictionary would have had a slightly different article on oats. Finally, if Boswell cannot give the first statement in this article correctly, and never looked to see what followed, that 'the grain is eatable,' and that 'the meal makes tolerable good bread,' can we be certain that he reports verbatim what the elderly Johnson said about the 'definition'? In the colloquy is not Johnson glad at length to escape from his pursuer? Clearly, it is Boswell's Life, and not the article in its entirety, that has kept the vexation or the humor alive. The Scot, and not the Dictionary, has done it".

P.S. Here is a link to an interesting article about Dr. Johnson's dictionary, which, among other subjects, discusses briefly the extent to which Johnson's approach is prescriptive or descriptive.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By this, I take Gavin to mean that denotative
> definitions and etymologies are less important
> than what "the people" mean when they (mis)use
> language. Gavin upholds for us the noble and
> logical ideal of Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty: "'When I
> use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather
> scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to
> mean'". If I have misunderstood Gavin's meaning,
> then I apologize.

I think he meant precisely that words mean what they are commonly understood to mean, and not what Humpty Dumpty unilaterally decides they should mean---no matter how good are Humpty's reasons in terms of consistency with other usage, for instance. Thus "homophobia" has an established meaning, and how it came to have that meaning really has no relevance for the semantics of the matter---much like "fiasco" means what it means even though it is also Italian for "bottle."

I feel that the key word in your reply is "commonly", in every sense of that term.

Although my "Humpty" reference was intended somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it certainly has relevance to the discussion. If one takes Humpty not as an individual, but as a symbol of the masses who use incorrect vocabulary and grammatical forms, and yet defend themselves by saying, "Well, you know what I mean, and that's all that matters", or "Everyone uses the term that way, so common usage should prevail", regardless of logic or etymology, then Gavin displays some distinctly Humpty-like tendencies.

At any rate, what Gavin obviously means is that people's common or ordinary (mis)usage should trump logical, scholarly, or etymological considerations. It is simply a different philosophy of usage and authority, one that he and others are entitled to hold, certainly, but one with which I strongly disagree.

I understand your point regarding the word fiasco. As for that word's being comparable to homophobia, however, I am afraid that I must differ there, as well. Fiasco as a synonym for "failure" comes from an idiomatic expression. Homophobia, on the other hand, derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of Greek and Latin roots.

I think we should distinguish between the snobbery issue, on the one hand, and the actual primary function of language, on the other. As snobs we all at times enjoy lamenting the unsophisticated use of language of others. But the primary function of language is arguably not to be a social marker, but to be a means of communication. The best use of language is therefore that which best conveys one's intended meaning to one's intended audience.

I certainly agree with you that language ought not to be a social marker (although I fear that it always shall be). My point in criticizing forms of usage is to lament the decline in the use of language proper, however, and not to give myself an artificial sense of superiority. I would gladly see this "superiority" vanish overnight, if that meant the raising of the general levels of discourse and understanding.

For the rest, language has many functions, and, while I agree that the pragmatic function you describe is certainly legitimate, I would hate to see that aspect overshadow completely the idea of language as a means of personal expression and creativity. That latter aspect is at least relatively free of social and pragmatic considerations. Hence, my original point in this thread, which is to defend the legitimacy of reviving "archaic" or "ornate" words as a part of language's evolution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 6 Sep 08 | 08:13AM by Kyberean.

This was/is a thread I have thoroughly enjoyed! An infinitesimal vocabulary hugely influenced by the media has "impacted" common speech - ie, caused it to be in need of an lexicographic enema. Commentary by an interviewer during the recent political convention found that among a dozen young people, only three new that the word "maverick" was the term applied to John McCain, and all but two had no idea what the word meant.
Astounding in view of the very recent film sequel to the Maverick series.
As to supporting ignorant usage (common in the media) I quote Dr. Johnson on the subject of the modernists of his time - "Truth, sir, is a cow that will yield them no more milk -- so they have gone to milk the bull."

Two addenda:

1. If Gavin ever condescends to revisit this thread or forum, then I hope that he shall favor us with the defense of Ebonics that he hinted at in his riposte to me. Not only would it be riotously funny in its own right, but it would be especially hilarious in the context of a forum devoted to Clark Ashton Smith and his works.

2.It has always fascinated me that no one questions the need for expertise to determine and define, say, the proper use of numbers and operators, and yet, in the use of language, we are supposed to accept living under an ochlocracy.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2.It has always fascinated me that no one
> questions the need for expertise to determine and
> define, say, the proper use of numbers and
> operators, and yet, in the use of language, we are
> supposed to accept living under an ochlocracy.

The explanation is very simple: Natural language was not designed by anyone---it evolved spontaneously. Mathematics proceeds by the definition of concepts; natural language does not.

Suppose we reverse the perspective. Would it make sense to say that in medieval times, English was spoken "incorrectly," since medieval English largely looks like gibberish from the point of view of today? Yet that is what, among other things, we must hold if we think there exists some kind of universal, standard, normative form of English.

>>"If Gavin ever condescends to revisit this thread or forum, then I hope that he shall favor us with the defense of Ebonics that he hinted at in his riposte to me. Not only would it be riotously funny in its own right, but it would be especially hilarious in the context of a forum devoted to Clark Ashton Smith and his works."

What is it that Kyberean finds particularly funny about Ebonics- the fact that it exists, or that somebody would try to defend it? And why the "especial hilarity" of such a defense in the context of a CAS site, aside from the fact that it is sure to drive poor Boyd Pearson to distraction?

>>"2.It has always fascinated me that no one questions the need for expertise to determine and define, say, the proper use of numbers and operators, and yet, in the use of language, we are supposed to accept living under an ochlocracy."

Kyberean is making the error of confusing linguistic laws of generative grammar, such as are posited by Chomsky and others, with the usages of particular languages themselves, which vary and change from culture to culture. For the former, which deal with sophisticated aspects of psychology, neurology, and structure, certain advanced training is to be expected-- but every human being can speak, and, no doubt to Kyberean's unabashed sorrow, no such specialized training is necessary.

>>"2. After casting a banal and witless aspersion upon "academics" (whoever they may be),"

It is only Kyberean's own apparent sense of inferiority and paranoia which could see in my use of the word "academics" anything of aspersion, since I used it simply as a descriptive term to refer to those scholars who compile dictionaries.

>>"1. In the "Whitehead" thread, Calonlan wrote, quite rightly, that such words as "homophobia" make little sense, because the roots of which they are constructed do not mean what their proponents intend that they mean."

"Homophobia" is not a meaningless term, because when the word is used, its meaning is understood-- understood by all, that is, aside from tendentious internet polemicists who deliberately attempt to cloud the issues with etymological rhetoric.

Although many of the words in our language indeed derive from Latin and Greek, as Calonlan pointed out, it is an equally unassailable fact that the cultural contexts of those ancient empires are dead, their meanings being adapted to suit the new sensibilities and new contexts of our present empire. The Babylonian Empire, although it grew upon the foundations of ancient Sumer -and in fact retained many Sumerian words- did not trouble to retain ancient grammar or meanings in its new Semitic context, and in fact nearly all knowledge of ancient Sumerian cuneiform was eventually completely lost to the Babylonians -nor did this loss prevent them from building one of the greatest and most beautiful civilizations ever known. The ancient Greeks, it is true, built their society upon the more ancient foundations of the Myceneans and the golden age of Crete -but in the intervening dark ages between the fall of the Minoans and the rise of Greece, all trace of the Linear B language was lost to history and to the Greeks themselves -though one would never know it in the ensuing greatness of Greek civilization.

>>"By this, I take Gavin to mean that denotative definitions and etymologies are less important than what "the people" mean when they (mis)use language. Gavin upholds for us the noble and logical ideal of Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty: "'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean'". If I have misunderstood Gavin's meaning, then I apologize."

Apology accepted, but be more abject next time.



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 8 Sep 08 | 06:52PM by Gavin Callaghan.

I am an academic!

Jojo Lapin X:

As always, I appreciate your thought-provoking replies. If only we could agree about something! *laughs*

Quote:

The explanation is very simple: Natural language was not designed by anyone---it evolved spontaneously. Mathematics proceeds by the definition of concepts; natural language does not.

If we are going to draw a distinction between natural language and--what?--"unnatural" language, then we must do the same with mathematics. As near as anyone can tell, mathematics in its basic form--counting, tracking time, and the like--developed as spontaneously as language. Superior intellects then created and developed more complex and "unnatural" forms of mathematics.

In a similar way, spoken language evolved spontaneously, but, in the West, a more-or-less fixed language of complexity and elegance--Latin--became the preferred form of expression for the literate. Later, when written expression in the native language was desired, and more acceptable, the Classical educations of the literate shone through the writers' respective literary styles. (See, for instance, the discussions of "Attic" versus "Asiatic" prose styles, education in the use of rhetorical schemes and tropes, etc.).

Also, as I mentioned in response to Gavin's remark, there have been many attempts to prescribe forms of language usage over the centuries. Such prescriptive works date from Classical times (Aristotle's Poetics), to the early Common Era (Longinus's Peri Hypsous), to Dr. Johnson's dictionary, to Fowler's manual, to that bugbear of the descriptive linguists, Strunk & White's Elements of Style, etc.

Even today, there exist such institutions as the French Academy, whose mission is to prescribe forms of vocabulary and usage. Contrary to common belief, even the renowned Oxford English Dictionary is actually somewhat prescriptive, and not entirely descriptive, since it identifies words as being obsolete or archaic. This fact also segues nicely into the original subject of this thread: Descriptive linguists actually seem to love prescription when it aims to discourage the use of older, ornate words, especially those of Latin origin. Descriptivists hate prescription only when it threatens their beloved populist and egalitarian view of language. I wonder whether they accept many orthographic and denotative variants of the word hypocritical?

At any rate, I feel that your argument applies only to language in the vernacular, and the history of language is much fuller and more complex than merely that. I would also add that language at any level of usage proceeds according to conceptual thinking.

Quote:

Suppose we reverse the perspective. Would it make sense to say that in medieval times, English was spoken "incorrectly," since medieval English largely looks like gibberish from the point of view of today? Yet that is what, among other things, we must hold if we think there exists some kind of universal, standard, normative form of English.

Not at all. It's true that such language was less standardized than ours, particularly in its spelling, but spelling is merely one facet of written language. I have yet to meet anyone who derides the Wyclif Bible, the Canterbury Tales, or Pearl as "gibberish", any more than they would so deride works written in a foreign tongue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 Sep 08 | 07:23PM by Kyberean.