The language most likely to continue long without alteration would be that of a nation raised a little, and but a little, above barbarity, secluded from strangers, and totally employed in procuring the conveniences of life; either without books, or, like some of the Mahometan countries, with very few: men thus busied and unlearned, having only such words as common use requires, would perhaps long continue to express the same notions by the same signs. But no such constancy can be expected in a people polished by arts, and classed by subordination, where one part of the community is sustained and accommodated by the labor of the other.

According to Johnson, there seem to be two important elements in the prevention of language chance: 1) seclusion from speakers of other languages; and 2) constant occupation with taking care of the basic needs rather than having time to sit around and become educated. I wouldn’t argue with the former — as we’ve frequently discussed, a whole lot of English language change did have to do with the influx of words from foreign invaders or trade contacts — but I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the latter claim. I don’t necessarily think that language change finds its roots in education or in having leisure time. If that education were to include reading works from people of other cultures who spoke other languages, then obviously language change could come from there, but I don’t believe that simply having someone else take care of one’s basic needs would entail language change, nor do I think that the constant preoccupation with providing for oneself would preclude it.

Any thoughts?

 Lying Down in Crusade for Correctness 

 Second, a piece from Monday’s New York Times about the semicolon (complete with a Chomsky quote and a hilarious edit at the end)

Celebrating the Semicolon 

The second piece got me thinking about punctuation and the rules we have for using it. These rules apply certain ways in different situations (an em-dash instead of a semicolon in news articles, for example, or the vagaries of text message punctuation). We’ve talked in class a lot about changing sounds of words and changing vocabularies, but very little about changing rules of punctuation. When did punctuation as we know it become standardized? Its interesting that we concern ourselves with the pronunciation of OE, an aural exercise, when the evidence we have for it is written (and, therefore, punctuated).  

Voigts “Bilingualism”