29 comments Add a comment
Simon Winchester's "Professor and the Madman" features the remarkable origins of the Oxford English Dictionary. It is the offspring of amity among those in the literary community, including the criminal-asylum inmate Dr Minor, an unlikely oddity in Broadmoor.
OED UK-based senior editor Fiona McPherson updates us on their project-in-progress, that 300,000 new words have found a permanent home in the 'compendium' since year 2000. Even Homer Simpson's popularization of 'Doh!' is given a kindly nod to be included.
And so, many who still debate on whether 'labour' is more correct than 'labor' if 'manoeuvre' is superior to 'maneuver' are unwittingly treading the shallows of mediocrity. If they were condoned, Bernard Shaw would have been off the mark in suggesting how unhinged our English system of alphabet is. 'Fish' could have looked like 'ghoti', the derivative of the component of 'rough' (gh for f), 'women' (o for e or i) and 'nation' (ti for sh).
Phonics pundits have been wrong. It is clear a student versed in phonics, in and of itself, cannot by extension be an infallible speller. To the uninitiated, 'rough' will be 'ruff' as will 'enough' be 'enuff.' Beware of heard, a dreadul word; that looks like beard and sounds like bird, warns a doggeral.
Language instinct in the fields of cognitive neuroscience, psycholinguistics and evolutionary psychology is more pervasive than most have the wherewithals to master. Its idea is a paean to the breadth of natural potential of language evolution and progress than to its push for artificial re-constitution. It is for the academic elitists .
Words are symbols - to rehash, capturing the essence of mental abstractions as flows from conceptualization and intellectualization, not to mention DNA and some grey matter. The conventions of the English language, for instance, dictate that a cup is a cup is a cup for its given function which might well have been symbolized by kup or puk.
No one thinks in pure English or Gaelic. If thoughts were the function of words, no new words would ever be coined. We think, then we decide what words would best serve the nature, quality and the intent of our thoughts. New words may be needed.
What makes the English language unique is the abundantly colorful wealth of its vocabulary even though part of its words system is of foreign imports: macho, schadenfreude, macaroni, typhoon, amok and orang utan - Spanish, German, Italian, Chinese and Malay.
Word usage and grammar is not contingent upon knowledge and learned language skills alone. Hydrocephalic children as schizophrenics and aphasics have been cited for their incredibly developed grammatical proficiency and accuracy. How did that happen? For this, consult with my convincing mentor, Pinker by name.
By: Sam, the Tiger
Leave a comment
Sam's gripe has already led me into finding an excellent article by Stephen Pinker; now I am about to embark upon an article by Erasmus which mentions the Cordiliers. I love learning!
Sam, I would love to see San Francisco one day; the world of writers like Dashiell Hammett, Clark Ashton Smith and Armistead Maupin. The grumpyoldman may be persuaded to take me one day when we have retired!
Don't worry. I explained to them what your gripe was about. I used pareidolic interpretation.
If you have anything else to say, I'll translate it for them you...and them.
I'm as vague as they come. Too bad, which is why I stay away from WG. Damn if you say something, damn if you don't. I'm sorry I offended some of you.
I'm opening me (or myself to some) to a barrage of criticisms, due or not.
Back to American English - please, rationalize the rhetoric! Tell us in plain, good Brit English or Celtic English or whatever; but state your ratio.
PS - Sorry that I have not visited WG since September. By the way, I'm in Frisco on the way to LA next week. American English serves me pretty well for this Canuck. Join me, Grump.
mardi gras; the problem is, if there is no standardised way, people will NOT understand you! Yes the language will evolve; but if spelling and punctuation are not reasonably standardised much confusion will result.
You should be grateful that their language is not "American".
Fine. Whether it's well written or not is highly subjective. Let your declared beliefs inform the world.
The writer of this gripe is Canadian.
I shall comment on a gripe to do with the English language if I believe it to be poorly written. Like this one. (How ironic).
Furthermore, I was not 'whinging'; I merely wished to point out that the gripe is a series of statements about the English language, rather than a crystal clear complaint about it. I can fully understand why some readers have had trouble finding the point. Having read it through a fourth and fifth time, I can just about see how you come to the conclusion as to what it's actually griping about, but please remember that most people on here do not read, but skim. If the point isn't immediately obvious, they naturally draw (possibly incorrect) conclusions.
Another point I should have made about your comment to Alice: It is rudeness in the extreme to tell someone that their comment in irrelevant when in fact she was merely giving her opinion on the gripe - as per the aim of the site and, indeed, the original poster (one would assume). Who are you, or anyone else, to decide which comments are relevant or not? Especially considering the fact that others agree with her; that alone should imply relevancy.
Got it now?
anon