This is a review of a book I just read and like a great deal. It has
nothing to do with science fiction.
The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention
Guy Deutscher
2005, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Co.
US: ISBN: 0805079076
London: ISBN: 0-43401-135-5
As Deutscher says on his first page,
Language is mankind's greatest invention -- except, of course,
that is was never invented.
This book is intended for lay people. Deutscher argues that three
forces work most powerfully on language: erosion, metaphor, and the
desire for expressiveness.
These are the force of destruction on the one hand -- people's desire
to simplify and economize -- and the two forces of creation on the
other -- people's desire to make analogies and their desire to express
themselves more vividly.
Grimm's law is an example of erosion. Speakers lose b, d, and g. The
law applies to certain Germanic languages, to Arabic and Japanese, but
not to the Romance languages.
Over time, in some languages,
b --> p
d --> t
g --> k
The three consonants, b, d, and g, go from `voiced' to `voiceless';
that is to say, from consonants in which the vocal cords vibrate to
those in which they do not.
At the same time,
p --> f
t --> th
k --> ch --> h
`ch' is the sound in Scottish loch or German Bach.
The three consonants, p, t, and k, go from those which stop the flow
of air momentarily to those in which a little air flows continually,
from `stop' to `fricative'. The `ch' may go further to `h'.
Another example of erosion can be seen by looking at the 1500 year
shift from late Latin to modern French in the phrase, `you will love':
amare habes (late Latin)
aimeras (old French)
emra (modern French pronunciation)
That is destruction. Creation comes from metaphor and the desire for
expressiveness.
As Neal Whitman says in a review
http://literalmind.blogspot.com/2005/07/unfolding-of-language-and-power-of.html
Deutscher argues that all words for abstract concepts in language
are created via metaphoric use of words denoting concrete objects
or physical actions. As the metaphors die, the language gains not
only words for abstract concepts, but also functional words or
particles such as tense markers, prepositions (or postpositions),
etc.
This is a cognitive linguistic argument, first stated for lay people
in 1980 by Lakoff and Johnson, in the "Metaphors We Live By".
For an example of metaphor consider first the non-metaphorical
beginning:
You grasp the book.
You can point to the book and pantomime or show the action directly.
Then consider the metaphorical extension of the notion of `grasp':
You grasp the idea.
Of course, having seized this notion, you can see (I could not say
`visualize' ...) that this is not a living metaphor. Deutscher
speaks of a `reef of dead metaphors'.
On page 130, Deutscher argues for other metaphors:
... one of the possible physical manifestations of `having
something', namely the thing being near, on or at you ...
acts
... as an image for the more general abstract notion of
possession.
Deutscher gives examples from three languages, Akkadian, So, and
Mupum. Then he goes on to say
In addition to physical proximity, there are also various other
sources ... [for example] that of `target' or `goal'. The idea
here is that if something is intended for you, or destined to you,
it is yours ...
and gives examples in Quechua, Breton, and Tamil.
Deutscher states on page 253 that
... the development of likelihood markers is a perfect example of
one of those long paths of metaphor, which lead from the simplest
of physical activities all the way through to the subtlest of
grammatical nuances. ...
He gives the example:
seizing --> possession --> obligation --> likelihood
get me a beer he's got a car I've gotta go she's gotta be
there by now
Regarding the desire for expressiveness, on page 98, Deutscher points
out that
A thousand years ago, the original negation marker in French was
just ne. This mere shrug of syllable, however, was not deemed
emphatic enough to convey the full extent of Gallic unenthusiasm,
so various novel and imaginative intensifier's began to be added,
to make sure a `no' was really taken for a `no'. Pas, which meant
`step', was just one of them ...
... By the time of modern French, only one of them, pas, remained
in regular use, and it has no fishbone of emphatic force left in
it. It simply means `no'.
... the English negative marker `not' ... started out as a
full-bodied ne-a-wiht `not-ever-thing', or in other words
`nothing-whatsoever'. This phrase was added to the simple `no',
in order to create an emphatic `no way' ...
Later on, however, as this emphatic type of `no' started being
used more and more often, attrition set in ...
Neal Whitman, whom I mention above, says in that same review,
[Another book, which I have not read, called "The Power of Babel"
by John McWhorter] is the one I'd recommend to someone as their
first taste of linguistics. I'd save ["The Unfolding of
Language"] for someone who already had something of an interest in
the subject, since there are a few stretches in there that only an
already-existing interest will get you through.
But I could not put "The Unfolding of Language" down. I like the book
Deutscher's occasional awkwardness -- which you can see in my quotes
-- never put me off.
Moreover, I enjoued Deutscher's more technical passages. The notions
were new to me, especially the passages on the Semantic verb, which
has a purely consonantal root. Deutscher shows how different vowels
could come to indicate different grammatical tenses and consonants
come to indicate a root.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
