rec.autos.simulators

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

"Team Mirage" http://www.racesimcentral.net/
"The Pits"    http://www.racesimcentral.net/

* Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way *
"Spamkiller"    http://www.racesimcentral.net/

reharrumphant,
-DK

[snip] . . . are

BB

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

Well, okay, Francis Bacon (or whoever) used them. The fact is that
Shakespeare (or whoever) got away with breaking the rules because the
sense *worked* (eg "take arms against a sea of troubles" - mixed
metaphor, but a great image). Standard English is a good thing, but I'd
hate to see it make the world's most interesting language become a
fossilised relic.

One thing I really hate (I'm not accusing you of this, BTW) is people
who try to make English rigidly fit Latin grammar. It doesn't - because
it isn't Latin. I shall continue to boldly state (nyahh) my opinions on
this. :-)
--
David.
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really."
(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Jari Jokinen

I've been through about as much British history as one can get--that's an
exaggeration, but I am a Ph.D. candidate in Modern British hist.--and I've
never heard anyone expound this theory.  Didn't hear it during my time as a
Eng. Lit. major either.  But some of the "hot" historiography right now,
after the Linguistic Turn and all ( G. S. Jones, P. Joyce, J. Vernon), pays
close attention to the role of language in ordering perceptions of what we
call "reality."  So maybe this theory as a *subject* of historical study has
made it into studies of colonialism, etc.

I *suspect* (just a hunch) that you'll find the idea being tossed around
fairly early in the 20C, with the rise of English Literature as a
respectable academic field of study.  Contemporary proponents of such a move
needed to justify why English Lit. should be given this status; perhaps the
theory formed part of their weaponry?  (See Terry Eagleton, _Literary
Theory: An Introduction_--a *great* read, BTW.)

It'd be hard to put it forward today without sounding triumphalist (but of
course, the Empire was triumphalist); but more importantly, as a hypothesis,
it's simply not falsifiable.  This last bit, by the way, hasn't stopped the
application of theoretical approaches to writing history at all!  But maybe
other fields have something to say.  I'd be interested if someone with a
knowledge of the anthropological linguistic literature has heard anything on
it.

Searching very briefly in the Linguistics Abstracts database
 http://www.racesimcentral.net/), I did find the title below--and
I'll have a further look at it this afternoon at the library.  Maybe the
fellow's footnotes will point towards something useful.

-----------------------

 Title: English, information access, and technology transfer: a rationale
for English as an international language
 Author: William Grabe
 Journal: World Englishes
 Vol: 7(1), 1988, 63-72

Abstract (by author):
Abstract:

The role of English as an international language has engendered considerable
debate recently. In this paper it is argued that English is the major
international language at least in part because it is the *** world
language of science and technology. In particular, its role in information
access and technology transfer is a major explanation for the rise of
English world-wide. Evidence is presented both to support English as the
international language of science and technology and to explain its
essential role in information access globally. Implications of the analysis
are discussed for English language teaching as well as for the role of
language in future information access systems. The arguments presented
suggest that no country can afford to ignore the important role English
plays in information access and technology transfer and still expect to
compete professionally and economically.

------------------------
[back to DK]
It looks like an argument made from pragmatic grounds, but that "at least in
part" is of interest.  Of course, I have no quarrel with the argument that
facility in English is important in this day if one wants to play the global
game.  But, you might remember, the issue in a Recent Debate in this NG was
whether that *** had come about primarily through some inherent
quality *in* English as a language system (the link made between "languge's
inherent power and the not-at-all-coincidental fact . . ." in the excerpt
you quoted), or rather through a much more historically traceable route of
early capitalist practice in GB (from 14C, in fact), agricultural practice
which (ahem) "freed" up labor and made possible industrial expansion, the
changes in financial adminstration (Bank of E.) and taxation practice,
imperialism and the schooling of colonial elites to act as buffers between
natives and rulers, &c.  (And yes, I am aware of the "or" I used.  I'd be
happy to change it to something else once the evidence is in.)  As I see
it--and I'm still open to an empircally-based argument to the contrary--none
of these developments have anything to do with some *inherent* quality of
English.  Had GB been a Basque island, I don't why that *in itself* should
have changed that trajectory.  Before I join the Inherent Power argument to
what has been called my "oversimplified" and "polar" interpretation, I'd
just like some reason to do so.  "[N]ot-at-all-coincidental" doesn't give me
enough.

But as you know, the debate in this NG rapidly descended into General
Nastiness, something for which I partly blame myself.

--DK

English becoming a 'universal language' is purely an accident of fate
that has a lot more to do with geography, *** and economics than
it has to do with any kind of inherant superiority it has as a medium
for communication.

You suggest that the huge vocabulary proves this superiority. But
surely scientists, diplomats internet users and stewardesses would
benefit more from a language that was elegant and powerful enough not
to need a huge vocabulary.  The elephantine vocabulary of English is
proof of its weakness.  It is an ancient language with for too many
complicated useless leftovers from the past.

ENGLISH IS THE  MICROSOFT WINDOWS OF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES!

My biggest problem with your ideas is that you seem to be inferring
that we might be somehow better off with a single language, that we
should pick one language (you think English) and just forget the
others.  

You don't seem to understand that the way we learn to talk and the the
way our 1st language is structured goes a long way towards developing
the way we think!  Everytime a language dies - and it happens
regularly - it is a great loss to us all.

Maybe if you would try to learn a new language you might find out new
things about yourself - new ways of thinking, new creative approaches
to problems, even if its just new ways to chat up women...

heaven forbid - you might become a better person...

But then again how could you possibly improve yourself when you're
perfect already.

col

BB

You already posted this gripping riposte in its glittering entirety
earlier this week. Looking for extra mileage?

BB

-Latin is a good choice for the general language of science - not so old
theory, than one might think.
-French is suitable for mathematics due to its precision.
-German numbers are a handicap: For example 21 is einundzwanzig, "one and
twenty".

I can add one from my personal experience: Russian is good for chess;)

Actually, I targeted my rhetoric question more against the "fact that the
300+-year-old Information Age has been dominated by powers for whom English
is the primary language". From what I know about history and history of
science, this is quite a bold statement to say the least.

Jari Jokinen

hope i didn't waste too much of your precious time...

col

If you have a problem with that then you know what you can do with
it...