31–40 of 61 posts
And to anyone who thinks that language is sacred and has to be spoken and written like it is in the Oxford English Dictionary I also highly recommend listening to The Allusionist podcast.
Separating actual language from things like orthography is important here. I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in the past. Internet communication environments do favour changing orthographic norms, which is still interesting, but not the same thing as language change.
Orthography is just the spelling part of the language.
But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much faster).
There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak").
And since english is the dominant web/movies/pop culture language, even more change has incurred in smaller languages, where turns of phrase and syntactic forms from english adopted wholesale by younger speakers ("anglicisms").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems. it's like what font you use for writing code. it doesn't affect the syntax or semantics of the language. which isn't to say that orthography (or fonts) aren't interesting.
That's a fair point, although I think that writing has been with us for so long that we can no longer say that it's something we haven't adapted our language to. Think of it this way: when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down? That is probably a different mindset from the one people who can't read are in. Plus, many times orthography has to do with how the word has evolved fr…
Not really, actually. To illustrate, if someone asked me what "diarrhea" means, I would answer quickly that it's having a stomachache and runny shits, and it would be an adequate definition, even though I would have to take a moment to figure out its spelling and even then I won't be certain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way do changes to the orthography not constitute changes to the language?
orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems. it's like what font you use for writing code. it doesn't affect the syntax or semantics of the language. which isn't to say that orthography (or fonts) aren't interesting.
And that era was a primitive, oral tradition, era. Just because something emerged later doesn't mean it's not as deep, or even more important, than what was there previously. Else gestures and groans would be even "deeper" than language (they are with us for hundreds of thousands of years before language).
Also many would argue that orthography is not just "what font you use for writing code", but has deeper connections with the language (historical and etymological for one, orthography gives us hints about the meaning and etymology of words).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way do changes to the orthography not constitute changes to the language?
Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language.
For ancient civilizations (pre 3000 B.C) when it was all about the oral language, maybe.
We've moved way beyond that, and orthography is not a pure recording medium, but it's forms are historically tied to the language and its development (including borrowings from other languages). All kinds of continuity is lost if you "switch" orthography en masse (instead of organically).
And it's more like using guitars or synths, or B-3 vs Rhodes to play the same melody, than mp3 vs magnetic tape. The timbre when you change orthography is not the same -- something most poets, writers etc, would be quick to point out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language.
> Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language. For ancient civilizations (pre 3000 B.C) when it was all about the oral language, maybe. We've moved way beyond that, and orthography is not a pure recording medium, but it's forms are historically tied to the language and its development (including borrowing…
Moving to consistent spellings obscured the origins of English words maybe as often as it illuminated them.
Unfortunately the review doesn't address this but there are multiple factors that can explain this while keeping the mutation rate of language the same. It may be hard to separate the 3 factors that come to mind: 1. higher volume of communication. (more people than ever write/read more than ever) 2. lower bar for observable/written down communication. (anybody can write publicly/permanently) 3. faster transmission of…
Telegraphy promoted telegraphic style, typography promoted cliche and stereotype, the press itself both vernacular and literacy, along with notions of authorship as opposed to (classical) authority.
Separating actual language from things like orthography is important here. I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in the past. Internet communication environments do favour changing orthographic norms, which is still interesting, but not the same thing as language change.
> I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in the past. Internet communication environments do favour changing orthographic norms, which is still interesting, but not the same thing as language change. Orthography is just the spelling part of the language. But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much fa…
Also, I know German people who find it easier to have conversations on some subjects in English, even between native German speakers. I can't work out if this is the equivalent of chefs having to learn French; the language of technology is English, so if you want to talk about tech, you need to learn English. Or whether the world's language is becoming more Anglicised and so it's just easier to use English for modern conversations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems. it's like what font you use for writing code. it doesn't affect the syntax or semantics of the language. which isn't to say that orthography (or fonts) aren't interesting.
> orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems. And that era was a primitive, oral tradition, era. Just because something emerged later doesn't mean it's not as deep, or even more important, than what was there previously. Else gestures and groans would be even "deeper" than language (they are with us for hundreds of thousands of years before language). Also ma…
Text is king, people don't talk on the phone any more, we text each other. I think I type at least as many words as I speak every day, and on some reclusive days, many, many more.
And because people infer emotional content from subtle cues in text, orthography is important now.