(no subject)

[avevale_intelligencer]

Is there anywhere in the previous post where I can be shown to have said that I want other people not to be able to speak good English so that I can feel superior to them? Is there anywhere in the previous post where I have failed to make it clear that I would like everyone to be able to speak good English so that nobody can feel superior to anyone?

Thought not.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

? I didn't think so either.

More to the point, I didn't see any indication that anyone else thought so. What did I miss?

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Ditto. Or as they used to say on some newsgroups, 'cite'.

[hurdle1gal.livejournal.com]

I first read this post, which got me curious about the original post, and then finally read the original post.

I didn't see anything explicit that implied any kind of superiority. I can see how can be thought of as inferior if they do not speak well which can be connected to inadequate education. But you did not discuss that. I'm guessing someone mentioned this in a PM?

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

He's referring to my blog post on my own personal blog which he took personally.

I received an excellent education. Your assertion that a variance in English necessitates an "inadequate education" suggests there is only one form of English. There are many, equally valid.

[hurdle1gal.livejournal.com]

I don't think I ever questioned your education level. Your reply sounds quite defensive to me, whereas my original post, I tried to express an observation as to how I can understand people can get a superiority complex over language, particularly as how the variations in language within a country are closely tied into economic class levels. It does not mean I agree with such assertion, but that I recognize that it does exist, since it is stereotyped so much in the (American) media.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

I'm not defensive in the least. I just speak very directly. Any superiority complex is a false belief based on ignorance. The English that went to North America, Australia, New Zealand and beyond was an earlier form of English. The English that crept into the more remote parts of those countries/subcontinents is a more pristine form of English than the one spoken in Great Britain where it has been impacted by numerous other European languages. It's an earlier form, does that make it better? Why is it you consider the English spoken in Great Britain to be the superior form? It has been far more tainted by other languages than has, for instance, Appalachian North American English.

Not that you need to answer any of that. I've no desire to be strung up by Zander's friendlist, so this will be my next to last post here on the subject, but I ask those questions for the sake of clarity.

[hurdle1gal.livejournal.com]

You misunderstood my example. I was only discussing within a single country, not country to country. I may find Brit-English harder to understand as it is not my own, but it is on the same level as my American-English. But within America, the upper class may view the lower class' American-English inferior to the upper class' American-English.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

Zander, how much more plainly can I state that my blog post STARTED as a response to you, but then evolved and took on a life of its own? Had it been solely about your comments, I would have only posted it to you.

That said, with your assertion that only you (and those who agree with you) know HOW to speak "good English" (whatever "good" is) you ARE proposing that you ARE superior to other people who interpret the language differently. You just want everyone to be like you and then everything will be fine. The problem is we all lose our own language. That was the point I was making in my original post. You have it here now.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

And equally, this post is not all about you. It is a frequent response to advocates of prescriptivism in language that they are doing it out of snobbishness or elitism, and I was genuinely concerned that despite my care some such implication had slipped through. Had it been solely about your comments, I would have included it in my comment in your blog.

That said, I am (as I said in the post) not claiming that I know how to speak good English. As a matter of fact, I'm quite sloppy, and I could stand to be held to a higher standard. Thus it will be seen that I do not want everyone to be "like me." Except in the sense that, when I am on the road, I would like every single other motorist on that road, as well as myself, to observe the rules thereof and common sense when it comes to driving safely. If that means they lose their own way of driving on the right and reaching for a toffee on the back seat while cornering at seventy, well, then that's just a shame. And I would want this even if they are nowhere near me and there is no chance of my being hurt by them. Call that elitism if you wish.

There are those who would say that linguistic inaccuracy never hurt anybody. I don't agree.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

You're comparing two entirely different things. Freedom of language for people is a positive thing with a low impact on the surrounding culture. The center will always be filled with an oligarch or two (not calling you an oligarch, just giving the example of a centrist dominant mindset) trying to tell everyone what to do and say. What is the least harmful thing? Bullying the masses into one standard or having a non-standardized, liberal system? I'm afraid I'm with the liberals in all arguments.

Having a liberal car regulation system, on the other hand, is obviously more harmful than having a restrictive one. Sticks and stones (and cars) may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Freedom of language ends in Babel.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Nice soundbite! How about some more? "Freedom of thought ends in anarchy." "Freedom of speech ends in libel." "Freedom of action ends in violence." Can't have any of those freedoms, the possible effect is too terrible.

So let's see about those laws thou wishest put on language, like the ones about driving. Who is going to make them? Not thou, unless thou art going to set thyself up as dictator. They will probably be reduced to the lowest common denominator of which everyone in power can agree. "Basic English", perhaps? Certainly it will be "politically correct", with things like mention of gender or colour or religion being banned. The next step will be to convert all books into that form -- can't have other non-standard versions of English floating round, after all, so they'll have to 'translate' Shakespere and Milton and cummings and McGonnagle and Thomas and the rest into the approved form.

Oh, and while they are about it they'll regularise spelling. I'm sure you've seen a number ov atemts to do sumtin liek that, musnt hav peepl spelin wurdz difrentli in difrent plases, must be al saem so evriwun can say them the saem. A country where the language is enshrined in law can do that, the way Russian got rid of several 'unnecessary' letters after the revolution (but Germany, being a free country, hasn't managed to force its reforms to be universally accepted).

I'm rather curious of what punishments thou'rt in favour for speaking or writing 'incorrect' English, as well. If it's like driving a car, perhaps I'll be banned from speaking or writing for a year or so. How about a licence to write? That won't be censorship, it's just keeping the language pure. For someone's (probably not thine nor mine) idea of 'pure'.

No thanks. I'll take the anarchy which is English, and which it has been for centuries in spite of attempts to impose order on it, and which anarchy makes it a vibrant language capable of expressing all sorts of nuances (there's a French imported word for thine amusement) and adaptable enough to last well into the future. And I will speak whatever form of the language seems good to me at the time, including wot I was brung up wiv being proper, innit?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Nice oranges. What do they have to do with my apple? It is an inescapable truth that if everyone invents their own form of English and changes it every day according to their own whim, which is what freedom means, then ultimately nobody will be able to understand anybody else. Freedom of language is an illusion, like many other freedoms, and anarchy of language is so far from freedom as to be the ultimate slavery.

It's really depressing when you don't address anything I've said, but extrapolate what you think I would say next and then respond to that. Just go back to the original post and read it again, would you? Nothing about punishments, nothing about political correctness, nothing about regularising spelling and nothing about translating books. All that is your invention, not mine, and thus has no value as a refutation of what I said.

Which was that I think language is a tool, which it is, and that it's good to keep a tool in good condition, which it is, and that currently no efforts are being made to keep our language in good condition, which is also true, and that I think this should be addressed, which I do.

And now I'm going to have to waste another post on this, in a forlorn attempt to prevent further misinterpretations. Probably tomorrow. See you then.

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

It is an inescapable truth that if everyone invents invented their own form of English and changes changed it every day according to their own whim, which is what freedom means, then ultimately nobody will would be able to understand anybody else.

Changed to the hypothetical because, as originally worded, it is so far from anything that is happening that it is as close to imaginary as makes no difference. That sentence as written is a far-fetched exaggeration of the changes you complained of earlier, even if they were seen as decay. I'm afraid that just amounts to blowing on the fire and creating much more heat than light.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

it is indeed entirely imaginary. It's the hypothetical definition of "freedom of language," as advocated by earlier commenters. Anything less would be "abridged freedom of language"; in other words, submission to some form of authority. Either the authority of the makers of dictionaries, if they choose to exercise it, or the authority of the entire English-speaking world (which, while I trust it implicitly in many fields, I would not trust to look after my lawnmower or my language), or, more worryingly, the authority of someone else with an agenda. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. All that is required for entropy to win is for nobody to oppose it.

[us-capone.livejournal.com]

are you study russian?)))))

[howeird]

"Nothing can be said so right that it cannot be twisted" - Baruch Spinoza, circa 1660