Re: Stephen Donaldson

MikeQ wrote:
If you change that to 'opinion', then that is fine. It is btw. an
opinion which is not that rare...

Less rare than the use of the word "loamy," or "outre'," or more rare?

I'm just being coy, by the way. I'm not shifting the goal posts, as I
don't expect you to answer. Just smile.

Well, humour is sometimes defined as 'the surprising introduction
of an irrelevant element". In that sense then, I'll smile.

Indeed.

Incorrect how? Based on what measure? It is certainly correct for
use in liturgy and church song.

*sigh* I understand that, Mike. It is still a modification of Latin
where words are pronounced in a simpler, easier to learn way, than how
we think Latin was actually pronounced by educated Romans. Also, it is
easier and more harmonious to sing with those pronunciations.

See how much more cumbersome it is to say all that?

You were the one clamoring for exactitude. And it still doesn't
make Chuch Latin incorrect, only different.

It makes it *different* than what is accepted as the *correct* spoken
Latin. Different than correct = incorrect.

What I am getting at, and what you seem to have a hard time
accepting, is that 'correct pronunciation' is context dependent
and not universal.

But for French? And, keep in mind that a French word is what sparked
this part of the debate.

Could you please unpack that paragraph? I don't get what you are
getting at. I think you lost a word somewhere. Intelligent, yes.
Obstinate - yes, that, too. But that is also pretty close to pot -
kettle - black :-)

I'm saying that you should have recognized that I'm intelligent by now.
Thus, you should have assumed to a certain extent that I'm aware of how
much we DON'T know about the past. It may be fun to stupefy lesser
mortals (coy, again) with the whole "what is correct" argument, but to
me it is just annoying.

It is annoying to you, because you believe in a universal or absolute
correctness measure for the pronunciation of a language.

No, it is annoying to me because I know it is not "100% correct,"
especially with a language as old as Latin. It is annoying because I
hate wasting words in qualifying statements left and right. It may
actually be incorrect, we will never know, but it is the best we can do
right now, so I call it "correct" for brevity.

But, no - we don't mean the same thing. I am saying that there are
standardized, school pronunciations for languages. There might even
be official pronunciations, as in the case of French. I am also saying
that the concept of a correct pronunciation is dangerous. For one
reason at least (there are more) : it leaves the 90% of the native
speakers of a language speaking incorrectly. And that is a heavy,
arrogant, elitist claim. See "My Fair Lady", see British class divide,
see treatment of Irish immigrants in the US, see ...

But they ARE speaking incorrectly. And that is fine! Most are aware
that redneck hicks from Texas don't represent the most widely accepted
speech patterns of American English speakers. But that's fine!
Differences in dialect aren't something of which to be ashamed.
Sometimes new languages are formed that way. But they should be
recognized for what they are.

Yes, recognized for what they - new languages or dialects; internally
consistent in grammer, with their own vocabulary, used for successful
communication in the community ot the speakers.

Leaves absolutely no room for labelling them incorrect. Unless you
are a pedantic school teacher. Or a school teacher tasked with teaching
them the standard school form. Again - correctness is relative.

Well, if there is no official way, but there is a "standard school
form," that seems like a good place to go for the "correct" form. And,
in the case of French

I do feel, however,
that some languages have a correct, aka official, pronunciation. I was
under the impression that French was one of those. I thought that the
"school" pronunciation of Latin, likewise, was accepted as "correct."

As far as I know French really has an official pronunciation (state
sanctioned, even, for all I know), defined by the French Academy.

'Correct' in the sense that it is our best (and that is apparently
quite good) guess at how educated Romans spoke at a certain
time. But how about the remaining time (several hundred years) and
the remaining Latin speakers (plebeians, legionaires, slaves - better
than 90% of the Lating speaking population)? I just can't see any
room for calling it absolutely correct.

This would be why I never used the word "absolutely" in that sense.

Mike

-Aaron

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The benefits of multilingualism
    ... science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless ... shows that languages with fewer ... can actually enjoy school. ... and had no English ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Hardest to learn between Russian and Irish
    ... "are the now the native languages of..." ... a fourth one (French or English). ... If they spoke only pidgin Latin, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: How to prime kids to learn 3+ languages?
    ... multi-lingual environment and become fluent in multiple languages. ... They learnt English, French, and Arabic. ... When we "went" to a shoe shop, they switched to French, ... later, they still speak English and French well, and they have learnt ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: [ANN] How to spy on the Japanese Rubists
    ... Only romance languages - French is particularly easy if you're ... particularly the King's English. ... Suisse a first) speak French as, at least, a second language. ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: In the News: Sharron Angle pumps creationist film
    ... Sharron Angle loves a little creationism. ... French and Spanish have grammar, but English does not; ... learn as "grammar" when learning languages like French, Spanish or Latin is long lists of declensions, conjugations and tenses. ...
    (talk.origins)