X-Envelope-to: WORDS-L@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"WORDS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:22:00 PST
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         Lobstrosities Unite <CHRISS%CWU.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reflections on the matter of language change

>breadth of knowledge and their brains.  That reminds me -- where has
>Chris been during this debate?  Discussions with Chris are also fun.
>   --Natalie (maynor@ra.msstate.edu)

Well, Chris has been about 24 hours behind in this debate. Our link has been
flaky to non-existent lately and so getting timely messages in and out is
rather difficult at this time.

However, I have been following it as I may.

To add a few things:  Language, in one of its many roles, is a reflection of,
and a pointer to, the culture using a specific language.  Language change, in
and of itself, is neither bad nor good.  It just is.  It simply reflects
changes that a culture is going through (at least the type of changes we're
talking about.  Forget for a moment Grimm and Werner and vowel shifts and
such.)

Now, you can say that a culture is declining or is "bad" but it stands to
reason that language uses follow cultural decline or change, and not
vice-versa.   The language uses reflect what is bad about the culture, not what
is bad about the language.  As a matter of fact, the language is showing its
ability to adapt, and as any scientist will tell you, organisms adapt to
survive.

It would seem that the language of the American 1960's, for instance, was much
different than the language of the preceding 10 years.  Not that the sounds
were radically different or even that there were scores of new words, but new
uses for old words so proliferated the language that a parent literally could
not understand his or her child when that child used the "new" language.

Of course, you can argue that the child was merely using slang.  So what?  Is
slang somehow not language.  I think not.  Besides, a very good case could be
made for taking these new usages well beyond the realm of slang.

Now, what prompted these new uses of the language were changes in the culture.
The "old" language didn't work for the new culture, hence the language, or a
part of it anyway, had to change.  Can you imagine if the language had not
changed?  There would have been little chance for the social changes to spread.
Which brings up an interesting point.

Language, though not a generator of social change, is certainly a propagator.
Social change is largely spread through language.  Language is an identifier,
probably the most notable identifier that a person can have. Unless you happen
to have the reasoning and observatory powers of Sherlock (or his smaller
brother, Sherlob) Holmes, we are mostly identified by our language.  I think it
would be easier for a caucasian who talked the talk to live in a black
neighborhood than it would be for a black person who didn't (talk the talk).

To bring this around to the system of grunts, if English or any other language
ever did evolve to such a system, look to the culture, not the language.  The
culture has changed so that grunting is the appropriate language.  Far from
being bad, the language would have shown its remarkable ability to adapt and
change and hence survive.  It would not be overly difficult to trace the
changes and see the evolution.

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU