Circular Thoughts

Since the beginning of this semester, I have been asking myself which side I would take in the argument about language. Many people feel very strongly about the English language (and why it should or should not be allowed to change), but I have had mixed feelings. Having read the articles for this week, however, I believe I have come to a conclusion. It seems to me that the articles we have read and the arguments contained within them present a false dilemma.

It is my perception (maybe incorrectly so) that the options given us are either to be in favor of meticulously and strictly maintaining English in its proper state or to be in favor of letting the language roam free, taking its own path through history. In my opinion, what is needed is a balance. There certainly needs to be a set of rules and linguistic constants in order to maintain consistency in language throughout the decades. On the other hand, new words and/or usages are a perfectly legitimate means of cultivating language and are necessary to keep it current. As with most things in life, the key to linguistic tranquility is moderation. Language should grow and develop naturally, but should also be pruned often.

I guess my conclusion really is that the present manner in which language is maintained and developed is sufficient for insuring its health and longevity. In the same fashion, perhaps the contradicting extremist views we have observed are necessary as a system of checks and balances to make sure language neither veers dramatically off course nor remains stagnant for too long.

John Cheese

Having read the assigned articles regarding the history of the English language, I find myself not entirely disinterested in the subject. Though, prior to this class, I would probably have expected language to be frivolous and uninteresting study, it seems to me an interesting progression, mirroring history as well as providing a human insight into our ancestry. I guess having an interest in history helps.

Possibly even more interesting than the history of our language are the individuals who study and uncover it. For instance, I never really thought about dictionaries. Being fortunate enough to grow up in well supplied schools, I never found myself lacking a dictionary and, I suppose, never really appreciated the amount of work put into publishing a dictionary. I also never took the time to consider the history of the dictionary. I knew of the Webster’s (or Merriam-Webster), and I knew of the Oxford, but I didn’t ever think about the differences between them. The sheer amount of work required to create the Oxford dictionary is staggering; I can’t even imagine considering such an undertaking.

I often wonder how information regarding obscure linguistic facts is uncovered. What Bill Bryson records regarding the history of the word “dollar”, for instance, seems like a lesson in ambiguousness; how it was traced back to a silver mine in Germany I think I shall never know. For that matter, how did Joachimsthaler become dollar? My best guess is that the silver coming out of that particular mine, or the coins it created, were referred to by the name of their origin, which was then shortened to “sthaler” or “thaler”, from which point it made its progression to the word we use today. Though my amateur assessment of how “dollar” came about may be entirely inaccurate, it seems that the natural progression of a word is something like a multi-centennial game of telephone; what begins as a perfectly standard word or phrase comes out as utter nonsense or a different word or phrase all together. Though this seems to be the standard of linguistic progression, I often wonder what the digital revolution will have. Only time will tell, I suppose.

Say what?

Thought we have had several interesting readings in the few weeks of class that have elapsed thus far, I would have to say that “The Kitchen Crisis” has befuddled me the most. The entirety of the reading seems irrelevant and inconsequential, at least to what we are studying (perhaps my problem is that I didn’t “rap it aloud”). I could easily see this essay finding its place in a class about culture and the fundamental shift in the American household (more specifically the kitchen), but in the context of our class it seems like a lost child wandering around in the grocery store of linguistic studies. Further muddying the water, I find, is that the author seems to drift between the reality of a grassroots shift in the way people eat and an imagined sustenance which he or she refers to as an “instant lunch pill”.

The author does, however, make some references to slavery and the way food has evolved, as well as the importance of eating well, that would have been interesting if not intertwined with what otherwise seemed to be an acid trip. The only linguistic value I can derive from this mass of words would be the occasional slang. On the other hand, perhaps we are supposed to infer the race or background of the writer (or rapper) based on the manner in which he or she speaks. If that were the case, I think the obvious assumption would be that the author is of African American background. I think the clearest indicator is the bluntness with which he or she refers to slavery.

All in all, I would think it safe to assume that we will discuss the significance of these pages tomorrow in class, but as of right now I am decidedly perplexed. On the bright side, I learned that a Terrapin is a salt water turtle (I'm sure my friends will be impressed the next time we watch a Maryland game).