From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 41215
Date: 2005-10-10
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
wrote:
>
> Well, you certainly seem to have taken exception to my comments
> about English!
Oh no, not to worry. Now like I would, if possible,
to dissuade you of what I believe is a false impression
of English, but would rather drop the thread right now,
if instead I'm only annoying or offending you in any way,
especially since I'm admittedly no expert on English of
any sort, and for that reason may well be presumptuous
in trying to educate you about it in the first place.
So if I may, I'll make this one last effort to explain
my point point of view and then excuse myself from the
thread.
> Why don't you think such a situation is unusual?
But I do indeed find the situation as you describe it
unusual. The problem is that I suspect that you don't
describe it accurately, because while I've done a lot
of reading on linguistics over the years, including
following lists such as this one, and have come across
several mentions of language oddities, I can't remember
a single claim that English is typologically unusual
in any respect. This list itself quite often discusses
typological oddities, and includes, besides a teacher
of English as its owner, a few students of English as
well, and yet I can remember no such claim for English
from them either. This may well be some odd lacuna in
my observations (it wouldn't be the first), but I trust
that more knowledgeable list members will kindly let me
know if so.
> Can you come up with any truly similar examples from any other
> language in the world?
No, I can't, but then as I say, I rather suspect that
yours aren't truly examples of what you think they are.
> But these examples say something else - they say that the
> word "English" sometimes sounds like "Inglish", sometimes
> like "Anglish", or sometimes like "Onglish", even though
> there was only one original form "Englisc" in the parent
> language, whereas "German" always sounds like "Jurman". Do
> you understand what I am saying here?
Oh yes, I understand what you're saying, and if you're
in fact correct that completely unmovitated three-way
splits took place, I have to agree that that is odd.
> But English spelling is atypical among Indo-European languages.
> No other Indo-European language has a spelling system that is
> as inconsistent and exception-rich as does English.
No, none does, but that only proves that the _writing
system_ used for English is odd, not the language itself.
> > Properly,
> > you should cite only those sound changes which you consider
> > atypical, not the spelling system that merely _happens_ to
> > reflect and remind us of some of those changes.
>
> But I am recounting all aspects of English that make it
> nonconforming among Indo-European languages.
The spelling system used for a language isn't really an
aspect of that language, however. See more below.
> For example, all Indo-European languages but English have
> an "i" that is pronounced like our "ee", and "a" is never
> pronounced /ey/, always "ah" or very similar (e.g. with
> "long" or "short" subvarieties which are not too divergent
> from the "ah" sound), among all other Indo-European languages.
Oh yes, I'm well aware of the strangeness of English
spelling, and in fact got into trouble before with
another list for criticizing it and calling for reform.
However, as I've tried to explain, a language is one
thing, the one or more systems employed to write that
language at any given time quite another. To help me
demonstrate that fact, consider the following:
One can, and I sometimes do, write English using 'ii'
to represent so-called "long 'e'", 'ei' for so-called
"long 'a'", 'a' solely for the 'a' of 'father', 'æ'
for the 'a' of 'cat', etc., and besides mine there are
many other systems that differ in detail but are alike
in being phonetic and, more often than not, bringing
the letters closer to their Latin and/or Continental
uses. Therefore English does have, besides the most
commonly used system, others that don't display the
type of irregularities that you describe. Moreover,
besides just using more than one writing system, some
languages may even employ two or more systems of very
disparate types, such as Chinese, which is traditionally
written with a logographic system, but which may also
be written with the Pin-Yin or other such alphabetic and
phonetic system.
So then if a language's writing system were truly an
essential part of its linguistic identity, and we were
presented with a language using two or more disparate
forms of writing system, we would have no choice but
to regard that language as typologically schizophrenic,
would we not? ;^)
Therefore English can't be claimed to be atypical on
the basis of that its speakers commonly employ a system
of irregular spellings.
> Also for example, most Indo-European languages changed initial
> /w/ to /v/. One changed it to /b/, one to /gw/, and in one it
> disappeared. But all other Indo-European languages changed the
> sound /w/ in initial position. In this way, English is atypical.
> Perhaps I am using the wrong word, but I think I am not using
> "atypical" incorrectly here.
I think that you are, though, at least in regards to
the retention of initial /w/. The correct word would
be 'unique', and should in addition be qualified with
"in regard to the preservation of initial /w/". Each
of the Indo-European languages can be said to be unique
in one respect or another, including its specific set
of retentions.
Therefore English can't be claimed to be atypical on
the basis of preserving initial /w/.
> But I pointed out that English's phonological system is atypical
> not because of the way it is spelled, but also because one
original
> sound in nearly identical phonological environments for some
> reason developed into two or three different sounds in different
> words, with no phonological explanation for it.
This is the one and only point of yours that I can
possibly admit. If English does indeed show completely
unexplainable three-way splits of the sort you describe,
then that is indeed quite unexpected, and I concede to
you that English is atypical.
> And actually I never even referred to anything as a "phonological
> system". I always referred to "English", the language. I said
> that the language English is atypical. Its phonological system as
> it relates to its spelling
But no language's phonological system relates to any of
its language's writing systems, although its writing
system may (and ideally should) relate to its phonological
system. :^)
> Perhaps you feel I should have used "unique" rather than
> "atypical"? My point is the same, the words have the same
> general intent.
No, because every member of a set may potentially be
unique in some regard, while properly speaking only
a minority of that set may be atypical.
> Because no other Indo-European language retained this sound in
> this position (its commonest position).
Yes, it's my understanding as well that English is unique
in that respect. ;^)
> As I said before, you don't seem to like the word "atypical".
I don't dislike the word, and neither do I even believe
that you're using it incorrectly, since 'atypical' does
properly describe English as you perceive it to be. I
only think that your perception of English is incorrect.
> Do you feel I am denigrating English by saying this, or unfairly
> criticizing it?
Oh no, not at all. If anything I suspected that you were
trying to put it in a special box all of its own for some
adulatory purpose or other, since your arguments remind
me so much of ones I've seen made before about Sanskrit
by some of its enthusiasts.
> That is not my intention. I merely like to point out that
> English is very different from those other Indo-European
> languages, even though it too is an Indo-European language.
Oh no, I don't think that you're denigrating English, merely
describing it inaccurately.
> > Likewise, you probably don't look exactly like any other
> > human on Earth, but that doesn't mean that you don't look
> > human. Does it? :^)
>
> Now I feel a little insulted.
Oh please don't be. That's not at all what I intended.
> Why are you tearing into me so deeply?
I said that it _doesn't_ mean that you don't look human,
and so I fully expect that you look human. I didn't mean
to imply that you look strange or bad in any way, only
that you can be recognized out of a crowd by those who
know you. Unless you have an identical twin, or if we
each have at least one double somewhere else in the world,
as some people claim, then you "don't look exactly like
any other human on Earth". If I had really intended to
say that you're odd looking, I would have been negating
my own point.
> Did I offend you because I find that English is unusual?
No, not at all. In fact my subjective (and for that reason
not really justifiable) feelings towards English are not
very positive (no offense to anybody who speaks, admires,
or finds English an interesting object of study). I even
once described it to another list as a "mutt language",
to which sort of comment I felt entitled being a native
speaker of English myself. However I later came across an
Englishman or two who felt his own claim to the language
supeseded my own, and who thus found me impertinent.
So God save the Queen, and all that rot! ;^)
> > But of course, and just as I say, without a unique set of
> > characteristics _nothing_ has an individual identity, and
> > so following your usage every language now spoken could
> > be said to be "quite unusual among modern languages".
>
> Yes, you could be very unusual among human beings, but
> are you more or less unusual than someone who is seven
> feet nine inches tall?
That depends on how tall I am, which hasn't been stated.
Though if I understand what you're trying to say, then I
quite agree. However, I need to point out that I've heard
a few people talking who've seen English in person, and
they tell me that she appears to stand somewhere between
5'8'' and 5'10" and no taller. ;^)
David