Why do some here wish that English was linguistically pure?

Trawicks   Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:15 pm GMT
<<Couldn't care less about linguistic purity, but the problem is that the latinate words always sound kind of lofty and pretentious next to the anglo-saxon ...>>

I think they only sound lofty and pretentious when they're being used in lieu of an obviously more apt Germanic word. Latin is most useful when specificity is required. For example, "He devoured the chicken" is much more descriptive than "he ate the chicken." But it's a sign of really bad English writing when descriptions are endowed with overly specific detail because of the writer's insistence on using latinate words.

Take the latin word "possess," for example. If you use it in the sentence, "he wanted to possess her," it makes sense. "Own her" also works, but "possess," with it's connotations of both property ownership and religious ecstasy, gives the sentence a dangerous edge. On the other hand, "He possessed a 1987 Toyota Corolla which he kept in the garage" sounds awkward and stupid. There's no reason to use a word of that level of specificity when "owned" or even "had" work just as well.

The tendency among the upper crust of yore to Latinize everything has been the basis for a lot of satirical writing. I would go so far as to say that it's the funniest element in Oscar Wilde's plays--characters avoiding even simple words like "more" and "strange" with long strings of Latinate nonsense.
Guest   Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:18 pm GMT
<<My personal feeling is that the reason so many English speakers seek "linguistic purity" (whatever that means) with English is possibly because of "mutual intelligence-envy" (I came up with that, I'm proud of myself) where languages like Dutch and German have a huge degree of mutual intelligibility, as does Italian with Spanish, and Russian with Serbian.
>>

You mean, like using "guestfriendship"/"guestfriendliness" for 'hospitality';

"owndom" for 'property', etc?

or something like that?
Guest   Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:20 pm GMT
"selfdom"/("self-hood") for 'identity'?
Amabo   Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:49 pm GMT
"Why do some here wish that English was linguistically pure?"

Because they're cranks and crackpots, that's why.

Next question, please.
guest   Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:12 pm GMT
<<"Why do some here wish that English was linguistically pure?" >>

I don't think anyone wants English "linguistically pure"

but at the same time they don't want it watered down into something else either

A while ago, the Malaysian government began curtailing immigration into their country, because foreigners were outnumbering the native population. Of course, Malaysians didn't want to be a minority in their own land. Same with English.

I don't necessarily want English to be "roan" ("sheer" or "pure"). I'd be happy with English being at least 70% native English.

If you're a native speaker of another language on this forum, wouldn't you also want at least the same for your "spoak" ("language")?

<<Next question, please. >>

And "I-will-Love", we will be done when WE say we're done. Thanks anyway.
Josh   Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:36 pm GMT
<<My personal feeling is that the reason so many English speakers seek "linguistic purity" (whatever that means) with English is possibly because of "mutual intelligence-envy" (I came up with that, I'm proud of myself) where languages like Dutch and German have a huge degree of mutual intelligibility, as does Italian with Spanish, and Russian with Serbian. >>

There is a language with much mutual intelligibility with English: Scots.


<<I don't think anyone wants English "linguistically pure"

but at the same time they don't want it watered down into something else either >>

Well, it's been "watered down" since at least 1350. Ever read Chaucer? If anything, his poetry was more Latinate than much of the work of, say, Percy Shelley. Also, read his "Treatise on the Astrolabe" and you'll see that academic writing hasn't changed much in the way of "Latinateness."

While I agree that there are Latinisms that are unmistakeable and a bit pretentious, would words like "change," "try," "use," "chance," "please," "move," "agree," "pass," or "judge" feel the slightest bit foreign if one didn't know their etymologies? Also, while I'm sure you wouldn't support something like this being done, I think eliminating the freely appendable affixes "re-" and "-able" would create a void in the language. While "fore-" is almost always equivalent to "pre-," the attempts I've seen by Anglishists to try to create equivalents for the above named affixes have been invariably awkward.
guest   Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:49 pm GMT
<<Well, it's been "watered down" since at least 1350. Ever read Chaucer?>>

The thing with Chaucer was that people of his time coundn't understand what he was writing--ordinary leed (people) that is. His form of English, though it looks normal to us today, was actually quite frempt (foreign looking) for its time. Manytimes, he has to do what I just did above with leed and frempt: he has to explain the word [eg. "leed, that is to say, people"]. This was very common in ME writings insomuch that it later sorta became a literary style, which I think is funny.

<<"change," "try," "use," "chance," "please," "move," "agree," "pass," or "judge">>

I still smy ("consider". [alt. 'smeigh']) these eltheedish ("foreign") words [haha-- ence kidding ("just kidding" :) ]

change = voat; wrixle (=exchange)
try = fend, cost ; costen (=tempt, test, prove)
use = (be)neet/benote; brook/bruck (=use, enjoy)
chance = cheer, hap (=opportunity); plight (=risk)
please = list, forlieve
move = dreave, widge, beway/away
agree = equeathe, rizzon, betheight; thave (=consent); allieve (=allow)
pass = yend, fealse/false, wite
judge = deem
guest   Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:56 pm GMT
<<change = voat;>>

can also be "vought" (OE fágettan) or 'vow'/'vough' (OE fágian)
For   Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:30 pm GMT
"I don't necessarily want English to be "roan" ("sheer" or "pure"). I'd be happy with English being at least 70% native English. "

Might be a difficult when over a billion people either know or are learning the "bastardized" version.
Guest   Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:01 pm GMT
<,Might be a difficult when over a billion people either know or are learning the "bastardized" version. >>

Well, with the internet...
and if I can get a celebrity like Paris Hilton to start speaking them : )

but seriously, I would need to be a writer, most likely a poet, and slip them in (ence ["just"] like Chaucer did) otherwise you're right, they'd have a hard row to hoe

But I have faith and lots of hope :)
Guest   Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:03 pm GMT
You'll never succeed. LOL
Guest   Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:36 pm GMT
<<My personal feeling is that the reason so many English speakers seek "linguistic purity" (whatever that means) with English is possibly because of "mutual intelligence-envy" (I came up with that, I'm proud of myself) where languages like Dutch and German have a huge degree of mutual intelligibility, as does Italian with Spanish, and Russian with Serbian.

At least that's what's going through my mind when I'm wishing there was a degree of linguistic purity to English. One of the (less important) reasons many English speakers are so poor with other languages is that no language is especially easy to learn. (couple this with lack of exposure, laziness, etc.).>>

I doubt it. Most English speakers don't care about foreign languages.
greg   Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:44 am GMT
esprit d'escalier (esprit de l'escalier) — Teppenwitz

Josh : « As for words always falling out of use for legitimate reasons, don't you think that the word "afterwit" would be useful? ».

Oui, le réintroduire *après coup* serait une excellente idée.
guest   Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:09 pm GMT
<<You'll never succeed. LOL >>

I believe in miracles

besides, if I don't succeed by myself, there are always others who will link up and carry it on

good grief dude, how do you think English got so crappy with latinisms in the first place? I'm Chaucer's modern gainset ("counterpart")

slow and steady...
Roger   Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:51 pm GMT
<<You'll never succeed. LOL >>

It's already happening. No one really speaks of a *manual anymore. We say Handbook instead.

And we don't say *preface. We say Foreword.



*out of date word