In many of his examples, and in much of the 19th-century British literature I’ve read, I actually find some of these “old-fashioned” constructions to resemble modern-day French–especially the verb forms Crystal singles out. For example, Jane Austen’s Jenny & James are walked to Charmouth this afternoon reminds me of many French verbs of movement and transportation that require the “to be” auxiliary in the past tense; Keats’ it rains parallels the modern French phrasing of that statement, etc.

Given that our class has collectively studied quite a few languages, I was wondering if anyone else has had similar thoughts. Are there “typically 19th-century” constructions that remind any of you of current usage in another language?

(click the picture to follow the link)
Above is a link to a site where users can post mistranslations found in foreign languages that actually try to use English in conveying a message.

Most are from Japan, where the funniest mistranslations occur.

“Engrish” because the “r” sound is replaced with the “l” sound in spoken Japanese.

Example: “Surprise!” would sound like “supplies!”

This has nothing to do with the latest class topic, I just find it amusing.

———————————————————————–

For those times when you feel too relaxed:

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?

So strong is this metaphor of the dictionary as the gate to the true meaning of words, and lexicographers as the “priests” bringing the masses to these true meanings, that I couldn’t help but think of the logos, the Original Word, the word of Truth itself, especially as it was interpreted by Derrida. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Green mentioned Derrida, and that I just missed the allusion. Green’s comments on lexicography reminded me much of Derrida’s criticism of Western civilization as being “logocentric.” I don’t know whether many of the students in this class are acquainted with Derrida (I had to read him in my Intro to Lit Theory class last semester, and did a paper on him for that class as well,) but if anybody is, I would like to know whether he or she has noticed the same connections.

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

“The vast literature on reasons why human languages inevitably change through time focuses on two types of causation, “functional,” and “social.”  My purpose here is to explore a third category of explanation, one that has largely been ignored or dismissed as seemingly inconsequential: I argue that a change/chaos model of linguistic change is a necessary and important supplement to functional and social explanations.”

I would like to use specific examples of changes in English such as the Great Vowel Shift, loss of inflections, and whatever else I have pages left for in order to either support this theory or challenge it.  This is the first time I’ve been introduced to this model, and is a nice change from other explanations I have heard for linguistic change so far.  Any comments of suggestions are welcome!

Lastly, i was interested by the extent to which over-prescriptivism can actually produce the opposite of cultural sensitivity by becoming a joke.  For example, “mentally challenged” introduced “challenged” as a more sensitive word, but has now been used humorously as “vertically challenged” (”short”) and “metabolically challenged” (”dead”).

 Ack…so, I have a lot of random ideas and really don’t know which direction to take this.  Does anyone have any suggestions as to which sound the most promising or are best suited to a research paper?  I would really appreciate any opinions/feedback.  Thanks!