Language

This page is dedicated to Mr. Borges, who did not teach 
me any specific language, other than a love for the
genus and the species, "Once you know the genus and
you know the species, then you know the real truth."
Verbum spientius. (words of wisdom)

See also:  [Logic]
           [Philosophy Concepts]
           [Languages] (yet another new, "major index")
           [The VERB] (under literature)
           
           [Semiotics] 


Language

Also on this page:  {Whose language is it anyway?]
                    {The use of "commentary"}
                    {Language (coda)}

classical stuff goes here






Whose language is it anyway?

   "My main purpose was to imitate, and as far as possible,
    to adopt the language of men."

      -- William Wordsworth, Lyrical Ballads, 1800.


From my point of view, we either *all* decide to speak the
King's English as exactly and precisely as possible (does 
this include imitating some sort of ideal *accent* as well?),
or else, language is this fluid thing that twists and turns
through life like a river course-ing its way towards the
sea (or at least a lake; i particularly like "finger lakes"
which were formed by the cutting actions of glaciers).

I can hardly think (at all, let alone precisely).  I can hardly
think of anything more bore-ing than if suddenly, everyone was
to start talking like Johnny Carson; ie, at one time "some people"
said that his mid-western accent (what accent?) was the "most
representative of American English".  What-ever the hell that was
supposed to mean.

What if we all started talking like the "Skipper" in Gilligan's
Island?  Or like the professor? or like the comedian Gilbert
Godfried?  Or like some Elisabethian actor from one of the
"Henry" plays of Shakespeare (Bacon?)?

Just as I would abhore if every painter painted the same things,
in the same way, or every musician composed/produced the same
music in the same way (even if about different topics), the idea
that everyone should speak the same language is abhorent to 
the open mind.

And so, if you don't believe that. Consider that the next time,
you hear some one "put down" some one else, because they either
can't speak "something called English" or can't understand 
"something called THE STANDARD LANGUAGE", try responding like this:

(using haughty, accent, preferably in a snobbish tone of voice)

   I quite agree, the inappropriate utilisation of language is
   most abhorent to the civilised conneseur of the spoken word.
   To embrace the blatent mis-use of the language english with
   the same gesture as to serve red wine with fish, or to emulate 
   the more roguish aspects of the rentier class as it attempts 
   to foist its neuvo rich (new-way-voh reech) amenities as  
   examples of authentic cultrue in the post modern world. Rather 
   would we consign Promethius to a rock for eternity than to 
   interevene in the ellulocatry (ell-yuu-lock-ih-tree) concourse 
   between Vladimir and Estragon. The entire sordid mess is quite
   beneath *any* civilised person of character and refinement.

Now, I would think that in this "part" (performance piece, in
real time, in a real situation, do the best you can), it's 
vitally important that the "language bigot" (ie, the one who
made the statement "if they come to this country, they should
learn to speak the language!"), should under no circumstances
be allowed to escape. After all, if first you attack a person's
language, pouring gasoline on them and lighting them alive as
an example to others is not far off. 

We each live and breath the language that we have, it is for
us (as teachers) to continually raise the level of that language.
So, that in *each* language, a person can express (and appreciate)
the use of language in all of its nuances and subtlties. And
this is especially true in English, which has pretty much become
the lingua franca of the modern era. 

(more later, dudes!),  Pizo.



The use of "commentary"

When we talk about language, we (usually) use language to do it. This
should immediately strike one as a hopeless task (not unlike the
"chicken and the egg -- which came first?" paradox). None-the-less,
we must proceed.

For example:  In a cartoon, we see a little boy, whose pull toy
has a broken wheel, he is crying, and next to him a woman bends
down to comfort him.  The caption reads:  Old Lady: I shouldn't
cry if I were you, little man. Little Boy: Must do sumping; I
bean't old enough to swear.

Ref:  1913.04.02, Punch Magazine (as quoted in "The Cambridge 
      Encyclopedia of Language", 2nd ed. by David Crystal,
ISBN 0.521.55967.7 (Melbourne, 1997).  Page 61.

If we undertake to "examine" this example, it would involve several
steps. At bottom-up approach might be the follown "annotation" of
the example (i will be brief)

In a cartoon, - a graphic drawing intended to provide insight or
                humor into the world, or to explain an idea in 
graphical terms.

we see -- That is the "reader" of the cartoon as "viewer" of the
          "thing" under discussion; ie, the cartoon.

a little boy, -- a child, a youth; in this case male

whose pull toy -- the central object of the drama, implying the
                  sadness that is clear in the picture.

has a broken wheel -- the reason for the sadness

he is crying, -- both the explicit demonstration of the sadness,
                 as well as the *result* of the sadness.

and -- connective particle. in this case, connecting the two
       main "actors" in the drama.

next to him -- indicating the relative position of the two 
               "actors". the old woman if "floaing above him"
might imply a ghost or angel or other person with the ability 
to fly. if "above him, a bird is flying" would present an 
entirely different "take" on the drama.

a woman bends down -- shows the physicallity of her posture

to comfort him -- both the reason that she is bending down
                  and *shows* what she is attempting to do.
(this last is *not* clear without the dialog, to Mandrake the
Martian she might be simply study-ing him, possibly with the
intent to steal his scarf -- all characters are dressed warmly,
*implying* cold weather).

The caption reads:  -- now we get to the COMMENTARY, this is
                       way ("meta way" i would venture) that
we talk about the *implied* action in the cartoon. In reality,
there is no one talking, it's just a drawing, yet in the 
*context* of the "cartoon world", we are almost completely
FORCED to expect "dialog" or "explanatory" commentary at the
bottom of the "frame".

Old Lady: -- identifying who is speaking.

I -- first person. she could have said "one shouldn't cry", which
     give an entirely different "spin" on the *implied* realtionship
between the two people.

shouldn't cry -- subjunctive, connected with next components

if I were you, -- continues the subjunctive:  "If i were you,
               i would not being crying"

little man. -- again emphasizing the youth of the child. Also,
               by *implication* of cultural context, she is
also saying (almost in a harsh way):  BE a MAN, don't cry like that!

Little Boy: Must do sumping; I   -- he replies in the subjunctive
                                    mode as well: I can't just do
nothing. Something has happened, and i *must* react.

bean't old enough to swear. -- the punch line. note the verb form "bean't"!
                               linguists trained in the history of
language would have a field day with this (refer to the character
"Professor Higgins" in "My Fair Lady", based on "Pygmalean" ?sp?
by George Bernard Shaw.



Now, none of this even takes into consideration cultural and
human contexts. As far as Mandrake the Martian knows, the "pull
toy" is the poor child's favorite pet, who has just died or at
the very least suffered a horrible accident -- unless the 
"pull toy" is of the sort of being like a hydra that "buds" 
(or a starfish that can "re-generate" a limb), the pull toy
has obviously suffered a trauma. This trauma is "small" in the 
cosmic scheme of things -- but, to the tyke this is an epic
disaster. (again, we don't know the "nature" of the pull toy;
eg, perhaps his grandmother (who died recently) gave it to 
him and it represents his loss for her -- this would elevate
the "minor tragedy" status to a higher level (what-ever *that*
means).

note that in *all* of this "analysis", i have taken rather various
liberties with the english language -- partly out of sort of 
whimsical form, partly out of the seriousness of the problem.

well, that's if for now, must get back to working on art history!



Coda

My favorite joke (which i constructed myself) about language goes like
this:

Two froodz are visiting a foreign country, neither of them speak
the local language very well, but one of them speaks it a bit
better. They are at the hotel, and the first frood asks the
second, "Ask the concerge where can we go to experience the fine
cuisine of this fair and beautiful city, where we can drink in
the culture and subtle ambiance of the people that live and work here,
a city which has had such a place in history and legend".  The
second frood sez (haltingly), 'my friend, asks, where can we
go to get some ting to eat?'.

And we're all like that: Just trying to communicate; well, a lot
of us are, i'd say most that do not come to human interactions
with "an agenda". I have seen language used to put people (persons)
down because of the way that they talk -- as any one group 
"owns" a language. As if by making "a language", THE official
language that this some-how embues it with a "seal of
approval".  And yet, that is what is often done (eg, the 
*continual* movement to get "English" (what-ever *that* is)
made into the "OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

Of course, what i suspsect sech people *mean* is the language
to which i usually refer to as Americanese; ie, since it is *clearly*
not the "King's English" (which i tend to define as *the* language
English).  Note that not even the inhabitants of the United Kingdom
speak "the king's english" -- it is an idea, something like classical
latin -- there is no way to *really* know how it was spoken and
especially how it was *pronounced* -- i learned the "germanic"
rather than the "italian" pronunciation, so i say tings like
"vini, vidi, vici" pronunskiated "wee-nee, wee-dee, wee-kee"
(the "w" being rendered as if it were the leading sound in
the french word for "yes" (oui)).

And of course i grow *quite* tired (especially here in Texas)
of people saying "those people (in-evitably, latino's of Mexican
descent) should learn english!!" to which i (becomeing quite
the onion) reply, "NO. Everyone should learn Commanche and 
Arapaho!" (yes, i know an argument could be made for at least
the 5 original languages of the Iriquois tribes -- prob, Iriquois
would "sort of" take up the role of "english" if senior columbus
had not been granted entry to the great turtle

...(fade to injun officials welcoming columbus)...

Hello, Senior Collumboos, welcome to america (time anomoly),
may i see your vacination certificates and port authority 
papers.  What is the nature of your visit, and how long will
you be staying.

(response missing)

(somewhat in shock, injun official continues) I'm sorry, but we
can't let you in, please get back in your boats and vamoose!
Next please. next.  No, go away.  No, i'm sorry there's no
arguing, please who's next in line.  (columbus becomes a bit
un-rule-y) No, i must insist that you leave, Running Elk, if
you would please. (v. large injun comes up and give columbus
"the eye", thinking departure the better part of valor exits, 
stage LEFT)

...fade to commercial of Granma Live Oak's (tm) home grown 
ecinaecia rub...


(nite all, pizo; aka "Jim 2-feathers")