Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:30:16 EDT
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         Fredric <FDOLEZAL%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reflections on the matter of language change

On Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:20:00 MDT The Ronin said:
>Sayeth        Fredric <FDOLEZAL@UGA.BITNET>
>
>> Try this on for size:  Imagine a society that started using the word JEW
>> as a synonym for "evil, dirty rotten, no-good corrupter of our values"
>> Are you saying you can separate the 'linguistic change' from the application
>> or
>> usage?
>
>     From the standpoint of linguistic structure and interpretation,
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and just what is the standpoint of the above?  something that stands outside
of human design?  Linguistic structure is a construction of cultural values; if
it weren't then we wouldn't need to teach LING 101 would we?

>there is nothing wrong with this change.  From the standpoint of
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but the point is about whether something called 'culture' can effect change;
if not, then the argument in previous posts are nullified; if so, you cannot
claim innocence and INTENTION.  Either the'culture' intended to change in a
certain way and thus inscribes its values in linguistic structure or language
changes for reason out of the control of the 'culture' ( then, of course,
you can say do not blame the linguistic structure, blame the fascists.

>cultural values I would find a great deal wrong with it.  With regards
>to semantics, the compiling of meanings would say that this is
>acceptable (since it is being used),

come again... how do compilings say?

>but the attempt to discern
>meaning might have trouble if the new definition was not generally
>found to be synonymous and the different meanings were not
>sufficiently differentiable through context.
>
I'll need to see an illustration of this recondite point.

O MR. RONIN, in your wisdom pray tell that you really believe
that this thing you call "linguistics" stands outside of ideology; o
that's right, it is a science and as we all know science is OBJECTIVE;
what a marvelous argument you have: don't blame me boss it jest be that
damn language;
>> > [from Natalie]
>> >Intentionality behind language change?  Not usually,
>> >although it's not unheard of.
>> Evidence???
>
>     Try ghetto slang of the late 60's and early 70's.  Meanings
>changed as rapidly as the words were deciphered by the middle-class
>socializers.  How do you think the word 'bad' came to mean
>'top-notch'?
>
Ghetto slang???  Prof. Maynor please tell us if you are willing to join with
this vision of linguistics.
I do not think 'bad' came to mean 'top-notch' by acclamation or committee; nor
do I think that it happened in the 60's and 70's.  Bro, you best read up on
the theory and history of american dialects.
>The Ronin, a large (semi-)linguist
>
>p.s. Natalie, I believe I also understood you, I just thought you were
>     doing fine on your own.  If it looked like you were about to go
>     under when you shouldn't have, I would have helped.  Jumped in
>     here just because I got tired of being on the sidelines.

Rather see the evidence from the real live linguist.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU