An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics

The Rational Argumentator ^ | January 5, 2004 | G. Stolyarov II

[G. Stolyarov II]

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent filosofical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right and SoloHQ, writer for Objective Medicine, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator. He can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, the newest means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator

You can sign up by sending an e-mail to rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Visit TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the magazine. See http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/masterindex.html

[MineralMan]

There is a problem with your orthographic suggestion. In the instant case of the word Philosophy, you ignore the usefulness of the "Ph" construct, which is a clear link to the origin of the word, from the Greek root "philos." Understanding the link is a key to understanding the word.

This is the central problem with suggestions for changes in our traditional English orthography. Too much meaning is lost to readers of the text by altering spellings to match some rational scheme based on pronunciation.

A rational orthography has been proposed many times. Each proposal has been abandoned, for the reasons I mention.

[general_re]

In this essay I shall be implementing an orthografic innovation: at all instances in which the combination “ph” is part of a word and is pronounced as “f,” it shall be spelled as “f.”

Too late: Meihem In Ce Klasrum (1946)

[ScudEast]

An interesting fact about p and f that I learnt by reading a Steven J Gould book.

Grimms' Law (the same Grimms who collected the fairy tales) says that Latin "p"s become "f"s in Germanic languages (from which English is largely derived). For example "piscis" becomes "fish", "plenum" becomes "full", pes becomes "foot".

Maybe these "ph"s are a missing link in this evolutionary process and need to be weeded out as the nasty little throwbacks they are.

Or maybe they are part of the history of our language which itself contains part of the "soul" or concious perspective that Ayn Rand was talking about and removing them removes part of their meaning.

[NotQuiteCricket]

sindividual There are all sorts of connotations around that word that go deep into theology, and politics.

I wish that I had the time to sit around and navel gaze and think about stuff like this.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Your embrace of unconditional adherence to the Medieval rendition of the Latin transcription of the Greek origins of a given word is precisely the indiscriminate tradition-worship that I condemn as detrimental to the progress of linguistics.

[dasboot]

'R' is tot'ly supafluis: ask any New Englinda.

If we can get vidda all da "r" lettiz (oh yeah, the 'th', too) den we cood save a lotta papah.

Can I join yaw club?

[MineralMan]

"Your embrace of unconditional adherence to the Medieval rendition of the Latin transcription of the Greek origins of a given word is precisely the indiscriminate tradition-worship that I condemn as detrimental to the progress of linguistics."

How amusing. The progress of linguistics is measured by our understanding of the origins and usages of language. Since we omit the Greek letter needed for the ph construction, we use the latinate orthography.

It harms us not at all to know that the origin of the root for the word philosophy has that history. Indeed, it expands our awareness of language.

What you propose is reductionism, not rationalism. For me, it is very helpful to have those orthographic clues in our written language. For that matter, I'd be happy to add the theta back into our orthography. We could use the thorn instead, I suppose, but I'd prefer the Greek theta.

[Henchman]

1. Henceforth FOOD and GOOD will be pronounced the same.
2. The plural of mouse is mice so the plural of house will be hice.
3. Since the plural of OX is OXEN, the plural of Klenex will be Kleenen, although some are trying to make a case for Klenesees.
4. The city in Indo China known as Phuket will be spelled the same and pronounced differently in order to disuade Japanese pedoFiles from vacationing there.

...additional rules may be added as well as reasonable exceptions at the creator's will.

[dasboot]

a moose bit my sister once

[Henchman]

Will the plural of moose be meece, mice or mooses?

[SAJ]

Yah. This chap is phull of pheces.

[MineralMan]

"Or maybe they are part of the history of our language which itself contains part of the "soul" or concious perspective that Ayn Rand was talking about and removing them removes part of their meaning."

Bingo! The English language is a wonderful composite of all the languages that preceded it. In our written language, one can easily see the links to those other languages, which enriches our understanding.

We kill a pig, then eat pork. In doing so, we use two very different language origins to describe the animal and the meat from that animal. We may not think about that often, but it's great fun when we do.

Cow or Ox becomes beef. We refer to our livestock using words of anglo-saxon origin, then refer to dining on that livestock using words of french origin. How instructive that is to us, relating back almost 1000 years to let us know that our anglo-saxon forbears raised the animals as farmers, while the rich feasted on the meat, preferring the french words.

The reductionism proposed by these Randian neo-linguists is just silly. It will not succeed this time any more than it has succeeded in earlier attempts to revise English orthography.

Anti-intellectualism becomes pseudo-intellectualism. Feh!

[r9etb]

Here we note a violation of the Individualist Premise.

Well, I must admit that this is the first time I've come across a person who says that "ph" is a tool of the looters, or whatever.

Of course, your trying to force us to use "f" instead of "ph" would qualify as the same sin.

If you want to be logically consistent, why not just ditch spelling rules altogether -- to do otherwise is to smash the individual.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. MineralMan: It harms us not at all to know that the origin of the root for the word philosophy has that history. Indeed, it expands our awareness of language.

Mr. Stolyarov: Have you even read my article? If you did, you would be aware that the Greeks had an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ALFABET which did not employ cumbersome dual combinations for single sounds. If we are to go by the Greek roots of "filosofy", we might as well designate the root to be "filos," since this does not alter its spelling in the original Greek. I see no need to blindly copy the blunders made by Roman scholars that did not esteem themselves highly enough to invent a Latin letter "f" when incorporating Greek roots into their language.

I see nothing wrong with studying the past; I do, however take issue with mimicking it at the cost of the autonomy of one's own thought. We can discuss the origins of words all we wish, but we need not live in the past; languages exist for OUR utility and their rationality should be not temporal, but rather present in the here and now for us to wield as unified structures.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. r9etb: Of course, your trying to force us to use "f" instead of "ph" would qualify as the same sin.

Mr. Stolyarov: I am FORCING no one. By suggesting the employment of a voluntary reform within every INDIVIDUAL's orthografy, I do not utilize the coercive apparatus of the State in any manner. Do you call yourself an Objectivist? If you do, you should be ashamed for not having made the elementary distiction between force and persuasion.

Rules of spelling themselves should be freed from the coercive grasp of the government (by putting an end to public schools, for example), though governments should be free to establish linguistic policies pertaining to their OWN official documents, which may serve as vehicles of suggestion for linguistic change, but not forcible standards.

[MineralMan]

"? If you did, you would be aware that the Greeks had an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ALFABET which did not employ cumbersome dual combinations for single sounds."

Of course I know that. English, however, does not. Russian, another language with which I am familiar, also has an extended alphabet.

In English, we use two different spellings to indicate the language origin of words which contain the 'f' sound. When PH is used, one can rationally assume that the origin of the word is one of the classic languages. Using F generally indications that the origin is not from those languages.

You, sir, are not a linguist, nor an orthographer. You are covering ground which has been covered many times, and by folks with a stronger linguistic background.

While linguistics does treat of the political effects of language, you seem not to understand that at all. Instead, you make a specious argument based on the words of Ayn Rand.

Objectivism has nothing to do with orthography, and your sophomoric attempts to link the two are laughable.

I suggest you go back to composing derivative minuets.

[r9etb]

I see nothing wrong with studying the past; I do, however take issue with mimicking it at the cost of the autonomy of one's own thought.

All properly spelled, I see. I guess that means you surrendered the autonomy of your own thought to do it, right?

My suggestion to you: find a different hobby horse.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. MineralMan: Cow or Ox becomes beef. We refer to our livestock using words of anglo-saxon origin, then refer to dining on that livestock using words of french origin. How instructive that is to us, relating back almost 1000 years to let us know that our anglo-saxon forbears raised the animals as farmers, while the rich feasted on the meat, preferring the french words.

Mr. Stolyarov: I see once again unconditional reverence paid to "our Anglo-Saxon forebears," which, except for matters of ideology (which is individually processed) should have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to an individual's life or decisions.

My favorite poem, "The Westerner," by Badger Clark, illustrates the proper approach toward the past.

My fathers sleep on the Eastern plain,
And each one sleeps alone.
But I lean on no dead kin.
My name is mine, for fame or scorn,
And the world was made when I was born,
And the world is mine to win.