English language

Rebbeca

A Disturbance in the Force
We know the fact that language is the source of communication. There is no nation without the language and even diversity of language within a nation and small community. As per the religious dogma of Bible people of all over the world used to speak same language. How far is it possible? Whatsoever all the countries, tribes and ethnic groups have their own language. In the course of time English language has become a common scientific language. There is history of English language, Angle, Saxon and Jute were invaders they invaded Britain during the six or seven century and settled in England. It is the Angle the word English came from this name. In this present world the language has expanded its horizon in all over the world.
 
Hi Rebecca. I am not certain what point you are trying to make. Yes, English is the language of science, and also of business. Do you think this is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing?
 
Hello,

Galahad said:
I am not certain what point you are trying to make. Yes, English is the language of science, and also of business. Do you think this is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing?

I agree with Galahad about the ambiguity of Rebecca's point, I can't be sure about what she was trying to say, but it looked like Rebecca was presenting some items about the English language for our consideration.

Just to add to the above, I think there is a lot of ground to suggest that English is more than "the language of science and business", and is in fact quickly becoming, or basically already is, an international language.

English as an international language might well become the standard basis of communication that anybody, whatever their native tongue, will be able to use. However, since the widespread demand to learn English, on an international level, seems to have a lot to do with the balance of power resting in America's hands, I wonder if the demand is going to deminish along with American decline and fall.

I guess the development of languages is as variable as how our future proceeds...
 
Hello,

I think what matters most is for our languages to have as a wealthy vocabulary as possible and for us to have a proper education, since a lack in words can equal a lack in thoughts. Much like George Orwell's "Newspeak" in his novel 1984:

wikipedia said:
In the novel by Orwell, it is described [Newspeak] as being "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year". Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix[2] in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking—"thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak—impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

So maybe giving titles like "the language of science and business" for English (or any language for that reason) is becoming of less significance when our everyday use of words-thoughts is becoming simpler and simpler, with all of the unfortunate consequences this may have in limiting our potential to seek and understand higher and more complex principals, thoughts and ideas... :rolleyes:

I was talking once with an American guy who was studying history here in Greece, and our conversation at some point came to the same topic, the one of languages. I couldn't keep myself from a friendly laughter when this otherwise smart and seemingly educated person was trying to convince me that the English language is very rich by giving me as an example the word "dude" which according to him "depending on the pronunciation can have like 8 different meanings"! He could not see the paradox of using a meaningless slang word like "dude" for so many occasions, instead of striving in general to have an array of different words to accurately express the subtlety of each specific meaning we want to enunciate. He could not see that, in a way, 8 other words "started to die" for "dude" to replace them...

Anyway, at the moment, and perhaps more than ever before, a rich and accurate language is a much needed tool for understanding and objectivity. There is wonderful literature and ideas expressed in the English language. But i am afraid that while English is becoming a global language, it's future or the so-called "International English", has the potential to become what George Orwell dreamed in his book: A language to facilitate the necessary minimal communication between a global crowd of uneducated and subservient people. A horrific thought indeed...
Just my 2cc FWIW. Thank you.
:)
 
Language has always fascinated me. A few months ago, I became curious about how modern English came to be. I dug around Wikipedia for awhile and came up with several articles that really put things in perspective for me. I linked directly to subsections that I felt focused on exploring this strange language I was raised on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English#Sample_text
Let’s start with comparison of Late Middle English and Early Modern English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages#Diachronic
Then look at the evolution of Germanic languages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_languages#Comparative_sentence
Then look at the same sentence written in many Germanic languages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary#Notes
Many European languages are thought to have the same roots in a Proto-Indo-European language

Fascinating stuff.
 
Even more fascinating is the theory of Stephen Oppenheimer in his book "The Origins of the British." A lot of food for thought there.
 
That is very interesting Laura. There's a review of Oppenheimer's book here where the reviewer says:

Stephen Oppenheimer shows us, in his meticulous analysis, that there is in truth a deep genetic line dividing the English from the rest of the British people but that, fascinatingly, the roots of that separate identity go back not 1500 years but 6,000.The real story of the British peoples is one of extraordinary continuity and enduring lineage that has survived all onslaughts.

Well, they could just be extremely resourceful or hardy peoples, right?

Session October 18th, 1994
[...]
Q: (L) Are the Aryan/Celts who came to this planet from the
other one that was destroyed, were they, when they came, in
any way superior to the humans already here?
A: Somewhat.
Q: (L) What was the nature of this superiority?
A: Durability.
Q: (L) Physical or mental?
A: Physical.
Q: (L) Well, blond haired, blue-eyed people seem to be
somewhat more delicate or thin-skinned compared to, say,
the blacks.
A: In this environment on surface.
[...]

It makes a little more sense now, but maybe we can go further...

Session October 7th, 1995
[...]
Q: (L) I have thought about my question from the last session
and I want to ask it this way: You have said that Hitler
received instructions from higher density beings about creating
a 'Master Race.' Why were the Aryan genetic types seen to
be more desirable for creation of this Germanic 'master race?'
A: Both, similarity and ancestral link most unblemished from
Orion 3rd and 4th density stock.
Q: (L) So they were essentially trying to breed a group of
people like themselves?
A: Yes.
[...]
Q: (L) Okay. They were preparing this breeding ground, so to
speak. Obviously this was for the introduction of some other
genetic strain. What was this?
A: Nephalim.
[...]
Q: (L) Okay, what is it about the Semitic genes that was
considered to be so undesirable in the creation of this 'Master
Race?'
A: Would blemish genetic characteristics inclined to
ruthlessness and domination.

[...]

Perhaps the enduring qualities of the Aryan/Celtic peoples is genetic, the so-called "durability." Is it possible that this gene pool was also, shall we say, "favored" by the Lizzies for these qualities of ruthlessness and domination? Looking at the geo-political dominance of the English-speaking Western world, I think there is probably a very good reason why the "British peoples" were so successful.

One period that seems to have drastically altered the English language is the Norman conquest. David Cowley wrote a book called "How We'd Talk If The English Had Won in 1066", which you can read a sample of here. If they HAD won, English might still be the de facto language of business in our world, but it would probably sound a lot more Germanic.

P.S. I think that English would be a little less strange if it were closer to its original roots, but I wouldn't really call myself an English language purist, nor do I cry for a "purging" of loanwords from Modern English to return the language to it roots, as some people have done. :P

-Drew
 
Well, Drew, you've made some interesting points. I've been digging into this stuff as far back as I can go for the past few years and there really is something strange about the English. I do encourage you to read Oppenheimer's book, but there is so much more and if I can get some rest and relief from daily chores, I'll be writing it down. Do a search here on the forum for any discussions about Neanderthals. Keep in mind the skull morphology and then think about the fact that most language processing in psychopaths goes on in the occiput.
 
To me, as a non-native English speaker (if I can even now say that I am "English speaking person"), English was interesting from the moment when I started to learn it. Not because of the beauty of the language (to be honest English sounds very ugly), but because it looks fake, conglomerate, made up from the pieces of other languages, franken-language. Some words seems to be French, some German, and many of them looks latin.

On top of that comes vocal pronunciation of the English, which to me, as someone who natively speaks phonetic language sounded very strange and unnatural. Teacher in elementary school told us that if we want to speak English good, we must imagine that we speak with the hot boiled potato in our mouth, and that there is no letter in English that sounds clear as we have used to speak.

Many times I wanted to wrote something but I couldn't find the words in English to translate precisely and in full sense what I want to say (and thanks god for that :lol: ). That of course could be because of my limited english vocabulary.

Anyway, I think that English is useful because of it's simplicity. Almost anyone can learn it. Although there is really a chance for this said by spyraal, but ironically by native English speakers in the first place.

Anyway, at the moment, and perhaps more than ever before, a rich and accurate language is a much needed tool for understanding and objectivity. There is wonderful literature and ideas expressed in the English language. But i am afraid that while English is becoming a global language, it's future or the so-called "International English", has the potential to become what George Orwell dreamed in his book: A language to facilitate the necessary minimal communication between a global crowd of uneducated and subservient people. A horrific thought indeed...
Just my 2cc FWIW. Thank you.

One interesting thing. I was searching what "Liberum Arbitrium" means, and came to this, I suppose medieval English text, which when read phonetically is much clearer than modern English.

_http://books.google.com/books?id=_yizjxMGowIC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=liberum+arbitrium+plowman&source=bl&ots=vyhQ2UtQgE&sig=52zWMn084QhSPpMWBfX4JkCJGQs&hl=en&ei=FhP0TLWJJYroOcbltc0K&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=liberum%20arbitrium%20plowman&f=false

_http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=l&p=c&a=p&ID=16522&c=157
 
Arbitrium Liberum said:
To me, as a non-native English speaker (if I can even now say that I am "English speaking person"), English was interesting from the moment when I started to learn it. Not because of the beauty of the language (to be honest English sounds very ugly), but because it looks fake, conglomerate, made up from the pieces of other languages, franken-language. Some words seems to be French, some German, and many of them looks latin.

I wonder if you mean England English as opposed to Southern U.S. English which are so different as to almost be two different languages. I'll admit that I have to watch British movies with subtitles because I understand only about half of what they say. And forget Australians. I only understand about 40%!
 
Laura said:
Arbitrium Liberum said:
To me, as a non-native English speaker (if I can even now say that I am "English speaking person"), English was interesting from the moment when I started to learn it. Not because of the beauty of the language (to be honest English sounds very ugly), but because it looks fake, conglomerate, made up from the pieces of other languages, franken-language. Some words seems to be French, some German, and many of them looks latin.

I wonder if you mean England English as opposed to Southern U.S. English which are so different as to almost be two different languages. I'll admit that I have to watch British movies with subtitles because I understand only about half of what they say. And forget Australians. I only understand about 40%!

Yes, England English sounds ugliest (no offense British people, thats just how I hear it :) ). But I understand England English better than American, not even to mention southern U.S. English. I have friend from Kemah, Texas, who came to live in Belgrade, Serbia, couple of years ago, and I had a problem in the beginning to understand what he is talking (or more sings, with ups and downs in sentences). But that didn't stopped him from speaking very long . . . I had a technique to watch him attentively, nod with my head and just say "hmmm, yes" every now and then ;D

Its better now with the practice.
 
Very interesting topic. It's funny, just yesterday I was trying to point out to my dad my in-satisfaction with Romanian dictionaries opposed to the English one. Most, if not all, Romanian dictionaries are explicative dict and give little to no definition of words. I always found the English definitions to be direct and scientific and that I love.

To go a little on the side, he told me his opinion to why the Romanian scientific language is little developed and why it is only good for church talk - that, just after half an hour of arguing that there is no difference between an explanation and a definition.

However, based on his religious background he went on to say how in the not too distant past, the church man was giving his lectures in Russian (because at that time they were the only transcripts made available on the bible) or simply form memory of what was passed down to him. CAN you imagine the distortion of the information that was lurking in those precious buildings of theirs witch I have visited numerous times!

And that the transcribing and printing of anything important wasn't of primary importance. Linguistics wasn't something necessary for the ordinary people and was only available in a limited way to only those scribes of history.

Okay, I want bore you with this... but just imagine! This country, Romania, has only lately boomed into a modern society BUT, at the base they are seating on a passed down, from mouth to mouth knowledge that was mostly coming from highly respected sources, that is churches. This is a mess if indeed such a possibility really shows to be true.
I have big doubts about that slowly based on the amazing architecture of buildings all over the country.

I thought that was fascinating and that it linked a little with the theme here.
 
Arbitrium Liberum said:
To me, as a non-native English speaker (if I can even now say that I am "English speaking person"), English was interesting from the moment when I started to learn it. Not because of the beauty of the language (to be honest English sounds very ugly), but because it looks fake, conglomerate, made up from the pieces of other languages, franken-language. Some words seems to be French, some German, and many of them looks latin.

That's generally accurate -- it's a Germanic language, but has had large infusions from both Norman French and Latin (as a prestige/liturgical language), with some Old Norse thrown in. It gets worse though ;) There are also more recent borrowings from other other European languages as well as from most places which were originally British colonies, including the Americas (there are actually quite a few words in English of Native American origin). So yes, not a language for a purist, but (perhaps ominously) well-adapted for a global language.

Arbitrium Liberum said:
Anyway, I think that English is useful because of it's simplicity. Almost anyone can learn it.

Depends on who you ask -- the ease with which you learn a language depends a lot on how close it is to your native or already-acquired second language (and, of course, your innate ability). Some people really struggle with it at first. English did do everyone the favor of shedding most of it's original morphological complexity, though (meaning there's less verb conjugation and things like that, like you see in most other European languages). And yes, as far as reading goes, it (like French) is pretty phonetically opaque -- which can make it tough for the beginner!
 
Found something in some old boxes today I thought apropos to this topic:

Reasons why the English language is hard to learn:

(1) The bandage was wound around the wound.

(2) The farm was used to produce produce.

(3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

(4) We must polish the Polish furniture.

(5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

(6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

(7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.

(8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

(9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

(10) I did not object to the object.

(11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.

(12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.

(13) They were too close to the door to close it.

(14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.

(15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into the sewer line.

(16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

(17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.

(18) After a number of injections my jaw got number.

(19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

(20) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

(21) How can I imitate this to my most intimate friend?

:grad:

No wonder this language is easy to blunder!

:P
 
Back
Top Bottom