Re: The definition of the Standard variation of British English

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:18:43 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:

It seems from that you would favor the wide adoption of the AAVE
distinctions among "he workin'", "he be workin'", "he stay workin'",
and "he been workin'", distinctions that can't be expressed so
concisely in standard English. But I doubt that you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAVE

Perhaps I am missing something, but from the tabulation in the Wikipedia
article you linked it looks like there are already simple standard forms
that well express most or all of those concepts, just as noted in the
table in that article, which in effect translates them from the dialect
to standard English. It would take longer than we have here to examine
each case in detail, but only one or two--the ones there labelled "remote
phase" and "immediate future"--seem even a bit out of the ordinary
range. I'd have no objection if some form arose to express those forms,
but I repeat that changes need to be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

. . . Other languages, with conventions quite different even in broad
outline from those of English, serve their users satisfactorily--but
only in proportion as _their_ conventions are clear and detailed.

Are you sure about that last? I have never heard any claim that any
language or dialect had insufficiently clear and detailed conventions.

I meant only so long as their established standards are not corrupted in
the way that many seek to corrupt English. I know little of foreign
tongues, but I don't recall reading about any movements elsewhere
analogous to the sometimes burning desire some have to bury forever the
idea of a standard form of English.

[...]

I think the movement began with the observation that standard
language /was/ constructed and being used for social and political
purposes, specifically to make some people feel superior and others
inferior.

I have no idea whence that concept. I doubt, for example, that the
Fowler brothers sat down one rainy afternoon and hatched a deep scheme to
embarrass and crush the proletariat, or whatever would be involved in a
process of "constructing" the tongue "for social and political purposes".
I reckon it far more likely that the "whatever" movement began with the
well-meaning but muddled people sort of folk for whom the word
"proletariat" is a common usage.

[...]

You cannot be seriously suggesting that standard English can readily
be spoken by most native speakers.

Indeed I cannot, and did not intend to. What I said was that "what
matters is that the form is known to and can readily be both spoken and
understood by most"; my error, which I concede, was carelessly using "is"
for "be" before "known": to reflect my meaning, it should read "what
matters is that the form be known to and be readily both spoken and
understood by most". Sorry.

[...]

Availing oneself of its more abstruse phenomena, though, will hardly
conduce to a salutary result. (I'd bet more than half of American
native speakers wouldn't understand that last sentence.)

So? We aren't speaking of arcana, just solid, well-formed sentences.
(And I daresay that even among those well-schooled in the tongue, that
would scarcely be thought a solid, well-crafted sentence.)

[...]

Your choice of the word "conventional" strikes me as strange. No one
(in English) convenes a meeting at which people come to an agreement,
arbitrary or not.

2. of, sanctioned by, or growing out of custom or usage; customary
3.a) depending on or conforming to formal or accepted standards or
rules rather than nature; not natural, original, or spontaneous
b) not unusual or extreme; ordinary
4. stylized; conventionalized

Take your pick.

[...]

. . . [T]he vast majority of people, including me, aren't even aware of
what many of the rules of their native language are.

To revive a metaphor I used upthread, we do not need to know the medical
details of respiration for ordinary breathing; but when we encounter
difficulty in or perplexing phenomena in association with the act, we
either need to know those medical details or to consult with one who
does, else dire problems may ensue.

Even the rules of standard English are selections from the available
rules; they aren't generated or chosen arbitrarily.

Just so. When major increases in the speed with which people and
information can be moved from place to place, simple evolution powered by
necessity led to emerging standardization. In time, those concerned with
language, to assist in standardization, carefully observed the habits of
and forms used by those generally considered adept in placing thoughts in
the minds of others with precision and elegance, and recorded those
habits and forms in what we call manuals--of grammar and of usage. Early
attempts--say, most before the beginning of the twentieth century (though
that is an arbitrary and perhaps over-late threshold)--were usually ill-
considered, and led to the corresponding ill repute in which some still
hold manuals. But since--to pick a point--the Fowlers' first work, the
process became a positive-feedback loop: the careful writers observed
what the manuals were telling them that their peers were doing, and the
manuals continued to take as their norms what those careful writers were
doing. It is not only possible but probable that if one were designing a
language from scratch, one could do a lot better than English, but that
is at least as irrelevant as it is probable. It is what it is.

(A longer-form version of this appears at
http://owlcroft.com/english/prescrip.shtml)

My idea of a convention is something like a sign convention in math or
physics, or a bidding convention in bridge, which really is chosen
arbitrarily and learned explicitly.

But in fact few or none of those were "chosen arbitrarily": like the
English language, they evolved to meet perceived needs.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Get ASCII values for PC arrow keys?
    ... It can overlap a larger character set that ... > encompasses both English and Kanji, ... > standard ASCII. ... >> Japanese language and all them other languages that use non english ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)
  • Re: The definition of the Standard variation of British English
    ... concisely in standard English. ... language or dialect had insufficiently clear and detailed conventions. ... Before there were movements in language, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: The definition of the Standard variation of British English
    ... It is a foolish fantasy that all evolutionary changes in a language are ... nice, clear standard English. ... whether of grammar or dress or of manners. ... conventions are no longer considered conventions, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Representing futuristic English
    ... Shakespeare's English is more akin to modern-day ... I suspect that the continued use of Shakespeare, ... > What happens is that language does not change by simple replacement. ... That people will tend to gravitate to a common linguistic standard is ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: The definition of the Standard variation of British English
    ... of singular and plural second-person pronouns "an artificial survival"? ... the Frenchifying of English ... leaving the second-person singular the ... don't want to learn the rules of standard English reject all rules. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
Loading