From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Standards
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:22:04 GMT

In article <BzMtxB.F8w@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>>What standard?  Whose?  Where do we find it?  Who speaks it?  The Queen?
>>Surely not, because when she dies, what if the next monarch (if there is
>>a next monarch) speaks a little differently?  
>
>Notice the words "little differently". There isn't likely to be a
>significant change in standards of speech. Whatever minor change
>occurs, can be accommodated. 

Oh, I see.  So we're back to pre-metric days, when the reigning monarch's
foot was the measurement.  Change the king, change the yardstick.  Language
doesn't work that way...never has.  You're nuts if you think that the brits
really follow how the queen speaks.  Most of them never hear her except once
a year on television anyway.

>The new monarch will constitute the 
>standard. If the British reject the monarch as a standard, then
>the BBC will be the standard.

And if the British reject the BBC as a standard?  Who's next?  

>>The BBC?  They have 
>>forsaken you.  There is no more standard for the news readers.  
>
>This argument is similar to : "There is nothing common between birds.
>Every bird looks different". Don't you realise that EVERY bird has
>standard characteristics? That is why we call it a bird! 

Nice metaphor, wrong link.   The bird argument is a good one, but not
for your point.  Sure, we recognize certain things as birds and certain
things as non-birds.  Just as we recognize certain things as English and
certain things as non-English.  If you hear German, you know it isn't
English.  If you see a Platypus, you know it ain't no bird.  If you hear
English as spoken in Scotland, you know it's still English, just as if
you hear it in New York, London, Montreal, or Melbourne.  All these 
dialects share common characteristics that let us say "That's English."

>Similarly,
>the standard would be the common grounds between different BBC
>newsreaders. When the pronunciation of a word is suspect, the
>majority's opinion must be considered. 

The majority of what?  The BBC News Readers?  AAAAAAh.  So your 
standard is dependent on what the personnel office of the BBC is
doing in a given year?  What if the BBC's lead commentator retires
and is replaced by someone with a thick Northern accent?  Does the
international "standard" suddenly change?  I doubt it.  The BBC has
people in London, Oxford, Edinburgh, Wales, Moscow, New York, 
Los Angeles, Taiwan, Bangkok, etc.  How is it a practical standard?
You hear dozens of different accents and dialects, none of which is
in any way better than any other.

>If the Queen were no longer to be considered as the standard
[...]
>The flaw in your argument is that you are trying to narrow down the 
>standard accent to a single...individual.

*I* am?  You're the one who wants the queen or the BBC or something
arbitrary to be the standard.

>When countries are considered, the English spoken in England is the
>highest standard (now don't say "By whom in England?". I mean the
>common characteristics of the English accent.) 

You obviously haven't spent much time in England, then.  I have.  
There *is* no standard to the English accent.  There are just a lot
of them, just as there are lots of American accents.

You still haven't explained why the English spoken in English is the
highest standard, other than saying "Because it is."  And the English
spoken in England today wasn't born in England.  If you want a language
born in England, you'd better go back to pre-1066.  Other than that,
the language spoken in England is made up of components from all over
the world.

>If the correct
>standard *within* England itself were up to debate, then the BBC
>standard would be the correct standard. 

Why?

>I have met a lot of Britons on IRC. 

Maybe you ought to get off IRC and go live a little.  Listen to the
language used by the majority of the world, and then try to come up
with ONE ARGUMENT that substantiates anything you have said.

>this doesn't prove that the majority of British believe so; but,
>if it were found that the majority reject the Queen as a standard
>then the BBC should be considered as the standard.

Once again, why?  What has the BBC got in its favor to set a standard?


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english