Some Interesting Features of Linguistic Egotism in English Language

1. 86

   Jodahposted 3 years ago

   This is an extremely interesting article by Val Karas. Definitely worth reading.
   https://hubpages.com/literature/Some-In … e-A-Satire

   replyreport
   1. 79

      alancaster149posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      English doesn't follow Latin grammar rules, unlike most European languages. We have only 'common' gender. Before the Norman Conquest (from late October 1066) Old English did follow Latin grammar rules, but that was the court and Church only. Generally the population followed their old rules, different in various parts of England. Amongst the general populace on the eastern side of the kingdom the old Danish grammar prevailed (from the days of the Danelaw in the later 9th Century), and for lack of guidance other parts of the population followed suit whilst at Court the Old French language was used. The Church taught Latin grammar to its priests and the sons of gentlefolk until Edward III's time in the 14th Century (Chaucer's era). Noblemen who still held lands in Normandy found themselves being laughed at when they visited family and friends with their archaic Frankish language (Old French). So from the Court down Middle English was used. This was a sort of mixture of Frankish and English but a standard grammar didn't appear until well into the days of Stuart England. The grammar was simple: a single gender for everything, people and things. 'It is', 'he/she is', 'they are', 'I am', 'you are... And so forth. No declensions, no searching for the right words (as in German) where when you walk to a bridge, stand on it or walk over it the bridge begins as female ('die bruecke', and changes to male, 'der bruecke'). Nothing near as complicated. In the Scandinavian languages they have neuter and common genders, but by and large common. Simple enough, but still not as simple as 'I walked to the bridge, stood on it for a while, and walked on'. That was revolutionary. That's why English caught on across the Empire, the Dominions and latterly the Commonwealth, as well as in schools from Vladivostok to Vlissingen, and from Tromsoe in the north of Norway to Thailand in south-east Asia. It's the simplicity, the freedom from the 'shackles' of French or Spanish that allows expression without bounds. And in England it began with the Angles' simplified language that provided 'bridges', whereas the Saxons' grammar was very similar to German with its complications. We had to wait for the Conquest, when the only Chronicle still being written was the Peterborough version ('E'), that followed the grammar in common use in East Anglia, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Durham, Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland. In other words the Anglo-Norse communities. Back to 'roots'.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for the linguistic history lesson. I didn't know that. I've always loved English and it was my best subject in school. However, I didn't want to major English in college because about the only thing a gal could do with it was become a teacher. So I did the next best thing and majored in journalism and spent 33 years as an editor correcting and sometimes rewriting other people's mistakes. LOL Something that bugs me now is this PC about getting the gender correct, just the anthesis to the English no gender. We are using incorrect plural pronouns they, them, their, etc. just to be politically correct.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            alancaster149posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Used right, English is the most direct language, hence the worldwide learning and use of it. We can say to anyone - including those we don't know - "... You should read this ...", "You ought to go and see that ..." Of course if we're talking to someone senior to ourselves where we work, then you add a prefix, "Ma'am", "Sir", but other than that we have no reason to be obsequious (even if some are and carry it to great lengths). "Woke-ism" is unnecessary for communication in our language. It is the most direct form of communication. With some languages, such as German, you find yourself communicating with someone in the third person, "If the Director would like to come with me ...?" instead of, "Would you like to come with me, Sir/Ma'am?"

            replyreport
   2. 95

      MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I find it very interesting. Although Val calls it a satire in his headline, I find a lot of truth here. I do have a theory about the capital "I", and this is strictly from my journalism studies. It is possible that in the early days of the printing press, the "I" was capitalized because the lower case is such a dainty little letter that it could easily be lost. The only reason I put forth this theory is because we were taught in journalism that the period or comma goes before the quotation mark. The reason was because the tiny punctuation mark would often be forgotten or lost when placed after the quotation mark in the early printing presses. That never made sense to me, and I disagree with it because in some instances placing the period or comma in front of the last quotation mark changes the meaning of the sentence and violates English grammar rules. Note that in my sentence above, I didn't place the comma before the quotation mark because I violate that style most of the time. I haven't checked any old documents to see if the I is capped. I do remember some old saying about egocentrics though: "Big I, little u" so my theory might not hold water. Just a thought and anyone is welcome to prove me wrong.

      replyreport
2. 86

   Jodahposted 3 years ago

   Thank you, both Alan and MizB for that information. All very interesting. Val calls a lot of his articles satires, but sometimes I beg to differ as they are too factual.

   replyreport