Excellent exposition on the state of affairs regarding words and language. I was under the (mistaken) impression that thou/thy was the formal version of "you", not the other way around. Understanding of the English language. I look forward to more installments in this series!
Thanks! Yeah, I think most people think that... then again a lot of English speakers really don't think too much about language because they don't have to as much as speakers of other languages do.
I think that English speakers probably think that English is as good a language as any, but that's highly debatable. There's a lot of things that other languages do better than English. Spanish, for instance, is generally able to convey identical information in fewer words, who means that it's more efficient. Plus, it's spelled phonetically, which is a massive advantage. I cannot fathom how frustrating and annoying it must be to learn English, which does not make logical sense.
Take the words "tough", "through", "although" and "trough". They all end in "-ough" but they are each pronounced completely differently. That's dumb. Humanity can do better, folks.
Plus, English has too many letters. That's a subject I plan to cover at some point. I think that we could do everything that we do with 26 letters with 17. Arguably, those nine extra letters are superfluous, rendering communication more difficult.
I think about English a lot, and the way it's being slowly morphed and degraded to fit certain ideologies that I vehemently disagree with. If a man can "become" a woman by uttering a few syllables, than words are meaningless and we would be better off not speaking. Precision and clarity in our thoughts and words is critical for communication. I am incredibly picky about language, and many people around me find that to be one of my more irksome traits.
I can tell you this: teaching my children to read and write the English language has been an eye-opening experience as to how illogical English really is.
It really is extremely illogical. Humanity can do better.
I feel weird about saying so, because I love many authors and poets who wrote in English. But it has egregious flaws - its spelling, for instance.
I think that we can all agree that Arabic numerals are the best ever devised, and that the Mesoamerican calendar is the most accurate ever devised. I'm a big proponent of throwing the Gregorian calendar in the dustbin of history too, in case people think I'm just picking on English.
What is the best language? I don't know, but it's not English. And it seems like a difficult question to investigate because people would get their patriotic panties twisted defending their favourite language... but I want to know. The way I see it, it's
China's turn to rule the world now. What does that mean for the world and its languages? Time will tell.
Interesting. Thanks Crow! Regarding the certainty conveyed in English, I recently learned that in Italian the subjunctive tense, denoting an element of doubt, is used with the phrase "I think that...". So instead of saying "Penso che questa persona è una donna" - I think that this person is a woman - they say "Penso che questa persona sia una donna". Untranslatable in English, of course, but there is a linguistic distancing of the statement of opinion from actual reality. In French this only happens in the negative - in other words the doubt is only seen as existing when I don't think this person is a woman - "Je ne pense pas que cette personne soit une femme".
In Spanish you could say "me parece que sea una mujer" or "me parece que es una mujer" and the two constructions give varying degrees of certainly, the former being more tenative than the latter.
Me parece que sea una mujer: This uses the subjunctive mood ("sea") and expresses a more tentative or uncertain opinion. It implies that the speaker thinks it is likely that the subject is a woman but is not entirely sure.
Me parece que es una mujer: This uses the indicative mood ("es") and expresses a more confident or certain opinion. It implies that the speaker is fairly certain that the subject is a woman.
Yup! I'm getting to the subjunctive. Actually this essay was inspired by an email my mom sent me. It's a defence of the subjunctive, which anglophones tend to regard as an irrational and antiquated thing. But you know how Orwell bemoans the diminishment of the use of the English "Shall"? Simplifying French or English would result in a diminishment of the quality of the information meaning conveyed through language.
Here it is, it's called "Aux amoureux du subjonctif":
Merci à Christophe Clavé pour cette éclairage sur l’appauvrissement de la langue et la ruine de la pensée 🙌
"La disparition progressive des temps (subjonctif, passé simple, imparfait, formes composées du futur, participe passé…) donne lieu à une pensée au présent, limitée à l’instant, incapable de projections dans le temps.
La généralisation du tutoiement, la disparition des majuscules et de la ponctuation sont autant de coups mortels portés à la subtilité de l’expression.
Supprimer le mot «mademoiselle» est non seulement renoncer à l’esthétique d’un mot, mais également promouvoir l’idée qu’entre une petite fille et une femme il n’y a rien.
Moins de mots et moins de verbes conjugués c’est moins de capacités à exprimer les émotions et moins de possibilité d’élaborer une pensée.
Des études ont montré qu’une partie de la violence dans la sphère publique et privée provient directement de l’incapacité à mettre des mots sur les émotions.
Sans mot pour construire un raisonnement, la pensée complexe chère à Edgar Morin est entravée, rendue impossible.
Plus le langage est pauvre, moins la pensée existe.
L’histoire est riche d’exemples et les écrits sont nombreux de Georges Orwell dans « 1984 » à Ray Bradbury dans « Fahrenheit 451 » qui ont relaté comment les dictatures de toutes obédiences entravaient la pensée en réduisant et tordant le nombre et le sens des mots.
Il n’y a pas de pensée critique sans pensée. Et il n’y a pas de pensée sans mots.
Comment construire une pensée hypothético-déductive sans maîtrise du conditionnel ? Comment envisager l’avenir sans conjugaison au futur ? Comment appréhender une temporalité, une succession d’éléments dans le temps, qu’ils soient passés ou à venir, ainsi que leur durée relative, sans une langue qui fait la différence entre ce qui aurait pu être, ce qui a été, ce qui est, ce qui pourrait advenir, et ce qui sera après que ce qui pourrait advenir soit advenu ? Si un cri de ralliement devait se faire entendre aujourd’hui, ce serait celui, adressé aux parents et aux enseignants : faites parler, lire et écrire vos enfants, vos élèves, vos étudiants.
Enseignez et pratiquez la langue dans ses formes les plus variées, même si elle semble compliquée, surtout si elle est compliquée. Parce que dans cet effort se trouve la liberté. Ceux qui expliquent à longueur de temps qu’il faut simplifier l’orthographe, purger la langue de ses «défauts», abolir les genres, les temps, les nuances, tout ce qui crée de la complexité sont les fossoyeurs de l’esprit humain. Il n’est pas de liberté sans exigences. Il n’est pas de beauté sans la pensée de la beauté."
Excellent exposition on the state of affairs regarding words and language. I was under the (mistaken) impression that thou/thy was the formal version of "you", not the other way around. Understanding of the English language. I look forward to more installments in this series!
Thanks! Yeah, I think most people think that... then again a lot of English speakers really don't think too much about language because they don't have to as much as speakers of other languages do.
I think that English speakers probably think that English is as good a language as any, but that's highly debatable. There's a lot of things that other languages do better than English. Spanish, for instance, is generally able to convey identical information in fewer words, who means that it's more efficient. Plus, it's spelled phonetically, which is a massive advantage. I cannot fathom how frustrating and annoying it must be to learn English, which does not make logical sense.
Take the words "tough", "through", "although" and "trough". They all end in "-ough" but they are each pronounced completely differently. That's dumb. Humanity can do better, folks.
Plus, English has too many letters. That's a subject I plan to cover at some point. I think that we could do everything that we do with 26 letters with 17. Arguably, those nine extra letters are superfluous, rendering communication more difficult.
I think about English a lot, and the way it's being slowly morphed and degraded to fit certain ideologies that I vehemently disagree with. If a man can "become" a woman by uttering a few syllables, than words are meaningless and we would be better off not speaking. Precision and clarity in our thoughts and words is critical for communication. I am incredibly picky about language, and many people around me find that to be one of my more irksome traits.
I can tell you this: teaching my children to read and write the English language has been an eye-opening experience as to how illogical English really is.
It really is extremely illogical. Humanity can do better.
I feel weird about saying so, because I love many authors and poets who wrote in English. But it has egregious flaws - its spelling, for instance.
I think that we can all agree that Arabic numerals are the best ever devised, and that the Mesoamerican calendar is the most accurate ever devised. I'm a big proponent of throwing the Gregorian calendar in the dustbin of history too, in case people think I'm just picking on English.
What is the best language? I don't know, but it's not English. And it seems like a difficult question to investigate because people would get their patriotic panties twisted defending their favourite language... but I want to know. The way I see it, it's
China's turn to rule the world now. What does that mean for the world and its languages? Time will tell.
Interesting. Thanks Crow! Regarding the certainty conveyed in English, I recently learned that in Italian the subjunctive tense, denoting an element of doubt, is used with the phrase "I think that...". So instead of saying "Penso che questa persona è una donna" - I think that this person is a woman - they say "Penso che questa persona sia una donna". Untranslatable in English, of course, but there is a linguistic distancing of the statement of opinion from actual reality. In French this only happens in the negative - in other words the doubt is only seen as existing when I don't think this person is a woman - "Je ne pense pas que cette personne soit une femme".
In Spanish you could say "me parece que sea una mujer" or "me parece que es una mujer" and the two constructions give varying degrees of certainly, the former being more tenative than the latter.
Me parece que sea una mujer: This uses the subjunctive mood ("sea") and expresses a more tentative or uncertain opinion. It implies that the speaker thinks it is likely that the subject is a woman but is not entirely sure.
Me parece que es una mujer: This uses the indicative mood ("es") and expresses a more confident or certain opinion. It implies that the speaker is fairly certain that the subject is a woman.
Yup! I'm getting to the subjunctive. Actually this essay was inspired by an email my mom sent me. It's a defence of the subjunctive, which anglophones tend to regard as an irrational and antiquated thing. But you know how Orwell bemoans the diminishment of the use of the English "Shall"? Simplifying French or English would result in a diminishment of the quality of the information meaning conveyed through language.
Here it is, it's called "Aux amoureux du subjonctif":
Merci à Christophe Clavé pour cette éclairage sur l’appauvrissement de la langue et la ruine de la pensée 🙌
"La disparition progressive des temps (subjonctif, passé simple, imparfait, formes composées du futur, participe passé…) donne lieu à une pensée au présent, limitée à l’instant, incapable de projections dans le temps.
La généralisation du tutoiement, la disparition des majuscules et de la ponctuation sont autant de coups mortels portés à la subtilité de l’expression.
Supprimer le mot «mademoiselle» est non seulement renoncer à l’esthétique d’un mot, mais également promouvoir l’idée qu’entre une petite fille et une femme il n’y a rien.
Moins de mots et moins de verbes conjugués c’est moins de capacités à exprimer les émotions et moins de possibilité d’élaborer une pensée.
Des études ont montré qu’une partie de la violence dans la sphère publique et privée provient directement de l’incapacité à mettre des mots sur les émotions.
Sans mot pour construire un raisonnement, la pensée complexe chère à Edgar Morin est entravée, rendue impossible.
Plus le langage est pauvre, moins la pensée existe.
L’histoire est riche d’exemples et les écrits sont nombreux de Georges Orwell dans « 1984 » à Ray Bradbury dans « Fahrenheit 451 » qui ont relaté comment les dictatures de toutes obédiences entravaient la pensée en réduisant et tordant le nombre et le sens des mots.
Il n’y a pas de pensée critique sans pensée. Et il n’y a pas de pensée sans mots.
Comment construire une pensée hypothético-déductive sans maîtrise du conditionnel ? Comment envisager l’avenir sans conjugaison au futur ? Comment appréhender une temporalité, une succession d’éléments dans le temps, qu’ils soient passés ou à venir, ainsi que leur durée relative, sans une langue qui fait la différence entre ce qui aurait pu être, ce qui a été, ce qui est, ce qui pourrait advenir, et ce qui sera après que ce qui pourrait advenir soit advenu ? Si un cri de ralliement devait se faire entendre aujourd’hui, ce serait celui, adressé aux parents et aux enseignants : faites parler, lire et écrire vos enfants, vos élèves, vos étudiants.
Enseignez et pratiquez la langue dans ses formes les plus variées, même si elle semble compliquée, surtout si elle est compliquée. Parce que dans cet effort se trouve la liberté. Ceux qui expliquent à longueur de temps qu’il faut simplifier l’orthographe, purger la langue de ses «défauts», abolir les genres, les temps, les nuances, tout ce qui crée de la complexité sont les fossoyeurs de l’esprit humain. Il n’est pas de liberté sans exigences. Il n’est pas de beauté sans la pensée de la beauté."
Christophe Clavé