Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:01:50 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Spellings Message-ID: <20000410000149.B1241@theory8.physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <8cq06a$1le0$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de>; from naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de on Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 03:22:18PM %2B0200 References: <20000404152346.01398@techunix.technion.ac.il> <20000407202917.A1417@sys3.physics.iisc.ernet.in> <xzpitxtq1k5.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20000407233952.A1610@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in> <8cq06a$1le0$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christian Weisgerber said on Apr 9, 2000 at 15:22:18: > Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> wrote: > > > By the way, I think one reason for the confusing nature of English > > spellings is that it has imported words from languages all over the > > world, often with little modification in spelling if the original > > script was the same, and it continues to do so. > > First, I think the tendency of English to pick up loans is overstated. > A whole lot of words imported during the colonial period and > referring to foreign plants, animals, and cultures are actually in > pan-European use. English was reshaped by the large influx of > Romance vocabulary after the Norman invasion, but that has been a > historical event for a few centuries now. What I meant was, a word like "chauffeur" or "chandelier" is spelt the same way in English as in French (or say "lasagne" in Italian, and so on), and pronounced in a fairly similar manner, but I don't think that's true of other European languages: imported words change in spelling, or in pronunciation, or both. English also has lots of imported non-European words: I've seen lists, but offhand can only recall Indian examples, eg bungalow, jungle, juggernaut, etc. In these cases, of course, the spelling is reasonably English-sounding since the original words were in a different script. I don't know how common these words are in other European languages. > > But that's also a strength, and it's at least one reason it's > > spoken so widely. > > The global role of English has nothing whatsoever to do with features > inherent in the language itself. Rather, it's a consequence from > the political, economical, and cultural dominance of first the > British Empire in the 19th and later the United States in the 20th > century. That's the main reason, but I think not the only reason. It's difficult to prove the point: but in the 19th and early 20th centuries, I believe France was no less dominant politically than England, and far more dominant culturally. Even now, when I think of Western music, opera, art, sculpture and so on, the names that come to mind are mostly from the European mainland. To some extent this is true even of "classic" literature. > For former British colonies English is also a convenient choice as > a neutral language since it doesn't give an advantage or an emphasis > to any of the resident ethnic groups. I think India is an example > for this. True. But in India's case I think it has survived only because it is useful globally. There is plenty of anti-English feeling, but it is outweighed by the knowledge that it's useful; if the dominant global language had been French, I don't think anyone would have been inclined to continue usage of English. > Well, *somebody* had to coin the English neologism, too. Creating > your own neologism or a calque is as valid an approach as borrowing > a foreign word, and you don't run into problems with phonotactics > and spelling. My point, more or less: compared to French, English is less inhibited about borrowing directly without worrying about spelling and pronunciation problems. I think in some ways that's a good thing. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000410000149.B1241>