Continued Discourse on "An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics"

I have established a new thread concerning this article at the request of other Free Republic members wishing to continue its discussion. See the original post at

Repeated from the earlier thread, in response to your message:

"If you continue to make assertions chastizing exceptional dilletantism, you will exhibit the same entrenched mediocrity displayed by Professor Patrick Silk in my mini-play, "The Inexperienced:"
"

Amusing. I know a number of polymaths, including some who are quite expert in some of their fields of interest. I know far more who are expert in none.

There is nothing wrong with this. Indeed, having strong interests in many disciplines is an excellent thing. I, myself, have more than a novice's knowledge in many fields.

However, I do not, and will never, hold myself up as an expert at any of thos many disciplines. I do not display my mediocre musical compositions, write on subjects in which others have far more expertise, nor attempt to pretend that any of the languages in which I am competent are languages in which I am fluent.

I do not propose new theorems in particle physics, mineralogy, molecular biology, or biochemistry, even though I can discuss those subjects with experts in the fields and understand scholarly writings in any of them.

Dilletantism is not defined by someone who gains knowledge in many fields. It is defined by the person who attempts to display that knowledge under the pretense of mastery.

Your orthographical propositions demonstrate dilletantism because they duplicate (and only partially) the work of professionals in that field. You demonstrate little understanding of previous efforts toward a new orthography.

I visited your site and read a number of your writings. I listened to your compositions. I gave your efforts a fair trial. I discount them as great thinking.

You needn't specialize, but you run a serious risk of ridicule if you attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in fields where you are an amateur.

Best wishes to you, though.

dI have to agree with you MineralMan.

When I was a child I used to think that it would make so much more sense to spell everything phonetically using the symbols that one will find in all dictionaries. I also thought that it was rather absurd that the abbreviation for pounds is lbs. and not something more simple such as pds. And why on earth was penny abbreviated as d. Later on, having understood both the historical artifacts enclosed in our spelling, abbreviations and just the pure depth of languages and not solely English I changed my view entirely. One might think that to spell through, brought, night and Knight just to name a few is rather absurd but then once again one would lose an understanding of the historic Anglo-Saxon roots of such words. Jeez, I didn't thoughly understand English grammar until I learned German.

One may look at the French language which has similar vowels, diphthongs, dropped endings and unaspirated vowels making up the same sounds as hardly logical at all, but when its history and structure is thoroughly understood the logic of its spelling is readily apparent.

One might look at the Japanese language and how it's written and come to a conclusion of how absurd it is; given it's the most difficult language in the world to write. A language which uses two different syllabaries and Chinese ideograms how ridiculous can such a language be.? But if one studies the language in depth it also reveals not only its history but its but the utility in how it's written. Chinese ideograms: difficult to learn but representative of a single concept rather than a phonetic one. Writing them also requires less effort than single phonetic representations of a word. Also specifically in Japanese each ideogram, almost always has two different pronunciations; one representing the native Japanese pronunciation and the other representing the Chinese. This may seem also absurd, but if one sees how they are employed it makes a lot of sense. I won't go into any details but it allows them to form a plethora of compound words similar to how we do in English, but in our case we use Greek and Latin.

When I looked thru some of the content in the original thread it seemed I was struck by one thing which I found absurd in his original posting and that's the argument that language isn't a "social construct". That may be true if understood from a rigid deconstructionist perspective, but language without question is a cultural ,technological as well as historical construct.

"When I looked thru some of the content in the original thread it seemed I was struck by one thing which I found absurd in his original posting and that's the argument that language isn't a "social construct". That may be true if understood from a rigid deconstructionist perspective, but language without question is a cultural ,technological as well as historical construct."

Indeed. When one examines, say, the works of Chaucer, it is remarkable how different the English language was, even that short a time ago. Chaucer's orthography seems bizarre to us today, and without some training, it's almost impossible to understand his writing. Further, if you look at the documents at the founding of the USA, just over 200 years ago, spelling was a fungible thing, even then.

We spell according to a combination of the rules of the language, as set out by the prescriptive dictionary publishers and tradition. Spellings do change, of course, and quite naturally. In the USA, we have dropped the "our" spelling in words like colour, while those spellings are still used in Great Britain.

Our spelling will continue to change, through usage. An excellent example can be found in the extreme changes in spelling used by those using text messaging on PDAs and Cell phones. This abbreviated spelling is fascinating, and actually may become part of our written language in time.

Right now, the arbiters of orthography in this country are the publishers of books, magazines, and newspapers. They set and maintain the standards of American English orthography and punctuation. And so they shall continue to do.

There are at least a dozen proposed "new" or "rational" orthographies for English. Beginning with Noah Webster, a number of attempts have been made to "modernize" our orthography. All have failed miserably. The musings of a dilletante will not change our orthography.

However, anyone may spell as they choose, within the publications they produce. The web allows you to publish any writing you wish, spelled any way you wish. Whether anyone will read what you write is another issue, of course.

MineralMan: "It harmz us not at al tu no thet thu origin ov thu rut for thu wurd filosofy haz that histuree. indeed, it ekspandz our awarnus ov langwaj.

There's a rational orthography for you. You choose not to use it, preferring normal English orthography, except for the singly phoneme you wish to alter."

Mr. Stolyarov: My essay emfasizes the need for GRADUAL linguistic change, since much of our present spelling remains used (despite its irrationality) because it had been automatized from a very early age. Yet "reprogramming" the underlying basis for one's spelling is not all that difficult; it requires a day's deliberate effort at most. However, to spread this adjustment so that the words written using it remain comprehensible to the intelligent reader may take a greater time span. Hence, I plan to introduce further orthografic innovations in three months, and I will not disclose their nature, preferring to focus the readers' attention on my present proposed alteration.

MineralMan: "Right now, the arbiters of orthography in this country are the publishers of books, magazines, and newspapers. They set and maintain the standards of American English orthography and punctuation. And so they shall continue to do."

Mr. Stolyarov: I see no reason to voluntarily subordinate my spelling to the arbitrary and elitist dictates of modern media, the same media that spreads statist falsehoods, sentimentalist slander, corny moral altruism, and a contempt for scientific innovation in any field that almost harkens back to the Confucian literati of China.

I emfasize again that my language exists for MY utility and MY gain (which encompasses time expediency), not to demonstrate my social complacency or my reverence for the decisions of tacitly accepted (i.e. entrenched) "cultural leaders." As Rand lucidly demonstrated, man's objective survival requirements necessitate the full employment of his own mind's conclusions, NOT those of his ancestors or of the current cultural paradigm.

Coeur de Lion: "When I looked thru some of the content in the original thread it seemed I was struck by one thing which I found absurd in his original posting and that's the argument that language isn't a "social construct". That may be true if understood from a rigid deconstructionist perspective, but language without question is a cultural ,technological as well as historical construct."

Mr. Stolyarov: The role of linguistic innovators is most often occupied by a handful of great and multifaceted individuals who defy the prevalent cultural paradigm. Just as Galileo, Newton, and Darwin stand out as titans of the natural sciences and almost sole developers of ground-breaking theories, so do Shakespeare, Franklin, and Webster represent perhaps a more significant contribution to the English language than the remainder of its speakers combined.

Language is not a "social construct," but an individual creation, like scientific theories and filosofies. It is refined over time by successive individuals, without whose innovative effort it tends to merely lapse into a standstill that is not questioned by the general culture. Remember that, according to Rand, no collective mind can exist, just as no collective stomach can exist. All ideas and workable concepts of language were the products of consistent systematization performed by a single person at some point and time. The rest is just arbitrary hash that people use because others use it because still others in the past had absorbed it from even more distant forgotten others. That is the behavior of the second-hander (or should I say the fortieth-hander, since so many generations of this sponge-like behavior had passed)?

"Language is not a "social construct," but an individual creation, like scientific theories and filosofies. "

You are incorrect, grasshopper. You confuse language with the use of language.

While your individual writings are a creation, they are written in a language that has come into being as precisely a social construct. That I can understand what you write, even though we have never met, is the evidence that language itself has little to do with the individual, who is limited to using the existing accreted language and its constructs to create a particular group of words.

Shakespeare invented no language. He wrote and created his work using the language of the period. He created some forms for the use of language, but had nothing to do with the creation of language itself.

His _use_ of the language is remarkable, and we still say many of the things he wrote, without even knowing their origins. Yet, he invented nothing. He merely wrote, using the language of the time. Using it remarkably, of course, but using it.

The reality is that we no longer speak the language of Shakespeare's day. We speak the English of the 21st century, which has changed through slow accretion and alteration.

Few American adults, if dropped into Shakespeare's London, would even be able to understand the spoken word. It would sound like a foreign language.

Language grows and changes, not from the efforts of individuals, but through use. This is all very well documented, if you would bother to take the time to review the extensive literature on the subject.

You're welcome, of course, to use and spell English however you wish. Whether you are able to communicate with others is another issue. To communicate, you will have to use the language the society recognizes. Otherwise, you will be ignored.

Remember that, according to Rand, no collective mind can exist, just as no collective stomach can exist. All ideas and workable concepts of language were the products of consistent systematization performed by a single person at some point and time.

If by forcing the nature of language, its history and evolution to fit your faulty premise isn't the sign of a "coffee house philosopher," I don't know what is. I won't argue with whether there exist or doesn't exist a collective mind--that's really of no consequence, presently. On the other hand your second sentence is not only anon sequitar it's also false. To make the statement that "workable concepts of language were the products of consistent systematization performed by a single person at some point and time," is patently absurd. The great "vowel change" and "consonantal shift" phenomena identified by the Grimms didn't occur because of a "consistent systematization performed by a single person."

Look at the evolution of the irregular form of the English verb to be. Am and is come from the West Germanic language group and are comes from the North Germanic Language. This didn't come about because of one individual but from a fusion of two different languages. Perhaps you'll wish to modify the language as a great innovation by making the conjugation regular like it is in Swedish (Jag ar, ni ar ...) or Ebonics(I be, you be, he,she, it be ...)! The history of English is replete with such examples proving your premise false: such as the entry of Norman French into the language, the relatively strange manner in which we use modal auxillaries (i.e. their meanings have changed which if not completely different from their Anglo Saxon root forms in usage` come pretty damn close), or the fact the the verb ordering we use was altered so it's akin to that which is used in French and not such as was used in Anglo Saxon or in modern day German, though the ordering of the modifier preceding the noun is retained like it was in Anglo Saxon. The evolution of slang,of pidgin and various jargon also points out the faultiness of your premise. Your earlier example of the Latin use of the letter V to represent the U sound, is correct, but the actual use of of these two letters in English was not consistent, (some used U to represent what we would call the V sound and V to represent what we would call the U sound,) the current sound which we now associate with each letter wasn't settled upon until the Elizabethan era.

Shakespere may have expanded the vocabulary of our language by introducing words of classical origin but such words had no "purchase" until they gained common use amoungst the people, nor was his introduction of them done, though innovative done with the intent of improving the language. The dirty little secret was Shakespere introduced them specifically because the common man didn't know their meaning and would interpret them differently than an educated man.

I could go on and on as to why your premise makes no sense at all but I fear that would be a waste of my time.

Here's a wonderful innovation you might press the Germans to make. It never made any sense to me why they spell words of older lineage with Greek roots such as philosophisch with the ph and words of more modern entry into the language such as Telefon with an f. I'm sure your brilliant innovation will straighten them up in no time.

Are is most certainly of North Germanic origin. It appears in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Icelandic but doesn't appear in either German or Dutch. Of course it's present in English. Interestingly, be is actually of North Germanic origin not West Germanic, but to make things even stranger to some is that the German equivalent which in German is sein also appears in Norwegian and Danish. The question this raises is that given that all these languages descend from proto-Germanic, are there presence due to having been originally in the proto-language and lost only to be re-adopted by cross-fertilization or were they just retained by some of the descendant groups or were they adopted from another language group or autochthonous in nature. We know in the case of English it was the prior.

As for Frisian, I don't know, but one must take note of the fact that there definitely was a Norse influence in Frisia.

The question this raises is that given that all these languages descend from proto-Germanic, are there presence due to having been originally in the proto-language and lost only to be re-adopted by cross-fertilization or were they just retained by some of the descendant groups or were they adopted from another language group or autochthonous in nature. We know in the case of English it was the prior.

How do we know this in the case of English? If I'm not mistaken, the only NG influence on English would have come from the Danish invasion in the late 1st millennium. But Anglo-Saxon had variations of are before that. I seem to recall the AS version of the Lord's Prayer opening as: "Faeder ure, thu the eart in heofonum..."

Interestingly, even though be didn't form the infinitive in German or Dutch, it still existed, as in "Ich bin, du bist". So that leads me to wonder if these forms existed in all the Germanic languages, but came and went at different times for reasons as yet unknown. If so, then cross-fertilization may not have been a factor.

Besides, it seems rather odd to me that something as basic as the verb "to be" would ever be incorporated from another language. Usually words that come from other languages aren't of the everyday variety, but are used to express some concept that doesn't exist or isn't fully developed in the original language. Why would a language all of the sudden start using another language's word for "are"?

Agreed, I shouldn't have made the statement "incorporated from another language" or autochthonous. I also didn't look at a possible connection with "be" in "Ich bin and Du bist" only the change of "bin" to "am"--pretty stupid I must say. Also I overlooked the possible retention of "are" in the German past tense "waren." Something you didn't mention.

I agree with you that I missed the retention of "are" in in the Anglo-Saxon eart. I'm not sure that by your argument of the Danish invasions in the late "first millenium" resulted in no cross-pollination with NG; is specific to the presence of eart in Anglo Saxon or in general. If in general I beg to differ. Also, I recall that the Jutes migrated to England around the same time as the Anglo Saxons. I don't know if their language was NG or WG or what amount of separation it may have undergone with respect to Anglo Saxon. It may of been a dialect of Saxon for all I know.

inquest: "Just wanted to point out that, properly speaking, there is a slight difference in pronunciation between f and ph. F is a labiodentral fricative (pronounced with the bottom row of teeth joining with the upper lip), whereas ph is a bilabial fricative (with the bottom lip taking the place of the bottom row of teeth from the prior example)."

Mr. Stolyarov: Having repeatedly pronounced words that, under the conventional orthografy, are spelled with "f" and "ph," I find that both sounds are pronounced in the same manner, with the TOP row of teeth joining the LOWER lip. Both of the approaches that you had suggested are, in my estimation, cumbersome and impractical in the course of a fast-paced conversation. In any case, the MANNER in which a given sound is produced may differ among various persons, but the sound ITSELF is objectively the same; it exhibits the same combination of wave frequencies that define its nature. Similarly, one may be able to prove a given property in numerous ways (say, by induction, or indirect proof, or a simple rearrangement of terms in an algebraic equality), but the property itself remains unaltered by that fact.

Having repeatedly pronounced words that, under the conventional orthografy, are spelled with "f" and "ph," I find that both sounds are pronounced in the same manner, with the TOP row of teeth joining the LOWER lip.

Sorry, you're right. I was being orally dyslexic. So to recap: f, dentrolabial (bottom lip, top row); ph, bilabial (both lips). As for being too much of a burden to switch pronunciations, you may be right, which would explain why the Greeks decided to ditch the F, back when it had both an F (called a "digamma") and a "phi" in its alphabet.

There is something else you may want to consider. Even though p and ph were represented as separate letters in Greek, even that language considered them to be closely related. For example, the word ephemeral is from a combination of epi- (or ep-) and hemeron. But when they're combined into one word, the ph is written as the single letter phi.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.