Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Robert J. Petry wrote:

> > (2)  Thus, I was referring to just such a language as you described. =
 You
> > described several things:
>
> Similar, yes, but not quite as potentially extensive right out of the b=
ox, although, as everyone
> knows, English at present is a very active language.
What do you mean by "right out of the box"?

> > you wrote:
> > > Certainly if a certain language could communicate across, let's say=
, a half dozen or
> > > more language barriers with virtually no previous study by the part=
icipants, versus
> > > a language that required lots of study and could only cross one lan=
guage barrier
> > > at a time and only to someone who had studied that AIL in particula=
r, then do we
> > > not have here a criteria for "better"?
> >
> > (a) considering the extent to which English lexical items are being b=
orrowed
> > wholesale by a great many languages in the world today, much of the n=
ewly
> > developed international culture has more or less similar vocabulary, =
based to
> > a large extent on English.  Thus, when a Japanese person and a German
> > want to talk about popculture, they will find that whether they use e=
ither language,
> > many of terms they use will be the same, or similar, and so we alread=
y have a
> > language which spans across multiple linguistic barriers.
>
> Again, although I agree with your statement about borrowings, I am talk=
ing about being able to do
> this without the "borrowings" so to speak. It's interesting, as an adju=
nct, to listen to Hispanic
> speakers here in the southwest. They have a great mixture of English wi=
thin their speech, and it
> is interesting to listen to. Especially when hearing them discuss "bais=
ball", "strike one",
> "first base" etc. And, even ".....good luck., see you later." And, much=
 much more, all intermixed
> within the "Spanish" language.
This is a well-known phenomenon, code-switching, and occurs in practicall=
yany community where two
languages exist side by side spoken natively.
And Code-switching is a language unto itself:  it's not like any Spanish =
speaker,
with knowledge of English, can just jump into a sentence and code-switch =
at
will, nor could an English speaker do this, mutatis mutandis.   Code-swit=
ching
has nothing to do with having an international language, or even a nearly=
 dead
one. It has to do with native speaker communities being near each other.

But I don't think this has much to do with what you were describing.
What you were postulating was a language which, in itself, could be used
more or less without effort, without having to be learned intensively (no=
r
nearly any at all, from what you said).  For example, in the Spanish-Engl=
ish
codeswitching of the Valley (the Rio Grande river valley near the border
between Texas and Mexico), one has to use a more or less precise manner
of syntax, and/or lexical borrowing from English:

(this information comes from the UT linguistics department)

English:        She or he charged an electric heater with his/her credit =
card.
Texmex :     Charch=F3 una hira electrica con su carta de credito
    [where "charch=F3" is transparently from Eng.  "to charge"]
Standard :    Compr=F3 un calentador electrico con su tarjeta de credito.
SpanishAnd radically:

English:              We're going to the store to buy some trendy things =
for my big brother
Codeswitching:  Vamos a la store to buy unas cosas trendy pa(ra) mi big b=
rother.
Stan. Span:        Vamos a la tienda para comprar unas cosas a la moda pa=
ra mi
                          hermano grande.

Note that it's not *"brother big" nor is it *"cosas trendys". Anyways, th=
at is
codeswitching, and *not* borrowing.  The first sentence above represents
borrowing, wheras the second is an intricate mixture of the two languages.

Anyways, codeswitching is not some sort of universally recognizeable lang=
uage
or anything, nothing like what you've described.

How could you have a language which is transnational without having
borrowings of phrases or locutions, that is, without the language itself =
being
used interenationally?  I'm not sure I understand your claim here.

> > (Interestingly, as a side note, I read recently that the modern influ=
x of English
> > words and phrases into Japanese, in a little more than a hundred year=
s of being
> > open to the West, has already begun to rival the influx of Chinese du=
ring a
> > period of several hundred years longer during the first millennium.)
>
> Agreed, but this is not exactly the same as a "complete" language at on=
ce being recognized by
> multiple millions who have never studied the language nor deliberately =
"borrowed" from it.
> However, some of these concepts tend to blurr at the edges depending on=
 how one wants to present
> orr case.
Well, so far, I don't understand your  case :)

Please, tell me what you mean by a "complete" language, where borrowings
are not an element of it, *and* where a language (like English) is not in=
 play.
Your comment above would seem to necessitate native fluency in a language=
:
if you haven't studied a language (in some manner, at least, like even li=
stening to
it passively), and yet still know it immediately upon being able to hear =
it, then
you simply *won't*know*the*language. :)

> you wrote:
> > > One, let's say, that could right now reach upwards of a billion peo=
ple with
> > > written and spoken messages, would be better in that category over =
one that
> > > could reach maybe 10-50,000 people who are students only of that AI=
L.
> >
> > (b) current estimates for the number of speakers of English (of whate=
ver
> > variety) range normally somewhere between 500 million and 1 billion
> > people (though some go even higher).  These speakers are on average
> > literate (though varying in ability).
>
> In that case, I am talking about a language that will reach upwards of =
two billion folks,
> certainly way beyond English alone.
Wait, how can you do that?  I mean, just a couple posts ago you set the n=
umberto be one billion, and
now that such a language exists (i.e., English), you now
up the request?  On what basis do you do this?  And, anyways, what langua=
ge
is this that you posit could do this, Occidental?  I mean no disrespect, =
but you
must back up a claim if you wish to be seen as anything approaching scien=
tific.

> I like what Burgess says in his book Language Made Plain about English =
as a world language. I've
> been quoting some of it on the occidental list today. Anyway, see what =
you think about his
> thought:
>
> "What tends to happen to English, however, when spoken in foreign terri=
tories, is that it is
> absorbed too thoroughly, ceases to be an outward-looking auxiliary and =
becomes a mere dialect of
> the mother tongue. This is certainly true of some of the communities of=
 India, especially where
> the mother-tongue does not belong to the Indo-European family: Tamils, =
who speak a Dravidian
> language, are adept at turning English into a Tamil dialect -- the phon=
emes, idioms, pace being
> so thoroughly Tamilised, that it is not possible for a non-Tamil Englis=
h-speaker to understand
> very well.
This has tended to happen in a very few areas of the world, that is, if y=
ou aretalking about
_English_ an sich;  but if you count Creoles, then sure! Of course
in that case there would be large changes of the language -- to such an e=
xtent
that most people would not consider this the English language. Anyways, n=
o
standard variety, whatever its form, ever is *that* far from English itse=
lf.

> We have to reconcile ourselves to hard linguistic facts. Languages will=
 always change, whatever
> we try to do about it, and out of local changes come local languages. E=
nglish is already changing
> into new languages in various parts of the world, mutually unintelligib=
le, unintelligible to the
> English-born. English -- full of unstable diphthongs and vowels, carryi=
ng a stress-system not
> always properly understood --
This is more of an exaggeration of the facts.  The vast majority of Engli=
sh speakers inthe world
(especially the native ones) speak something that is by and large entirel=
y
intelligible with every other variety.  What has been written here about =
the language
dialects of England cannot really count, as the forms that you find in th=
em have been there
literally spanning millennia.  Most of the strange forms for example, tha=
t you will find in
my guestbook from a Yorkshireman that signed it have been there for centu=
ries -- there
is nothing to suggest that those are the result of the rapid chaotic chan=
ge that is implied
by the paragraph.

> If, as a "befuddled dream" we can communicate with two billions with on=
e language, that only
> leaves four billion to go. Chinese should easily cover one billion, Tha=
t only leaves three
> billion to go. So, the languages that could be used to cover at least h=
alf the world to start
> would/or could be:
>
> English
> Occidental
> Chinese.
> Any suggestions for the other three billion?
English, by far, is the language which every semieducated person on the g=
lobeis scrambling to learn,
because it is the language which has the most politcal,
scientific, cultural, economic, and military prestige.  This is not to sa=
y that that's
a good thing (again, that would be a value judgment, which would be unsci=
entific),
but that it is a historical and objective fact.

Also, to cite "Chinese" as a language known by over a billion is misleadi=
ng
at best, because (a) there is no one language called Chinese, and (b) eve=
n
the largest subset of that which often gets called by that name, Mandarin=
,
comprises no more than, say, 700 or 800 million, almost all of which is
located within the borders of the People's Republic of China.  This is
nothing like English, which, in addition to having let's say an approxima=
tely
equal number of speakers, is spread all across the globe.  I don't want  =
to
sound like an Anglophile here, but the fact is that English is already do=
ing that
which you first set as an international language.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Schlie=DFt den heil'gen Zirkel dichter,
  Schw=F6rt bei diesem goldnen Wein,
Dem Gel=FCbde treu zu sein,
  Schw=F6rt es bei dem Sternenrichter!"
   - _Ode an die Freude_, J. F. von Schiller
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=0D