Sam Haywood wrote:
>Similarly, your reasoning is perfectly agreeable with mine on this point.
>Many of the aboriginal inhabitants of Great Britain had written languages
>such as Gaelic and Celtic. These languages in their original form have
>their own distinctive alphabets. Many centuries after the Roman conquest
>of Britain, English started to evolve and take form. For writing, the same
>character set used by the Roman conquerors was adopted. Despite the ornate
>and stylistic flourishes of the so-called "Old English" and "Middle English"
>characters, the character set can be easily recognized and identified as
>being basically the same as the Roman characters, except for just a couple
>of symbols. After English began to be spoken, it started appearing in
>writing simply as transliterated phonetic transcription using Roman
>characters. Therefore, you are perfectly correct in saying that English is
>not a written language in the true sense of the term. Neither are most
>other modern European languages to be considered written languages. The
>only true written languages are those developed by a people before a time
>when they fell under foreign influences. Under this definition there are
>very few languages that can qualify as written languages.
Sam:
I don't mean to be rude, or supercilious, and least of all to
prolong this discussion on language, but when you write so
apparently authoritatively but so naively about the nature of
language, as a PhD in linguistics, I feel I cannot allow
that to go unchallenged. I don't want to disect and analyze every
sentence, just highlight some major misunderstandings.
>can qualify as written languages.
"Written language" is simply loose shorthand for referring to a
language for which a writing system has evolved or been invented. So
to speak of "being considered" or "qualify as" a written language
is meaningless. Anyone landing on mars could sit down and transcribe
phonetically on paper what the little green men said and then their
language would be "written". Writing systems are symbolic systems
that represent what is spoken, they are NOT language except in a
derivative sense.
>English started to evolve and take form...
>After English began to be spoken...
All languages constantly change and vary. So there can be no starting
point for "English" or any other language. "English" is also merely
shorthand for referring to an incredibly large number of spoken
symbolic systems that vary geographically (regional dialects,
Nigerian/Australian/Indian English), socioeconomically (working class
vs. educated), and even situationally (speaking to your children
vs. to your boss).
I would recommend reading any number of general introductions to
the study of language such as those by Hall or Langacker (which are
ancient history) before perorating so pseudo-authoritatively.
Sam, forgive me if I sound harsh, but the list is a public forum
and although opinions are welcome, I believe misinformation
needs to be set straight.
Klaus Hameyer
Burlington, VT (USA)
