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.