aavv wrote:You got me wrong, i didn't get mad nor something, i just like this sort of discussions that involve linguistics. i also think your view is too conservative, and, to say the least, wrong.
It wasn't (<--oh there I go!
abbreviating) saying that you got mad. It was a "delayed" response to Luther's "Konservativa moralhora!" (="conservative moralist whore!"), or actually to one general issue all kinds of online discussions tend to have: The amount of unprovoked insults and personal attacks that goes with forums and chat-rooms. I don't understand why it has to be impossible to keep a friendly tone even though you disagree in certain subjects.
Again this is absolutely not directed towards you, the reason I wrote it was that your informal tone was so utterly different from the general treatment a deviating opinion recieves in the "online world" that I just had to comment on it. Sorry.
Oh and I am also interested in linguistic discussions, of course! As goes for my view, I don't think such a subjective phenomena as a view can be "wrong". That is, for that matter, not a reason not to discuss it! You learn and grow so much from discussing and arguing, different views are added to your registry or system or whatever you want to call it.
Ortography is part of a language, and I agree with some of what you said concerning its degeneration. But what you point out in the excerpts quoted above is the evolution of a language, not just of its ortography.
Of course you cannot steer a language. Time
will equal change. And I must say that I have nothing against languages "evolving" (But it is a dangerous word, because of its origin, to use about a language, it can, subconciously, make you think that the language is a "living", independent "being" - I would refer to it as code or a tool for cummunicating. I prefer to use the word "development", but this is a really narrow sidetrack), because there are lot of things I, with others, would like to implement.
As for the word written "tekniker"(and lots of similar problem-related words) it can be read as [tekniker] or [teknÃker] (sorry for not using real phonetics) thus meaning either "technicians" or "techniques". There are situations where they're impossible to tell apart. So I'm actually rebellious (som much for conservative!) and write those kind of words with accents.
Because, of course the utmost (only?) purpose for languages is understanding, therefore they should be as clear as possible.
Back to that 'linguistic degeneration' you speak of: latin vs. romanic languages.(...) 3. the romanic languages aren't a degeneration from latin, an are far from being either more poor or rich than latin was.
You are "right" (again, I have these doubts about "right" and "wrong" in these kind of questions) concerning how you cannot say a language is greater or poorer at a common level, at the every-day usage. You cannot say that some cultures/nations understand each other better or worse, this I guess is very equal throughout the entire world. There you have a point. But, I absolutely think a language can become poorer in certain other aspects.
An example: The only language in wich you can actually discuss certain (quite lot of them I say) philosophic issues is ancient greek. This has to do with the language-philosophical theory, the one that language forms certain ways of thought (abstract ideas like eternity etc.) Here to the point: The culture, and language, in wich those discussions were brought to form were the ancient Greek culture. When translated to other languages misunderstandings and misinterpretations are very common. It usually ends with taking the greek word and writing a long explanation to it. Is that not at least a sign of a richer language? The same goes for latin poetry and much more.
Some time ago, English had case endings too, like most of the germanic family languages. Remember Shakespeare: thou, thy, thee, etc. Today the use of case endings in everyday-english is almost confined to the genitive -'s (...) Does this means nowadays' english is simpler or less complex or whatever?
I don't know how Englishmen solve the misunderstandings that follow that reduction:
1: "I have better friends than you"
this could mean both (in olde english)
A: "I hath better friends than thou"(hast) or
B: "I hath better friends than thee"
Anyway that was actually a translation of the same problem (the one mentioned before) in swedish. The problem is that "1" in that form is used for both "A" and "B". This leads to lots of misunderstandings. I don't know if I should call the language simpler or more complex, but, at least harder to understand; more ineffective.
Latin is well conserved because all the latin you can see nowadays is either ancient latin or a recreation of ancient latin. Latin is a dead tongue, that is almost only meant to be read/translated. That's why it ias so well conserved. if you meant that it's well conserved in the romanic languages, that's untrue.
I meant that the actual (ancient) latin is well conserved. Oh, and don't forget it's the official language in the Vatican! They would be insulted hearing you calling their language dead...
It's alarming if people don't know how to write at all, but i guess it's not even sligtly condemning if you do it only in chats or mobile phone messages or whatever.
Yes, I guess I was indistinct (I don't call myself Ho Scoteinos for no reason
), once again. The alarming issue about the teenagers was that they cannot spell at all
IRL, because of the cellular phones!!!
The youth of today really are careless, most with shortsighted plans involving quick fortune or pleasure, no thoughts to the future. But then I guess this is what our modern society shapes us to (This is going off topic, if I would continue I could write ten pages, so I'll stop here, you know the general direction I was heading at).
Non schola sed vita. /Tore