Please excuse my native land

[Northern Neil]

Actually, I think the English language is the lucky one.

 

Other languages (eg, French and Spanish) are simply under the omniscient rule of tyrannical Academies...

Not as lucky as one might think. The French and Spanish are reacting against the recent introduction of foreign words into their language. The kind of people who are hoping to strip latin from everyday usage in English are trying to deprive us of something which has been present in English at least from the time of Dr. Johnson, probably earlier. And those individuals are, at the same time, quite happy to see 'street' talk which is an amalgamation of recent immigrant words and traditional English slang, given official recognition in our language. Coming as I do from a traditional working class background, I feel sickened that once again this relatively small band of middle class liberal do-gooders is meddling in something it shouldn't for the sake of us uneducated morons (as they obviously see us), who are obviously too thick to understand anything except football, popular culture and words of more than one syllable.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, NN

Actually, I think the English language is the lucky one.

 

Other languages (eg, French and Spanish) are simply under the omniscient rule of tyrannical Academies...

Not as lucky as one might think. The French and Spanish are reacting against the recent introduction of foreign words into their language. The kind of people who are hoping to strip latin from everyday usage in English are trying to deprive us of something which has been present in English at least from the time of Dr. Johnson, probably earlier. And those individuals are, at the same time, quite happy to see 'street' talk which is an amalgamation of recent immigrant words and traditional English slang, given official recognition in our language. Coming as I do from a traditional working class background, I feel sickened that once again this relatively small band of middle class liberal do-gooders is meddling in something it shouldn't for the sake of us uneducated morons (as they obviously see us), who are obviously too thick to understand anything except football, popular culture and words of more than one syllable.

IMHO, languages' evolution is the perfect democracy. They evolve spontaneously, on their own; period. The Academies' tyranny is just an ilusion, a mirage. If any population is introducing foreign and/or slang words, it's juts because such words are being used and are required. The introduction of such words can be reliably prevented just in dead languages; by its own nature, the use of any language is beyond any kind of control.

[Northern Neil]

by its own nature, the use of any language is beyond any kind of control.

I completely agree with you. Nonetheless, attempts to influence language in this way are still infuriating!

[M. Porcius Cato]

IMHO, languages' evolution is the perfect democracy. They evolve spontaneously, on their own; period.

 

I agree completely. Changes in language, like changes in biology and the marketplace of ideas, are wonderful examples of spontaneous change through variation, adaptation, and selection.

[docoflove1974]

IMHO, languages' evolution is the perfect democracy. They evolve spontaneously, on their own; period.

 

I agree completely. Changes in language, like changes in biology and the marketplace of ideas, are wonderful examples of spontaneous change through variation, adaptation, and selection.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself! Acceptance of multiple linguistic varieties is the norm, despite what some governing bodies would lead you to believe.

[Kosmo]

the use of any language is beyond any kind of control.

 

Not really, the Academy sets regulations that are enforced by countless institutions starting with mass media that is highly influential, schools, bureaucracy etc

[Northern Neil]

I agree completely. Changes in language, like changes in biology and the marketplace of ideas, are wonderful examples of spontaneous change through variation, adaptation, and selection.

Of course - but what we are discussing (and in my case getting overheated about!) is the artificial interference with that process, and a small minority imposing their values on the majority, misusing their position and influence to do so.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, K

the use of any language is beyond any kind of control.

 

Not really, the Academy sets regulations that are enforced by countless institutions starting with mass media that is highly influential, schools, bureaucracy etc

The evolution of any language is a quite complex issue that does not depend on such institutions, no matter how influential they may be.

 

In general terms, Academies pretend to "preserve" their respective languages, mainly for nationalistic reasons. They just can't succeed; live languages are permanently and unavoidably changing (in fact, that's the main scientific basis of glottochronology).

 

Languages cannot be designed; that's the reason why Esperanto, Interlingua and many similar artificial constructs have completely failed.

[Ingsoc]

the use of any language is beyond any kind of control.

 

Not really, the Academy sets regulations that are enforced by countless institutions starting with mass media that is highly influential, schools, bureaucracy etc

 

I don't see how an language academy could enforce her decisions on the mass media (at least in free societies). In Israel we also have an academy ("Academy of the Hebrew Language") and it's more complex than the way that you describe, some time it's translation of foreign words are accepted by the mass public, sometime their not and the foreign words are the one which are in wide use and sometime the mass media translate a word in a diffrent way than the academy and eventually the academy "accept" it as a valid word.

[docoflove1974]

Not really, the Academy sets regulations that are enforced by countless institutions starting with mass media that is highly influential, schools, bureaucracy etc

 

I don't see how an language academy could enforce her decisions on the mass media (at least in free societies). In Israel we also have an academy ("Academy of the Hebrew Language") and it's more complex than the way that you describe, some time it's translation of foreign words are accepted by the mass public, sometime their not and the foreign words are the one which are in wide use and sometime the mass media translate a word in a diffrent way than the academy and eventually the academy "accept" it as a valid word.

 

In the case of the Real Academia Espa

[ASCLEPIADES]

As it may be obvious by know, I just don't trust linguistic prescriptive bodies.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[sonic]

HI all.

 

Just to stick a spoke in the works!!

 

I think that maybe people are getting a little bit overheated about something that's not really been reported well?? I remember last year that there was a news story that Christmas had been banned in a school in Britain. Actually, what had been stopped was the passing of Christmas cards. The headmaster took this decision because a minority of children had very few friends and were becoming upset about the fact that everybody else was getting cards but not them. Further, I think there may have been bullying about the matter, with kids 'taking the mick' out of those with no cards ('look at the loser with no cards and no friends' sort of thing). In this context the ban was a sensible one in an attempt to alleviate the situation. However, obviously the English press jumped in with 'Political Correctness Bans Christmas' and saw it as a soft approach in order to avoid offending Muslims etc. with the Christian festival of Christmas.

 

I think that some of the same biases are prevalent here. Until relatively recently I was a teacher in a school with a large proportion of 'non-English' students. These students had to learn English as a second language, which is difficult enough, but the vast majority did very well and could easily hold their own.

 

However, what I think the original 'ban on using Latin' was aimed at was not an attempt to 'dumb down' the language but a realisation that many non-English inhabitants - and many native English speakers - are not fully aware of the use of specific words or abbreviations taken from Latin. Many individuals - especially in regional government - like to show their intellectual abilities by using Latin phrases that are not known to the general public. Therefore, I think this order is a realistic one. No matter how much we deplore it, the aim of education is no longer geared towards an understanding of the origin of words or in attempts to broaden students' vocabularies by teaching them Latin phrases.

 

We must remeber at all times that we are lucky: we DO understand these phrases (for the most part!), but that should not blind us to the fact that the majority of the population will look at a book on Rome, see the phrase 'Op. cit.' in the footnotes and not understand what it meant. In that context, the order is a logical and understandable one.

 

For myself, I would look at the motive of the legislation rather than the 'tabloid' reaction.

 

PS. Sorry to waffle, but I'm not having a good morning!!

Edited November 7, 2008 by sonic

[Maty]

HI all.

 

Just to stick a spoke in the works!!

 

I think that maybe people are getting a little bit overheated about something that's not really been reported well?? I remember last year that there was a news story that Christmas had been banned in a school in Britain. Actually, what had been stopped was the passing of Christmas cards. The headmaster took this decision because a minority of children had very few friends and were becoming upset about the fact that everybody else was getting cards but not them. Further, I think there may have been bullying about the matter, with kids 'taking the mick' out of those with no cards ('look at the loser with no cards and no friends' sort of thing). In this context the ban was a sensible one in an attempt to alleviate the situation. However, obviously the English press jumped in with 'Political Correctness Bans Christmas' and saw it as a soft approach in order to avoid offending Muslims etc. with the Christian festival of Christmas.

 

I think that some of the same biases are prevalent here. Until relatively recently I was a teacher in a school with a large proportion of 'non-English' students. These students had to learn English as a second language, which is difficult enough, but the vast majority did very well and could easily hold their own.

 

However, what I think the original 'ban on using Latin' was aimed at was not an attempt to 'dumb down' the language but a realisation that many non-English inhabitants - and many native English speakers - are not fully aware of the use of specific words or abbreviations taken from Latin. Many individuals - especially in regional government - like to show their intellectual abilities by using Latin phrases that are not known to the general public. Therefore, I think this order is a realistic one. No matter how much we deplore it, the aim of education is no longer geared towards an understanding of the origin of words or in attempts to broaden students' vocabularies by teaching them Latin phrases.

 

We must remeber at all times that we are lucky: we DO understand these phrases (for the most part!), but that should not blind us to the fact that the majority of the population will look at a book on Rome, see the phrase 'Op. cit.' in the footnotes and not understand what it meant. In that context, the order is a logical and understandable one.

 

For myself, I would look at the motive of the legislation rather than the 'tabloid' reaction.

 

Hi Sonic -

 

I'd agree and disagree with you here. Firstly, I'd agree that what we really need to do is look at the actual document - original sources are always best! However, this ban - as described - goes well beyond 'obscure Latin phrases' to include things like, e.g., well, e,g. I fully understand that both some of our new citizens may not understand some of the language used, but this is an argument for raising their language skills, rather than lowering the language requirements of others. Otherwise to use (excuse me) a reductio ad absurdem, we might end with a ban on polysyllabic words on the basis that many people don't understand polysyllabic. (Didn't we recently have a paediatrician attacked because some of the linguistically challenged of our proud nation failed to understand that this meant 'child doctor'? Do we change the name or educate the people?)

 

I speak from the perspective of one who has spent the past two years in Austria trying to make my academic German comprehensible to the good people of the Tirol. I would certainly not insult them by expecting that they should change the standard of their language to suit the convenience of newcomers such as myself.

[The Augusta]

We must remember at all times that we are lucky: we DO understand these phrases (for the most part!), but that should not blind us to the fact that the majority of the population will look at a book on Rome, see the phrase 'Op. cit.' in the footnotes and not understand what it meant. In that context, the order is a logical and understandable one.

 

Following on from Maty's excellent post above, Sonic, I would agree with you here, but I think you have chosen an extreme example. If one were reading a book in which footnotes cited 'op. cit.' we might reasonably expect that book to have an academic flavour, as 'op.cit' is a scholarly abbreviation and convention in footnotes. What Maty points out, however, is the banning of such widely-used and easily understood phrases as 'status quo' or 'ad hoc'.

 

No, we cannot all have the benefit of a university education, but surely we should be aiming to enhance the layman's knowledge? I cannot see how this ruling would be in any way helpful.

[sonic]

We must remember at all times that we are lucky: we DO understand these phrases (for the most part!), but that should not blind us to the fact that the majority of the population will look at a book on Rome, see the phrase 'Op. cit.' in the footnotes and not understand what it meant. In that context, the order is a logical and understandable one.

 

Following on from Maty's excellent post above, Sonic, I would agree with you here, but I think you have chosen an extreme example. If one were reading a book in which footnotes cited 'op. cit.' we might reasonably expect that book to have an academic flavour, as 'op.cit' is a scholarly abbreviation and convention in footnotes. What Maty points out, however, is the banning of such widely-used and easily understood phrases as 'status quo' or 'ad hoc'.

 

No, we cannot all have the benefit of a university education, but surely we should be aiming to enhance the layman's knowledge? I cannot see how this ruling would be in any way helpful.

 

Yes, I chose an 'extreme example', but in a forum full of knowledgeable people that was what was needed to make my point in a forceful way. By the way, the vast majority of the population know 'Status Quo' as a rock group that only know three chords and have no idea what 'ad hoc' means. I know this to be true, because where I was brought up I knew and was considered 'odd' for knowing!

 

I agree that we should be aiming to enhance the layman's knowledge, but in the case quoted the individuals using the abbreviations are not doing this: they are using these phrases to 'look good'. A layman's knowledge will only be enhanced if the layman wants it to be expanded, otherwise he/she will simply ignore it - especially when it is forced on them and only leads to them becoming confused.

 

We need to remember that to many (if not the majority!) of laymen the Roman Empire is a thing of the past and Latin is a Dead Language. Although many of them know the meaning of 'etc.', or 'e.g.' they are not interested in its derivation or its full spelling. The average youth in Britain - never mind any immigrants - will not use any of these phrases in their daily language and will never use them when writing.

 

And before anyone starts on claims of a 'decline in educational standards', I would suggest that they look at the past objectively. However far back you go in time, the teaching of Greek and Latin has only ever been to a minority (Public Schools (in Britain this means parents have to pay!), Grammar Schools and the like). The vast majority of children have always been excluded from this level of education.

 

As a result, when they are forced to read them in leaflets and forms produced by government bodies it leads to confusion and uncertainty. Therefore, the orders to remove the phrases from such leaflets and booklets should be seen as a proactive attempt to make them literally available to everybody.

 

However much we deplore the situation, we need to accept that - at present - the government-set level (not the standard!) of education means that the use of such phrases remains common to the few and is seen as pretentious and pointless by the majority. Whether this will ever change is doubtful: contrary to the view on this forum, the use of these abbreviations and phrases has never been common amongst the majority of the population.