Re: Classical languages: was: Re: Gothic language

On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Ed Heil wrote:

> Not to mention the fact that except for a very close phonetic
> transcription, *all* written language departs from speech patterns.
> Ask any professional writer who's taken the trouble to compare written
> dialogue to transcriptions of tape-recorded dialogue -- when we are
> producing spontaneous, conversational speech, we do not produce the
> distinct, connected, clear sentences that we do in writing, even in
> very conversational-sounding writing.
>
> Therefore, in a sense, all written language is a "conlang" because it
> is artificially different from natural speech -- which clearly is an
> unacceptable stretching of the term.
>
>
> Ed Heil                                    edheil@postmark.net
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Ed!  I suspected better than such Derrida-flavored crap from you!  Written
language is no more artificial than spoken -- the fact that the two are
different does not imply that one is therefore superior (more real) than
the other.  After all, language screamed into a nor'easter is different
than language whispered in your ear -- I might repeat msyelf more, I might
annunciate more clearly -- but that doesn't make the scream a conlang, or
the whisper "natural."

In fact, now that I think of it, a whisper *is* different than regular
spoken english.  For example, we use creaky-voice instead of full voicing
in a whisper.  Does that make whispering a conlang?  Hardly!  I suspect
something as useful as a whisper evolved at the same time as regular
spoken language: does this mean that a whisper is more natural than
regular talking.

You know what?  I'm supposed to be writing a paper on Age of Innocence.
Fie on you, Ed, for tearing me away from my work!  Fie!  Fie!

--Patrick