Re: [OT] English language
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 05:32:34PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 04/03/2011 05:02 PM, David Jardine wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>> I don't know if England had its own xenophobic
> >>>equivalents, but I think the English would be less likely to accept
> >>>changes of spelling decreed from above.
> >>
> >>Above? Webster didn't get his dictionary mandated by the government.
> >
> >By "above" I didn't mean government. Webster was "above".
> >
>
> Who decreed that Webster was "above".
Who decreed that Microsoft was "above"?
> >>>But is it _our_ language any more?
> >>
> >>Not after you beggared yourself after the two World Wars.
> >
> >Misunderstanding: by "our" language I meant the language of native
> >speakers of English - American, Australian, English or whoever.
>
> Successfully spreading your empire (and thus your language) around
> the world /de facto/ dilutes your ownership of the language, by
> virtue of each group you teach it to morphing it to their own needs.
It's not mipela empire and language, it's yumipela empire and language.
> >example, we insist on saying, "We've been doing it like this for ages",
> >who are we to say that "We do it like this since ages" is not correct?
> >
>
> If they were doing it "this way" before I was born, then they've
> been doing it for ages... :)
But my grandchildren (mixed English, French, German, Italian) insist
that they have done it since agess. :)
>
> --
> "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure
> the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally
> corrupt."
> Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749
I just love the spelling of "Advertiser". ;)
Cheers,
David
Reply to: