Language

[Drem]

Came across this speculation in a novel by George Steiner called "After Babel" (1.2, 20)

'So far as films, humour, journalistic style, and fiction allow one to judge, American English is, at the moment, in a state of acquisitive brilliance but also of instability whereas "English English" may be losing resilience. Words and values shift at bewildering speed.'

It's an interesting theory. Amerenglish is indeed very acquisitive of grammatical and lexical innovation as new words are constantly assimilated into the language and aged units are discarded. It's necessary to do so and it always has been so as people mutate words already existing into newer variants to better express base emotions. Language is, after all, a series of reactions.

I wish, however, that Amerenglish were more like 'English English.' I feel the latter is infinitely more expressive. I prefer to preserve the archaic. What about the rest of you? Amerenglish or 'English English'?

Discuss.

[The Kizzy]

I think people will always be fascinated with different dialects. English English is interesting, but it doesn't make sense. I wonder if English English differs where you go in England. Do they have Ebonics there too?

[Drem]

Of course.

[Mop]

I think there is a mix of both though needed to make it through life, you need a standard so you can talk to everyone. I mean if I left this area and called people donkies, I would get stared at like I have a third eye, though around here it can be quite common. When I was in london I had to curb my use of slang because people couldn't understand me.

I personaly think eveolution of language is a remarkable thing, and I do sometimes feel lucky that I liv ein a a time when communication is so fast that they evolution of it is so fast.

[Drem]

Some say the rapidity of evolution linguistically is far swifter than any other human institution. Which in itself is odd to say because how can you label language as seperate from the other human institutions when they are so informed by it?

[Deaus]

English English differs by where in England you are. Ameri-english differs by where in America you are. Heck, folks from Atlanta and people from Boston definitely encounter language barriers at times.

[Drem]

Yes, but he's not talking about differences in location or ebonics. He specifically asserts that in "films, humour, journalistic style, and fiction," Amerenglish is developing a great deal more.

[Mop]

Are you saying you would not consider language to be it's ow institution? I think the fact taht everyone uses it and everyone is informed by it makes it even more so.

[Drem]

Actually I worded that wrong. Linguistics change far faster than biological changes. It is slower than the changes in other human institutions, though.

As for the seperation, I'm not saying either way. I'm just saying, is it really possible to seperate it from all the institutions it informs? It's just weird to me, to label something like that whose change itself is identified by linguistic description.

It's such an interesting subject. Lexico-statistics. There are no universal rules that apply to anything about how languages change. It's strange to me what phrases or words get eroded and what stays in place. An example: the Indo-European paradigm of singular, dual, plural, used as far back as the beginning of recorded Indo-European history, stills exists as "better of two but best of three or more"

[labbats]

I took an entire semester class on this subject. I believe it revolved around pigeons and creole languages. I got bored quickly, but on a good note, I made out with one of the girls in back during a film. Go Hawkeyes!