Sounds

April 20, 2007

In a message dated 4/20/2007 11:58:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, handwritingrepair@... writes:

Someone who regards the "f" as a spoken badge of industry could withequal justice and reason call Julius Caesar and his legions a gang ofnegligent lip-lazy lay-abouts because, after all, where we say"father" they said "pater" ...Kate Gladstone

My comment was specific to the English language, not others contemporary or ancient. I myself have not hired people for jobs due to sloppy speech. An accent or dialect is ok, but just sloppy speech is something else.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 20, 2007

In a message dated 4/20/2007 1:04:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

I thought I would show a comparison between what many youth say thesedays and what they mean by what they are saying. This is especiallytrue of those of African American descent.

Lots of rednecks too.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 20, 2007

In a message dated 4/20/2007 2:51:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

China has so many different dialects that a person from one side of the country could go to the other side of the country and not be able to understand one word of the language being spoken there.Latin was the old "esparanto" at the time of the Roman empire. People spoke their own language, but, within the Roman empire, they spoke Latin so that everyone with all these varying languages could communicate with one another.

That is one thing that we have in our favor. China really isn't a unified country. The only way all the different regions have been held together has been by force. It wasn't that long ago that China didn't exist, but was a cluster of warlord controlled states. Even today the dialects are still there and the people more strongly identify with regions rather than China. The Communist Party managed to hold on to power by allowing the Provinces varying degrees of autonomy as long as they toed the Party line. That is beginning to slip, however, what with economic reforms and the internet. They could easily fall apart again, and very likely would if they went to war over Taiwan, particularly if they took a beating in the process. The big question is will the break up before they have soaked up too much manufacturing from the rest of the world? If not, then the break up will cause economic havoc around the world.

Today, English is the Lingua Franca, language of commerce, like Latin used to be.

I often to watch my language, to dumb it down so as not to talk over the people I am associating with. A lot of those people know I am educated and don't pay it too much mind, but I still tone it down some so as not to push my luck. You just can't go too far with it, as in talking like they do, or they will think you are mocking them, which is worse than talking down to them.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 20, 2007

In a message dated 4/20/2007 2:51:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

China has so many different dialects that a person from one side of the country could go to the other side of the country and not be able to understand one word of the language being spoken there.Latin was the old "esparanto" at the time of the Roman empire. People spoke their own language, but, within the Roman empire, they spoke Latin so that everyone with all these varying languages could communicate with one another.

That is one thing that we have in our favor. China really isn't a unified country. The only way all the different regions have been held together has been by force. It wasn't that long ago that China didn't exist, but was a cluster of warlord controlled states. Even today the dialects are still there and the people more strongly identify with regions rather than China. The Communist Party managed to hold on to power by allowing the Provinces varying degrees of autonomy as long as they toed the Party line. That is beginning to slip, however, what with economic reforms and the internet. They could easily fall apart again, and very likely would if they went to war over Taiwan, particularly if they took a beating in the process. The big question is will the break up before they have soaked up too much manufacturing from the rest of the world? If not, then the break up will cause economic havoc around the world.

Today, English is the Lingua Franca, language of commerce, like Latin used to be.

I often to watch my language, to dumb it down so as not to talk over the people I am associating with. A lot of those people know I am educated and don't pay it too much mind, but I still tone it down some so as not to push my luck. You just can't go too far with it, as in talking like they do, or they will think you are mocking them, which is worse than talking down to them.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 20, 2007

In a message dated 4/20/2007 2:51:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

China has so many different dialects that a person from one side of the country could go to the other side of the country and not be able to understand one word of the language being spoken there.Latin was the old "esparanto" at the time of the Roman empire. People spoke their own language, but, within the Roman empire, they spoke Latin so that everyone with all these varying languages could communicate with one another.

That is one thing that we have in our favor. China really isn't a unified country. The only way all the different regions have been held together has been by force. It wasn't that long ago that China didn't exist, but was a cluster of warlord controlled states. Even today the dialects are still there and the people more strongly identify with regions rather than China. The Communist Party managed to hold on to power by allowing the Provinces varying degrees of autonomy as long as they toed the Party line. That is beginning to slip, however, what with economic reforms and the internet. They could easily fall apart again, and very likely would if they went to war over Taiwan, particularly if they took a beating in the process. The big question is will the break up before they have soaked up too much manufacturing from the rest of the world? If not, then the break up will cause economic havoc around the world.

Today, English is the Lingua Franca, language of commerce, like Latin used to be.

I often to watch my language, to dumb it down so as not to talk over the people I am associating with. A lot of those people know I am educated and don't pay it too much mind, but I still tone it down some so as not to push my luck. You just can't go too far with it, as in talking like they do, or they will think you are mocking them, which is worse than talking down to them.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 20, 2007

In a message dated 4/20/2007 3:06:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

It unifies people.Take currency as a metaphor.

This is even more true than with currency. If you can't communicate with a person, you won't care too much about them, nor will you trust them. It certainly will be hard to get anything productive done if you can't communicate.

There is also an American example of disunited currency. During the Civil War, the North had a unified currency. The South did not. Yes, there was the main bank, but states and even local banks printed money too. Money in one town could literally be worthless 10 miles down the road. Banks had big charts for currency conversion for all the little currencies. This was a major logistical failing that was one aspect of the South losing the war, along with political infighting (not so different from today with states refusing to send troops to the front because said state, North Carolina especially, wasn't in direct threat), poor financial management and so on.

This was really a holdover from the pre-national bank days of the US. Before the federal bank came to be, no one really knew how many different currencies there were in the US. Each bank printed its own. It was so chaotic that the Spanish currency, particularly the "pieces of 8" were the standard. That is why the stock market is based on fractions: its foundation was the piece of 8 which was designed to be broken up into smaller pieces based on 8: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16.

A global currency and tax would not work. Even now the Euro is really having trouble maintaining itself because so many of the member governments can't or won't meet budget requirements. A number of EU governments regularly exceed their deficit allowance and have for years. I think the only reason the Euro is doing so well against the dollar is because of antipathy to America over the war in Iraq, along with a few institutional problems. Chief among those is the unwillingness of the government to control spending. The dollar is falling because the markets know taxes will be shooting up soon to cover those costs, reaching European levels, but that the change will hurt the economy.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 20, 2007

In a message dated 4/20/2007 3:06:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

It unifies people.Take currency as a metaphor.

This is even more true than with currency. If you can't communicate with a person, you won't care too much about them, nor will you trust them. It certainly will be hard to get anything productive done if you can't communicate.

There is also an American example of disunited currency. During the Civil War, the North had a unified currency. The South did not. Yes, there was the main bank, but states and even local banks printed money too. Money in one town could literally be worthless 10 miles down the road. Banks had big charts for currency conversion for all the little currencies. This was a major logistical failing that was one aspect of the South losing the war, along with political infighting (not so different from today with states refusing to send troops to the front because said state, North Carolina especially, wasn't in direct threat), poor financial management and so on.

This was really a holdover from the pre-national bank days of the US. Before the federal bank came to be, no one really knew how many different currencies there were in the US. Each bank printed its own. It was so chaotic that the Spanish currency, particularly the "pieces of 8" were the standard. That is why the stock market is based on fractions: its foundation was the piece of 8 which was designed to be broken up into smaller pieces based on 8: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16.

A global currency and tax would not work. Even now the Euro is really having trouble maintaining itself because so many of the member governments can't or won't meet budget requirements. A number of EU governments regularly exceed their deficit allowance and have for years. I think the only reason the Euro is doing so well against the dollar is because of antipathy to America over the war in Iraq, along with a few institutional problems. Chief among those is the unwillingness of the government to control spending. The dollar is falling because the markets know taxes will be shooting up soon to cover those costs, reaching European levels, but that the change will hurt the economy.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 20, 2007

In a message dated 4/20/2007 3:06:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

It unifies people.Take currency as a metaphor.

This is even more true than with currency. If you can't communicate with a person, you won't care too much about them, nor will you trust them. It certainly will be hard to get anything productive done if you can't communicate.

There is also an American example of disunited currency. During the Civil War, the North had a unified currency. The South did not. Yes, there was the main bank, but states and even local banks printed money too. Money in one town could literally be worthless 10 miles down the road. Banks had big charts for currency conversion for all the little currencies. This was a major logistical failing that was one aspect of the South losing the war, along with political infighting (not so different from today with states refusing to send troops to the front because said state, North Carolina especially, wasn't in direct threat), poor financial management and so on.

This was really a holdover from the pre-national bank days of the US. Before the federal bank came to be, no one really knew how many different currencies there were in the US. Each bank printed its own. It was so chaotic that the Spanish currency, particularly the "pieces of 8" were the standard. That is why the stock market is based on fractions: its foundation was the piece of 8 which was designed to be broken up into smaller pieces based on 8: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16.

A global currency and tax would not work. Even now the Euro is really having trouble maintaining itself because so many of the member governments can't or won't meet budget requirements. A number of EU governments regularly exceed their deficit allowance and have for years. I think the only reason the Euro is doing so well against the dollar is because of antipathy to America over the war in Iraq, along with a few institutional problems. Chief among those is the unwillingness of the government to control spending. The dollar is falling because the markets know taxes will be shooting up soon to cover those costs, reaching European levels, but that the change will hurt the economy.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 20, 2007

Kate wrote: " ... <snip> ... " Ax " predates " ask " in English — the

Anglo-Saxons pronounced & spelled the word as " acsian " most

times ... <snip> ... returning to earlier English " ax " plainly has

nothing whatsoever to do with laziness of the lips ... <snip> >... "

Firstly, Kate, you have spliced two posts from two different posters

into your post. This leaves the impression that one poster has said

all this. Now that this is cleared up, I will continue.

Metathesis is a common linguistic process, as you may know, around

the world and does not arise from a defect in speaking. Nevertheless,

ax has become stigmatized as substandard -- a fate that has befallen

other words, like " ain't " , that were once perfectly acceptable in

literate circles.

As such, using the word " ax " instead of " ask " is unacceptable in

literate circles.

Kate wrote: " ... <snip> ... As for /p/ replacing /f/ (which I

haven't, so far, heard among young folks hereabouts) — both /p/

and /f/ need the lips, so I don't understand why you think that

using " f " indicates non-use of the lips ... <snip> ... "

This was not my comment therefore I will not address the concept

of 'non-use of lips.' I will comment, however, that I find it

interesting that your community is the only community in all of North

America where youth do not follow their peers across North America.

Kate wrote: " If you do indeed regard as " lazy louts " anyone whose

phonemic repertoire does not include an /f/, I would very much like

to hear you say that to the Koreans ... <snip> ... "

While I did not speak about 'lazy louts' I will say that we are

discussing people whose first language is English and not other

languages or people who have learned English as a second language.

This being said, there is no reason -- other than disabilities -- to

not learn to speak or write properly.

Kate wrote: " ... <snip> ... Someone who regards the " f " as a spoken

badge of industry could with equal justice and reason call Julius

Caesar and his legions a gang of negligent lip-lazy lay-abouts

because, after all, where we say " father " they said " pater " ...

<snip> ... "

Mixing apples and oranges is rarely a good way to debate a subject,

Kate. For someone as knowledgeable as you present yourself to be, I

find it interesting that you would fall to this sort of technique.

Raven

Co-Administrator

April 20, 2007

Yes, but since the advent of the written word, and with the

invention of the dictionary, which specifically defines what a

written word should look like and how the written word should be

spoken, no provision is made today for reversing mouth sounds and

pronouncing " ask " as " ax. " Ergo people who pronouce the word " ask "

as " ax " are either doing so out of ignorance of not knowing how to

correctly pronounce the word, out of and inability to form the

correct muscular configurations necessary to pronounce the word, or

out of laziness.

It could also be a dialectal variation, but these colloquial

variations are improper, since the dictionary is considered to be

the first point of reference for correct spelling and pronounciation

of words.

Tom

Administrator

" Ax " predates " ask " in English — the Anglo-Saxons pronounced &

spelled

the word as " acsian " most times ( " ascian " only rarely) and in

medieval

English " ax " in various spellings far outnumbers " ask " as the form of

the verb. (Early English printer/author Caxton, for instance,

consistently wrote and printed " ax/axyd " wherever we, today, would

write " ask " and " asked. " )

April 20, 2007

I thought I would show a comparison between what many youth say these

days and what they mean by what they are saying. This is especially

true of those of African American descent.

SAID: He workin'.

MEANING: He is working [right now].

SAID: He be workin'.

MEANING: He works with regularity.

EXAMPLE: He be workin' [week] ends all month. "

SAID: He be steady workin'.

MEANING: He is working habitually.

EXAMPLE: He be steady workin' to his days off.

SAID: He been workin'.

MEANING: He has been working.

SAID: He been had that job.

MEANING: He has had that job for a long time and still has it.

SAID: He done worked.

MEANING: His work is finished for the day and he's not expected to stay

at the job or return to the job.

SAID: He fidna go to work.

MEANING: He's about to go to work.

EXPLANATION: Just because he is 'fidna' (fixing to) doesn't mean that

he will, in actuality, go to work. He's just in the frame of mind that

might see him go to work. Whether he gets there and works is something

else altogether.

Raven

Co-Administrator

April 20, 2007

I agree, entirely, that what literate (or otherwise influential)

people command/accept/forbid can change — indeed, perpetually changes

— across the years and centuries.

And I claim no vast familiarity with the casual speech of young folks.

(More often than not, I deal with them in formal rather than informal

settings. I don't doubt that I may well hear /opis/ — or even /pather/

— tomorrow!

> While I did not speak about 'lazy louts' I will say that we are

> discussing people whose first language is English and not other

> languages or people who have learned English as a second language.

Agreeing to this, I wonder what will happen if /f/ becomes /p/ in

wider and wider usage: e.g., when today's youngsters grow up and teach

their own children to speak.

If more and more English-speakers do not acquire or use an

/f/-sound, then sooner or later the English of native speakers will

have become /f/-less: just as it became /kn/-less language about 500

years ago (we no longer pronounce he first consonant in /knee/)... and

just as it had become /gh/-less a bit earlier, when folks stopped

pronouncing the final consonant in /bough/ (or started changing it to

something else as in " rough " ). Once the native speakers of English no

longer have /f/ (as English-speakers no longer have /gh/ and no longer

have /k/-before-/n/), will this mean that every native speaker speaks

lazily? Or will it mean that no one does?

> Mixing apples and oranges is rarely a good way to debate a subject,

> Kate.

Equating another's opinions and questions to a combination of fruits

rarely expresses a matter well.

Kate Gladstone

April 20, 2007

Re:

> Yes, but since the advent of the written word,

The verb " ax " remained long after the advent of the written word.

> and with the

> invention of the dictionary, which specifically defines what a

> written word should look like and how the written word should be

> spoken,

'

Dictionaries don't create usages — they record usages.

Re your claim that " no provision is made today for reversing mouth sounds "

If so, then English would provide us with no such words as

" pine/make/home " (which reverse sequences of sounds: these words, like

myriad others, end with a consonant-then-vowel in writing, but end

with a vowel-then-consonant in speaking).

>Ergo people who pronouce the word " ask "

> as " ax " are either doing so out of ignorance of not knowing how to

> correctly pronounce the word, out of and inability to form the

> correct muscular configurations necessary to pronounce the word, or

> out of laziness.

You neglected the third (and in fact usually correct) explanation:

they say " ax " here because they correctly learned (from their parents)

a now-nonstandard variety of English which didn't change over to " ask "

when the standard varieties of the language made that change.

Faithfully following one's speech-model does not (in my view) count as

laziness or ignorance — any more than faithfully following an American

or British speech-model counts as lazy or ignorant failure to sound

(for instance) Australian.

One can, of course (and, at times, should) learn one or more other

varieties of English in addition to whichever variety one has learned

natively. I fail to see how that evident necessity (to learn one or

more additional varieties for use when needed) makes the natively

learned variety " ignorant. "

Kate Gladstone

April 20, 2007

Thansk to Raven for an excellent lesson in verb conjugations

(comparing conjugations of the standard varieties with conjugations in

a widely used nonstandard variety). The different varieties of English

do indeed differ widely in the verb-forms used to express the various

tenses and aspects.

Kate Gladstone

April 20, 2007

" Agreeing to this, I wonder what will happen if /f/ becomes /p/ in

wider and wider usage: e.g., when today's youngsters grow up and

teach

their own children to speak.

" If more and more English-speakers do not acquire or use an

/f/-sound, then sooner or later the English of native speakers will

have become /f/-less: just as it became /kn/-less language about 500

years ago (we no longer pronounce he first consonant in /knee/)...

and just as it had become /gh/-less a bit earlier, when folks stopped

pronouncing the final consonant in /bough/ (or started changing it to

something else as in " rough " ). Once the native speakers of English no

longer have /f/ (as English-speakers no longer have /gh/ and no

longer have /k/-before-/n/), will this mean that every native

speaker speaks lazily? Or will it mean that no one does? "

I doubt that will happen as long as we have a dictionary that

hammers out the correct spelling and pronounciation of words and as

long as we have educators to ensure that these spellings and

pronounciations are taught properly.

If pronounciation should change over time, then I think you will

have something akin to what the German's have: High Englsih, and Low

English. There would be something used for formal speech and

something used for informal speech.

We have that now, but at this point formal speech is still actively

taught and respected, and reverted to when it is necessary to

overcome dialectal differences in pronounciation of words and their

meanings.

However, in the future, perhaps two or more parallel lines of the

English language will develop.

I doubt this will be beneficial for society and I really doubt it

could ever happen.

Could you imagine, in politically correct America, people " speaking

African American " or " jawing hillbilly " or " annunciating Beverly

hills snootiness " etc?

We all know that in a melting pot where everyone is equal, actually

labeling dialects and refering to them in these ways is socially and

politically incorrect, ergo it would never happen.

Proof of this can be seen in many Oprah talk show episodes in which

white teenagers were brought on who believed that it was the " in

thing " to " talk black " and " act black. " Oprah's assertion was that

black culture, like white culture, could not be specifically

defined, ergo no specific balck culture existed, and therefore these

kids were acting out some sort of racial steroetype and prejudicial

malaciousness. Sort of like " black faced " white people did in old

comedy shows years ago.

My postulation is that if, for example, black and white cultures

cannot be specifically defined, as Oprah says, the dialects which

are used by these non-specific cultures cannot be specifically

defined, therefore no parallel lines of English dialects would ever

fall into common and accepted usage.

But perhaps Oprah is wrong and my building on her opinion is just

ignorant foolishness.

Tom

Administrator

April 20, 2007

Raven wrote: " Mixing apples and oranges is rarely a good way to debate

a subject, Kate. "

Kate replied: " Equating another's opinions and questions to a

combination of fruits rarely expresses a matter well. "

Then I would suggest that you refrain from comparing archaic language

that has not been in use for centuries to language that is currently in

use.

Raven

April 20, 2007

" You neglected the third (and in fact usually correct) explanation:

they say " ax " here because they correctly learned (from their parents)

a now-nonstandard variety of English which didn't change over to " ask "

when the standard varieties of the language made that change.

Faithfully following one's speech-model does not (in my view) count as

laziness or ignorance — any more than faithfully following an American

or British speech-model counts as lazy or ignorant failure to sound

(for instance) Australian. "

It does count as laziness.

Once the standard language was defined, dialects of any sort should

have been cast aside in favor of the agreed upon standard usage. In

fact, the purpose of Webster's dictionary was to specifically

differentiate American English from English English. Webster's endeavor

was considered very patriotic at the time.

These days, when English is written in America, American English is

used. But when English is spoken in America, many different non-

standard dialects of American English are used. Why the conformity is

writing but the non-conformity in speech?

Laziness, perhaps? Or a social disdain for those who used proper

English?

In " To Kill A Mockingbord " Scout (Louise Finch) asks Calpurnia why

she " talks n****r talk " in church and talks like white folks do in the

presence of white folks. Calpurina explains that some people don't like

it when you sound like you know more than they do, or like you are

trying to act higher and mightier than they are.

Regardless of Calpurnia's explanation, standard American English is

standard American English, and that is what she should, in theory, be

speaking all the time. So should Scout and the rest of the Southerners

come to that. The same can be said for everyone in America.

One thing I find interesting...

Having traveled all across America, nationally televised commercials

(unless they are catering to low-brow clientelle) tend to be spoken

using standard English usage, whereas local commercials seem to use the

local dialects. Would that we all used standard American English in

America rather than what we are used to hearing and what we have come

to take for acceptable usage.

" One can, of course (and, at times, should) learn one or more other

varieties of English in addition to whichever variety one has learned

natively. I fail to see how that evident necessity (to learn one or

more additional varieties for use when needed) makes the natively

learned variety " ignorant. "

Because diversity of dialect facilitates miscommunication. Let's say

you are a shopkeeper who just opened up in New Orleans. I come in and

buy something you are selling and then say " Give me something for

laniyap. "

What would you do?

If you knew the dialect, you'd give me something extra for free.

If you didn't know the dialect, you might risk offending me simply by

asking " Huh? " or " What do you mean? " or " Why? "

China has so many different dialects that a person from one side of the

country could go to the other side of the country and not be able to

understand one word of the language being spoken there.

Latin was the old " esparanto " at the time of the Roman empire. People

spoke their own language, but, within the Roman empire, they spoke

Latin so that everyone with all these varying languages could

communicate with one another.

The same principle still exists, except the necessity for having a

bunch of dialects is rendered obsolete now that the proper spelling and

pronounciation of words is defined and agreed upon.

Tom

Administrator

April 20, 2007

There is an additional advantage to having a common and recognized

language that is spoken by everyone in the correct way:

It unifies people.

Take currency as a metaphor.

When you have one recognized currency within the borders of a country,

it means that all tokens of exchange are recognized throughout the land

and it also by proxy fixes prices. We know that something that costs

$1.00 in one part of the country ought to cost arund a dollar

elsewhere, or else there needs to be a good explanation for the

difference. (Tobacco may vary greatly in cost due to taxes applied to

the selling price of the product, for example, and gas may vary in cost

due to consumption, supply, and demand).

At the same time, a worldwide national currency (and language) would be

a bad thing.

Here is why:

Let's use the Euro (and then English) as an example.

People tend to idetify their currency with the governments which issue

them.

When countries dissolve their national currencies and allow another

entity to produce it and issue it for them, people then begin to

ascribe political value to the issuing entity. This transfers respect

for one's government from one country to the new establishment.

The European Union should be a purely economic alliance. No more, no

less.

Were NATO or the UN to start issuing currency, I would have serious

reservations about that.

If the European Union crept toward a politcal body, there would be

trouble.

I used to live in a " dry " town. Bars were not allowed, and restaurants

were forbidden to serve alcohol. Now restaurants are allowed to serve

alcohol with food. Since this change has taken place, fights at local

restaurants have gone from zero or one or two incidents a year to half

a dozen to more than a dozen. Alcohol was a factor in the majority

incidents, and intoxication was a factor in many of them.

If some national or international authority said " To use our currency

you must now allow bars in your town and allow restaurants to serve

alcohol without restrictions, " it would worsen the situation in my town.

Likewise, if some international body said " You are to abandon English

and now use this new one we have created for you " it would mean the

loss of personal and national identity.

HOWEVER...

It needs to be recognized that if you are going to reside in a country

that has a chosen and recognized language (American English if you live

in the US), then it ought to be employed in favor of any other version

of it. Granted, the US has not adopted English as its national

language, yet when English is spoken, it is commonly understood since

the time of Webster that it is American English as defined by Webster

which is to be used in the United States.

Tom

Administrator

April 20, 2007

There is an additional advantage to having a common and recognized

language that is spoken by everyone in the correct way:

It unifies people.

Take currency as a metaphor.

When you have one recognized currency within the borders of a country,

it means that all tokens of exchange are recognized throughout the land

and it also by proxy fixes prices. We know that something that costs

$1.00 in one part of the country ought to cost arund a dollar

elsewhere, or else there needs to be a good explanation for the

difference. (Tobacco may vary greatly in cost due to taxes applied to

the selling price of the product, for example, and gas may vary in cost

due to consumption, supply, and demand).

At the same time, a worldwide national currency (and language) would be

a bad thing.

Here is why:

Let's use the Euro (and then English) as an example.

People tend to idetify their currency with the governments which issue

them.

When countries dissolve their national currencies and allow another

entity to produce it and issue it for them, people then begin to

ascribe political value to the issuing entity. This transfers respect

for one's government from one country to the new establishment.

The European Union should be a purely economic alliance. No more, no

less.

Were NATO or the UN to start issuing currency, I would have serious

reservations about that.

If the European Union crept toward a politcal body, there would be

trouble.

I used to live in a " dry " town. Bars were not allowed, and restaurants

were forbidden to serve alcohol. Now restaurants are allowed to serve

alcohol with food. Since this change has taken place, fights at local

restaurants have gone from zero or one or two incidents a year to half

a dozen to more than a dozen. Alcohol was a factor in the majority

incidents, and intoxication was a factor in many of them.

If some national or international authority said " To use our currency

you must now allow bars in your town and allow restaurants to serve

alcohol without restrictions, " it would worsen the situation in my town.

Likewise, if some international body said " You are to abandon English

and now use this new one we have created for you " it would mean the

loss of personal and national identity.

HOWEVER...

It needs to be recognized that if you are going to reside in a country

that has a chosen and recognized language (American English if you live

in the US), then it ought to be employed in favor of any other version

of it. Granted, the US has not adopted English as its national

language, yet when English is spoken, it is commonly understood since

the time of Webster that it is American English as defined by Webster

which is to be used in the United States.

Tom

Administrator

April 20, 2007

There is an additional advantage to having a common and recognized

language that is spoken by everyone in the correct way:

It unifies people.

Take currency as a metaphor.

When you have one recognized currency within the borders of a country,

it means that all tokens of exchange are recognized throughout the land

and it also by proxy fixes prices. We know that something that costs

$1.00 in one part of the country ought to cost arund a dollar

elsewhere, or else there needs to be a good explanation for the

difference. (Tobacco may vary greatly in cost due to taxes applied to

the selling price of the product, for example, and gas may vary in cost

due to consumption, supply, and demand).

At the same time, a worldwide national currency (and language) would be

a bad thing.

Here is why:

Let's use the Euro (and then English) as an example.

People tend to idetify their currency with the governments which issue

them.

When countries dissolve their national currencies and allow another

entity to produce it and issue it for them, people then begin to

ascribe political value to the issuing entity. This transfers respect

for one's government from one country to the new establishment.

The European Union should be a purely economic alliance. No more, no

less.

Were NATO or the UN to start issuing currency, I would have serious

reservations about that.

If the European Union crept toward a politcal body, there would be

trouble.

I used to live in a " dry " town. Bars were not allowed, and restaurants

were forbidden to serve alcohol. Now restaurants are allowed to serve

alcohol with food. Since this change has taken place, fights at local

restaurants have gone from zero or one or two incidents a year to half

a dozen to more than a dozen. Alcohol was a factor in the majority

incidents, and intoxication was a factor in many of them.

If some national or international authority said " To use our currency

you must now allow bars in your town and allow restaurants to serve

alcohol without restrictions, " it would worsen the situation in my town.

Likewise, if some international body said " You are to abandon English

and now use this new one we have created for you " it would mean the

loss of personal and national identity.

HOWEVER...

It needs to be recognized that if you are going to reside in a country

that has a chosen and recognized language (American English if you live

in the US), then it ought to be employed in favor of any other version

of it. Granted, the US has not adopted English as its national

language, yet when English is spoken, it is commonly understood since

the time of Webster that it is American English as defined by Webster

which is to be used in the United States.

Tom

Administrator

April 20, 2007

Raven, I don't understand why (apparently) you assume that we cannot

compare one language (or variety of a language) with another.

The same phenomena affect different languages (and their speakers) at

different times — just as the phenomenon of gravity affects apples and

oranges. Knowing the differences between apples and oranges (and the

differences between a fruit grown today and its perhaps extinct

ancestor) does not make it sensible to call " incorrect " the fall of an

apple in the year 2007 AD while accepting as " correct " (say) the fall

of an orange in the year 207 AD or 2007 BC.

Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone -

handwritingrepair@... - telephone 518/482-6763

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

Order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link gets me 5% - 15% commission)

And sign the " Politician Legibility Act " Petition:

http://www.iPetitions.com/petition/PoliticianLegibility

April 20, 2007

Tom believes:

>

> Once the standard language was defined, dialects of any sort should

> have been cast aside in favor of the agreed upon standard usage> In

> fact, the purpose of Webster's dictionary

Webster wrote no dictionary. You mean Noah Webster.

was to specifically

> differentiate American English from English English. Webster's endeavor

> was considered very patriotic at the time.

.... and equally many people (on both sides of the Atlantic) considered

it very ridiculous: partly because Noah Webster believed in simplified

spelling to an extent that no American (or other) mainstream publisher

since his day has followed.

Until the the early 19th century, Webster's dictionary

prescribed (as correct American spellings, the new standard he wished

to establish here) " soop " (for " soup " ) and " aker " (for " acre " ), which

Americans ignored while accepting certain of his other spellings (such

as " center " and " color " and " plow " )

You can learn more about these (and other Webster first-edition

spellings which I doubt you accept) through Google:

I suggest, as a search string,

Noah Webster spelling

.... and/or you can visit these sites which deal with the matter:

http://www.owled.com/webster.html

http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/ll/336/

(biographies of Noah Webster)

http://members.fortunecity.com/rapidrytr/Spell/spel-links.html

(a brief history of spelling, with some links)

www.m-w.com/info/noah.htm

and

www.m-w.com/info/faq.htm

(pages on the official Merriam-Webster Dictionary site)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_Dictionarymembers.fortunecity.com/rapidry\

tr/Spell/webster.html

By your logic, the instant that Noah Webster's dictionary set a

standard for American English (complete with " soop " and " aker " and

hundreds more of that sort), we should all instantly have followed

that standard and should still follow it today.

(And I haven't even touched on Webster's notions of proper American

pronunciation: he decreed that Americans must pronounce " zebra " as

" zebber " and that we must pronounce " danger " with the first syllable

equal to " Dan. " Again, the literate world ignored him.)

For all your admiration of Webster, I very much doubt that you spell

" soop " and " aker " —that you would consider it proper, patriotic,

American English if someone else spelled these words in Webster's own

fashion and required schoolchildren (or others) to do likewise.

Probably, even fewer patriotic, Webster-adoring Americans write " soop "

and " aker " than follow Webster's other vast and forgotten attempt at

culture-change: changing the Bible.

(To learn more about Noah Webster's nineteenth-century " improved " take

on Holy Writ, see any college-level/adult-level published bio of

Webster, or

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bowdler

http://www.unlikelystories.org/old/articles/rubin1203.html

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH07.HTMhttp://groups.google\

..com/group/misc.education/msg/eb7cb17b9b8aa039

http://www.dvfs2.org/mc/pages/proj/charry/artcls/banned.html )

> These days, when English is written in America, American English is

> used. But when English is spoken in America, many different non-

> standard dialects of American English are used. Why the conformity is

> writing but the non-conformity in speech?

Non-conformity in speech has always existed in every English-speaking

nation (and, as far as I know, in every nation). If writing governed

speech, all who write alike would speak alike. However, writing does

not govern speech: writing one variety of a language gives the written

variety no mystic power to kill the other, equally old (non-written)

varieties.

Re:

> Would that we all used standard American English in

> America rather than what we are used to hearing and what we have come

> to take for acceptable usage.

Why? What (in your opinion) would make the existence of a single

variety better (somehow) than the co-existence of more than one

variety?

>

> Because diversity of dialect facilitates miscommunication. Let's say

> you are a shopkeeper who just opened up in New Orleans. I come in and

> buy something you are selling and then say " Give me something for

> laniyap. "

>

> What would you do?

I'd throw in something extra.

>

> If you knew the dialect, you'd give me something extra for free

>

> If you didn't know the dialect, you might risk offending me simply by

> asking " Huh? " or " What do you mean? " or " Why? "

And then you might learn a new word. Ignorance of someone else's

vocabulary does not make your variety better than his — any more than

my ignorance of Chinese makes English a better language than Chinese.

>

> China has so many different dialects that a person from one side of the

> country could go to the other side of the country and not be able to

> understand one word of the language being spoken there.

They seem to have dealt with this, well enough, for the past few

thousand years: just as Switzerland does well enough with four

languages within a much smaller area of land. . The Chinese themselves

increasingly regard the different varieties of Chinese as differing

Chinese languages (and call them so) — rather as we regard French,

Spanish, Rumanian, Italian, Portuguese, etc., as different Romance

(Latin-descended) languages.

> The same principle still exists, except the necessity for having a

> bunch of dialects is rendered obsolete now that the proper spelling and

> pronounciation of words is defined and agreed upon.

Dialects don't exist of " necessity " — they simply exist. The need for

a standard variety (in America or anywhere) shouldn't mean an end to

other varieties, any more than the existence of Latin (in the Roman

Empire) meant an end to all other languages of Western Europe.

We can (and should) master the standard variety alongside whatever

we speak locally — just as (in your example) citizens of the Roman

Empire mastered Latin alongside whatever they spoke at home.

Every argument you've given for having one and only one variety of a

language (within a nation) could equally require having one and only

one language throughout the world. Do you want that, too? If some

international committee voted to make everyone learn a particular

language (if the UN voted to make us all learn Esperanto, for

instance), would you decide that there now existed no " necessity " for

English, and call for its abolition?

Kate Gladstone

April 20, 2007