Re: OT: In the 'ignorance on parade' file

John Cowan wrote:

> Thomas R. Wier scripsit:
> > My friend sent me this, with the warning that it may cause
> > righteous indignation.  You are so warned.
> >
> > <http://www.vocabula.com/VRJULY01Halpern.htm>
>
> Critics (and I suspect most of us will be critics) should also
> read Halpern's General Reply at
> http://members.boardhost.com/Vocabula/msg/153.html and the messages
> below it.  Ken Miner (a fine fellow, and inventor (?) of Moundsbar,
> world's most unpronounceable conlang) makes an excellent distinction
> which I have not seen elsewhere, between "inorganic" (conscious,
> cultural) language change, the kind Halpern is talking about,
> and "organic" (unconscious, natural) change, which he is not
> talking about.
Mr. Miner's comments are indeed well thought out, but I must
differ with him on at least this one point:

"Something would still be a human language if it did not change,
as long as it had all the other familiar features of a human language."

I think this is precisely what would not be a *human* language, since
humans, like all creatures, live and operate under constantly fluctuating
external conditions.  Language is a tool that humans have developed which
allows them to accomodate themselves to those fluctuating circumstances.
If you take out one of the critical characteristics of humans -- and indeed,
of life -- the ability to react to external changes, then I believe that you
have fundamentally changed the nature of one tool they use to do this.
This is not to say that languages like mathematics or predicate calculus
must change; but then, they are not human languages, are they?

> Halpern's other problem is that he doesn't distinguish formal
> written Standard English from English-as-a-whole.
Indeed.  As I said in response to my friend:

"The biggest problem with that article, though, is not the nitpicky details;
it's the idea that linguists as a group reject the role of standards in languages,
and Standard languages themselves.  This is patently ridiculous.  Every linguist
that I've known, and that I know of, subscribes to the belief that standards in
language have a valid and important role in our lives, especially in written texts
and in cultures (like China and India) where common methods of communication
are a prerequisite to move the great mass of the population out of destitution.
But linguists believe the distinction between standard and nonstandard should be
just that: a distinction. Linguists feel that there are boundaries to where it is
appropriate/useful/beneficial to try to enforce that standard. Because such
standards are by nature arbitrary, it's not very helpful to discover naturally
occuring linguistic variation if some classes of the population are repressed by
elites into discouraging their children from using nonstandard forms of
communication at all times, not just in official contexts.   Such attempts to
repress the language habits of people are more often the result of people
seeking to impose their will on others, to extend their own personal power,
rather than benignly looking out for the best of others."

===================================
Thomas Wier | AIM: trwier

"Aspidi men Saiôn tis agalletai, hên para thamnôi
  entos amômêton kallipon ouk ethelôn;
autos d' exephugon thanatou telos: aspis ekeinê
  erretô; exautês ktêsomai ou kakiô" - Arkhilokhos

Reply