More from the discussion here.
Nov 11th 2010, 14:47 by R.L.G. | NEW YORK
I read an article on the growth of English as the global language and its potential evolution a few years ago that made an interesting point, as follows, if I recall correctly:
English's adaptability is its weak point. As "standard" English spreads, it is quickly adapted to local needs/styles. The adaptation results in pigeon English developing to such an extent that the local version is no longer understandable to users of the "standard" version.
The theory is thus that English will diverge locally from its common roots.
We see this already in minor ways between English and American, Canadian, New Zealand and Australia, but probably most notably between the English spoken in India, vs. Br Eng.
I've heard that one before, with reference to the division of Latin into Rumanian, Italian, Spanish and so on.
Unfortunately, the theory doesn't take Dr House, Steven Spielberg or the Fail Blog into account.
The differences between national varieties of English is minimal, when compared to other languages (like German, for example), and within national groups of speakers, it might even be argued to be decreasing, as speech becomes more and more standardised by film, television, radio and education. Most people in the Black Country these days have strong accents, but speak Standard English (or Urdu). That wasn't the case thirty years ago.
Regional Englishes will still grow, of course. There's no denying that. But the suggestion that they will one day become mutually unintelligible is unconvincing.
Did you know that the official language of the United States was almost German...?
Re American German: no.
But I do know of an urban myth that's similar
I think most language speakers have a similar myth - except those of us who speak English, as we don't need one!
I first heard it from Greeks, with reference to the United Nations rather than the United States, but I'm pretty sure the original myth is the USA/German one.
Which one have you heard?
That's what I always heard but after a bit of searching it appears to be just a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languag..._States#German
Noooo!
The interesting thing, for me at least, about the difference between India English and British English is that while British English has moved on, modernised, and developed the form spoken in India remains old English.
One example is prepone. In British English we haven't used that since the middle ages when priests or nobility may have used it (from the Latin Praepono) but not the common people. In India it is a common word for bringing forward a scheduled event.
When the cultures mix the differences can be confusing.
Question:
Didn't you complete the software specification?
British Answer: No, I didn't.
Indian Answer: Yes, I didn't.
Conversation:
I found a bug in that program.
British: Me too.
Indian: Even I found that bug.
There must be a book on it somewhere.....
Surely you meant "Neeeeeiiiiiiiiiiin! "
I don't know about modern Indian English, but I can certainly recommend Hobson Jobson as a wonderful guide to the Victorian version.
Actually, it is not the case that speech is becoming more and more standardized. In the US there have been many studies that have shown that regional varieties of English are stronger than ever before, despite television. The theory that film and television would standardize English in the US because most actors speech General American has not panned out. There are too many other factors most of which involve identity for any kind of standardization to happen.
From my point of view, mutual unintelligibility in English already exists. When I sit on the tube in London and there is a group of teenage girls chatting away next to me, I quite often haven't the slightest idea what they are saying. I mean, I could probably guess, as they are teenage girls, but the point is that I don't understand what they are saying. The same goes for Glasgow, Jamaica and downtown Philadelphia. Most of the people are able to "standardize" their English to some degree or another in order to be mutually intelligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English provides some examples of words that survived in American English but not in British English as well as some that have now made their way back.
Some fun facts ( http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/of...n/englishonly/ )
In 1923 Illinois made American its official language and in 1968 that particular clause of the Illinois constitution was amended to English because, despite American being the official language, people kept speaking and teaching English.
"In the 18th century there were rumors that a few Brit-bashing superpatriots campaigned to have the new nation drop English in favor of Hebrew, French, or Greek, considered in the late 18th century to be the languages of God, rationality, and democracy, respectively. "
Do you think that French is still considered the language of rationality?
Differences within the English speaking world are linguistically so minimal, that it makes me laugh when you say you don't understand another variety: Of course it takes some adjustment and some willingness!!! Just train your ears more and open your mind to the differences instead of pooling back and close down like Swiss shops at 6 o'clock !! As danish speaker in Norway, it took me two seconds to understand Norwegian from Bergen, two days to understand Norwegians in Oslo, two weeks to understand Norwegian from the southern coast, two months for northern dialects and by the end of the year, I understood even the western dialects on TV. If I can do it there with no relation to my own mother tongue, you can do it with English.
There is no variety of English a native English speaker should not be able to understand with ease after at the most a couple of days of adaptation.
I'm going to start a collection to buy Faltrad a plane ticket to Newcastle or Glasgow...
I have a strong feeling that this argument is wrong. Both languages have evolved since their separation. Those changes have been arbitrary in both cases. It is only your english-centric point of view that sees the changes in english english as "modernisation", whereas those in indian english as something else - "corruption"? The same thing has happened in french french and quebec french, and probably in every other similar case.
...and these cousins of mine who have lived all their lives on a farm way up on the moors in Yorkshire... well after a couple of days with them, when they are actually talking to me, I begin to understand about half the things they are saying. As soon as they are talking to each other I can forget it.
Is there any other point of view?
Thanks but I am foreign language guy. My "come on you can do it" message was addressed to native English speakers only. I am modest enough to know that there are many things I do not understand in standard English in the first place - history of my messages prooves my point.
In my opinion, there are two types of English-users in India.
1. Grammatically correct British-legacy English. Though many may not realise it, writers like Orwell & Kipling played an invisible but large role. There are Indians who could (grammatically) give it right back to the best in England with their excellent usage. A lot of these are, today, middle-aged Indians educated by British & Anglo-Indian teachers (who in turn are rare to find nowadays).
The weak point for these Indians (as it's been used largely in business & clubs) is that they find it difficult to make off-the-cuff witticisms & use everyday metaphors in their speech, which comes so naturally to the British.
Since not all Indians had the benefit of this sort of education, they frequently met other speakers who used the everyday 'pidgin' variety, composed of the basic, essential words. A lot of them simply didn't care after they passed out of their schools/colleges, and frankly, it wasn't necessary. A lot did, and you find them quite unexpectedly.
2. The majority of English speakers in India today, who speak a lot of it (more like a first language), but with a limited vocabulary (the old game of "form as many combinations as you can with these XXX words" comes to mind). Add to it " bs" management lingo (the last 10 years especially).
The fascinating thing about this genre is the amount of local words that can be interspersed with seemingly little effort; you only need to see a Facebook page with Indians posting to know what I mean. The advertising industry there has also been extremely creative, and have rolled together catchwords that have become embedded in the Indian mind as 'normal'. You would at face-value call this 'Indian English' or 'Hinglish', but it isn't, strictly speaking, as simple as that. This is probably the 'open source' DB was quoting.
I am so glad I made you laugh. You are obviously a language god and need to have some patience with us lesser beings, especially for ones like me, who are, as you gently pointed out, intolerant and narrow-minded.
Mutual intelligibility as it is generally used (as opposed to the a technical linguistic use), which is what I was referring to, means being able to readily understand one another. If there is a period of time needed for being able to understand a particular variety of a language, then, by definition, there is no mutual intelligibility. There are many factors that affect intelligibility, some of which are linguistic and others that are not (exposure to languages, views of the language variety, inferiority complex regarding speakers of the other variant, etc.)
As for Norwegian having no relation to your native tongue, Danish, you might want to go over your language books again:
“The three Scandinavian countries, Norway, Denmark and Sweden form a linguistic area in which dialects and standard languages are mutually intelligible.” [Here ‘mutually intelligible’ is used technically, that is tests have shown there to be a certain level of intelligibility between those Scandinavian languages. In fact, these tests have also shown that Danes have a relatively easy time understanding Norwegian but a more difficult time with Swedish.]
(Source: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation)
@Dougal's Breakfast: Clearly I need more exposure to UK English and I think the collection should be for a ticket for me.
First of all, Ziger, you did not understand that danish is not even my mother tongue.
Secondly, intelligibility in scandinavia is defined as intelligibility between speakers of different languages.
Third point, intelligibility between English speakers is a question of intelligibility between speakers of the same language.
So, one more time more simple words:
It is easy to understand each other NO/DK with a little willingness although the differences are defining them as different languages,
THUS,
understanding other English speakers should not be more difficult that scandinavians among themselves do.
But do NOT put words into my mouth, what you infer about yourself from my message are your imagination only, not my words.
And don't lecture me on topics I have a master degree in and places I spent six years in. Thanks.