Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › The Right for a Dialect to evolve Vs. Preserving Meaning
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Right for a Dialect to evolve Vs. Preserving Meaning

post #1 of 18
5/23/10 at 4:11pm
Thread Starter 
So I've been taking some classes this year in which a good portion of the participants are American. I've come to the conclusion that almost all stereotypes are intrinsically inaccurate as most of them appear to be both thin, attractive and intelligent.

There is one aspect of the culture-crossover that still annoys me and that's Americanisation of words/phrases. So basically, do the good people of SF feel about the way language is treated.

This also applies to geographic issues as well, such as the inner-city Vs Suburban colloquial differences.

I personally welcome the evolution of language as long as it makes sense. In that respect I pretty much agree with a recent video by David Mitchell. Linky Linky


Admittedly he comes from the perspective of a Cambridge educated Eng. Lang. student, but I can't help but see the non-logical changes to language as essentially useless.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 18
5/23/10 at 4:16pm
Don't give up on your stereotypes yet. Fat, ugly, dumb Americans don't study abroad.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 18
5/23/10 at 4:19pm
The professional world will still use the same 'dialect' no matter how the language of certain populations evolves.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 18
5/23/10 at 4:36pm
language is a tool for communication. it "evolves" because people change it to be a more effective tool for communication. when we try to support languages and dialects that people are leaving behind, we are helping to support poorly performing tools because we find them cute.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 18
5/23/10 at 5:26pm
I tend to be sympathetic to annoyance with people who use English poorly, but I think it's a little late to complain about the Americanization of English.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 18
5/23/10 at 5:33pm
I humbly beg your lordship's pardon OP, but I believe American English actually preserves a more correct, original form of English versus that in modern England. We still maintain the rhoticity (pronunciation of r's) of 17th century English while the Brits have become lazy and dropped it with all your slackjawed antics. Moreover, we are not that unintelligent considering we formed the world's first democratic republic, and initiated the concept of equal rights (granted, with much help from your Magna Carta), whilst contributing most of the technological advances that brought the world into the modern age...

But to return to the point, I agree that the 'professional' dialect of English (American or British), is not going to be influenced much by passing fads in Spanish/African/Cockney etc -English. Though what are we supposed to do if it does... all go back to speaking proto-indo-european??
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 18
5/23/10 at 11:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhood View Post
So I've been taking some classes this year in which a good portion of the participants are American. I've come to the conclusion that almost all stereotypes are intrinsically inaccurate as most of them appear to be both thin, attractive and intelligent. There is one aspect of the culture-crossover that still annoys me and that's Americanisation of words/phrases. So basically, do the good people of SF feel about the way language is treated. This also applies to geographic issues as well, such as the inner-city Vs Suburban colloquial differences.
I'm sure the worst Cockney is more impenetrable to outsiders than anything you'll find in American inner-cities.
Quote:
I personally welcome the evolution of language as long as it makes sense. In that respect I pretty much agree with a recent video by David Mitchell. Linky Linky
Boy, he really belabored those "couldn't care less" and "hold down the fort" bits. Really beat them into the ground. Is that his schtik? Languages evolve. That's what languages do, The only languages that don't are dead languages. Language is only ever just adequate- no more, no less- for giving its speakers the means to communicate what they wish. It seems silly to me to hold languages up to some extrinsic metrics of usefulness or uselesness.
Quote:
Admittedly he comes from the perspective of a Cambridge educated Eng. Lang. student, but I can't help but see the non-logical changes to language as essentially useless.
Idioms and set-phrases are discrete semantic elements, we don't interpret them the same way we would more informational speech. Do most people even know what half the idioms they use were supposed to refer to in the first place? I agree that "could care less" doesn't make sense on the face of it, but at the same time, everybody understands what it's supposed to mean. Aside from things like those, what is a non-logical change to language? BTW, while searching for the Get Fuzzy strip above, I also found this, which make me laugh and seems apropos...
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 18
5/23/10 at 11:38pm
Peep Show ftw.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 18
5/23/10 at 11:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas_jack View Post
Don't give up on your stereotypes yet. Fat, ugly, dumb Americans don't study abroad.

Not true. Some even study at Oxford.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 18
5/24/10 at 12:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas_jack View Post
Don't give up on your stereotypes yet. Fat, ugly, dumb Americans don't study abroad.
Quite right, this. Then again, I've never seen Chavs on American soil.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 18
5/24/10 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by willpower View Post
Quite right, this. Then again, I've never seen Chavs on American soil.

We have them. Our word for them, however, is considerably cruder than "chav."
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 18
5/24/10 at 8:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post
We have them. Our word for them, however, is considerably cruder than "chav."

I think every country/city has their own word for those sadly debased off-shoots of the human genus.

In Australia the most commonly used are 'townies' or 'lads'.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 18
5/24/10 at 8:35am
That chap's a bloody twit. Historical linguistics is a lot more complicated than most people understand, so it's pointless to argue about it on an Internet message board. I think in general that a well-spoken American often sounds much more pleasing than the equivalent British. Unfortunately, most Americans tend to chew every vowel down to a schwa. Brits seem to have a big problem with loanwords. I cringe when they say 'pasta'. I don't understand how a vowel that's inherently pronounced toward the rear of its original tongue somehow slides forward and gets spat out between the lips of Brits.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 18
5/24/10 at 10:24am
If anything, the evolution of dialects has slowed rather than accelerated. Television has had a huge normalizing effect.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 18
5/24/10 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post
We have them. Our word for them, however, is considerably cruder than "chav."

Just a few years before "grunge" hit the US big, Canadian kids (at least in my locale) had a sub-group known as "dirt balls." Dressed pretty much grunge (work boots, flannel, jeans with holes, etc.) while the 80s nuWave style was still going, so they stood in stark contrast to each other. Mainly juicers (which meant drinkers back then, not on teh 'roids) and druggies, into fights every weekend.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › The Right for a Dialect to evolve Vs. Preserving Meaning