NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/9952

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 6.1 KB | 124 lines

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!convex!constellation!midway.ecn.uoknor.edu!mmmirash
From: [e-mail] (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet Administrator)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:37:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Lines: 111

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>[much deleted]
>
>So go back a thousand years to a time when Latin wasn't a dead language.
>What is your "standard," the typical speech of a barbarian bopping around
>in Italy or that of the court in Byzantium?  (that's not in Italy BTW).
>Or maybe something else?  The Latin of Livy?  Tacitus?  The Pope?  Why?
>What do you mean by "govern?"  Is there a little committee that goes around
>telling people they can't use words they find useful?
>

Hmm.....not exactly. But we need a standard to resolve interdialect
conflicts.

>>
>>        To stir up a little dust, I proclaimed a while ago that the
>> language the Americans use, isn't English and shouldn't be termed so.
>> Immediately, indignant Americans pointed out that I was mistaken and
>> how the language they speak is indeed English. Well then, why are
>> they vain enough to deny the superiority of English English and its
>> existence as a standard? I certainly bow down to this standard. The
>> reason of their defial goes back to the war between Britain and America.
>> In their effort to break away from the British, the Yanks have waged war upon
>> the language. And, they refuse to accept the superiority of English
>> English, because they are afraid that if they were to do so, it
>> would somehow be linked to an acceptance of the British as their
>> overlords. Can these blind persons not see that acknowledgement of
>> English English as a standard is NOT linked!
>
>You must be confused.  So the Yanks just started talking funny because
>they wanted to piss off the mother country, huh?  Mandar, American and
>British English were beginning to diverge much earlier than that.  Some
>words that remained in use here became obsolete in Britain.  Some words
>were introduced here for things that didn't need words to refer to them
>in Britain, like words for topographical features.  Some words became obsolete
>here but remained in use in Britain.  Sometimes new words for new concepts
>were invented in both places at about the same time.  And a lot of slang
>terms, many of which have since fallen out of use even here.  Your idea
>that we were intentionally waging war on the language is just silly.
>

Have you heard of Noah Webster?

>And you keep claiming that English English (whatever that is) is "superior."
>What is so superior about it?  I'm not saying it isn't superior for the people
>who speak it, but what could make it superior for US?

Because it is spoken in England - the mother country of English.

>Isn't the language and
>dialect best understood by the person you are communicating with superior?
>
Superior at the moment..yes. But not superior when comparing dialects.

>Do you deny that each dialect has contributed to the other?  If you don't,
>then how would the language be better if this did not happen? (assuming you
>find a way to implement whatever you meant by "govern" above)
>
>Did you know that Swift once proposed an academy, like those of France and
>Italy, to purge the English language of "corruption?"  However, the eminent
>Dr. Samuel Johnson frowned on the idea as inimical to the "spirit of English
>liberty."  This effectively killed it.  That was over two hundred years ago,
>Mandar.  So I think you are a bit late...
>

I am not against changes or local dialects. All I am asking for is your
recognition of English English as the global standard for English.

>>>
>>>>[more deleted]
>>>
>> I am NOT immune to rational argument. But shouldn't this argument be
>> effective enough to convince me? So far, all I have seen are feeble
>> attempts to disprove me. In cases where I have misunderstood the
>> person or seen the flaws in my argument, I have willingly admitted
>> it. However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
>> that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
>> reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
>> English spread from England to other lands.
>
>Sure it did.  But there is nothing superior about it other than your baldfaced
>assertion that it is superior.  Sorry, but that's just not good enough.
>

Why not?

>Hey, I prefer the word "lift" to "elevator."  But if I am trying to catch
>one, and yell "Hold the elevator!" the people inside are much more likely
>to know what I'm talking about (assuming I'm on this side of the pond).
>So I use "elevator."  What's so difficult to understand about that?
>
>Oops.  Now that I think about it, I'd probably just say "Hold the door!"
>But can't you see the point I'm trying to make?
>


Well, even *I* try to speak like the locals when I am in a particular
place. But if I get into an argument with a local about the spelling
of a certain word, for instance. Then to resolve this inter-dialect
conflict, English English should be used.


                                                          Mandar.
--
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.