(2009.04.04) Philip wrote;
> 2009/4/4 dshep wrote <dshepx@...>:
> > Some time ago, over a year I believe, someone in his one and only posting
> > asked why, if we were keen to simplify the alphabet, why shouldn't we as
> > well take the opportunity to simplify grammar and syntax.
No one commented at the time, neither for nor against. It’s something I’ve wondered about since then. The contributor was, I believe, South Asian, and his posting may have been a plea to this group to assist in making English, the de-facto world language, more accessible to his fellow countrymen, or for that matter, all other people round the world who have found it necessary to learn some English (and who would not be deterred by a strange-looking alphabet; after all, for most of them the Roman
alphabet is a foreign and strang-looking alphabet). This is not to say that people there are in any way incapable of mastering standard English--they are not. I have met several Indians and Pakistanis whose English was much better than mine. Think of Salman Rushdie. But such individuals have had the advantage of an advanced education, and most people in today’s world have not. If I understand correctly he was simply asking for a means (one of several that may be necessary) by which other populations could gain an entry into the modern world, a world that to some (or large) extent depends so much upon communication--in other words, to employ Shavian as an early tool in mastering the basic properties of English, both grammatical (which a simpler syntax would alleviate) and phonetic (which Shavian does by its very nature). Perhaps I exaggerate.
> My first reaction was, "because spoken language is primary and written
> language is
secondary".
> People speak what they speak; that's the language that's important.
> How it's written down is less important.
> Which is why I think that "reforming" the writing system is a
> comparatively small thing: you're not actually changing the language.
> What people are speaking is still English; you're just writing it down
> differently.
> But simplifying grammar and syntax affects the "real" language -- the
> spoken one, the one that children learn before they ever learn to read
> or write. So that's a whole different kettle of fish.
> > Moreover, Shaw, I recall from somewhere, expressed his approval for
> > some such simplification-- remember his dislike of excessive punctuation.
> Punctuation is written, again. By all means change the written
> language if you think that makes it clearer; that's a lot smaller of a
> change than
mandating that people change their speech.
> Cheers,
--
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@ gmail.com>
I’m not sure I understand the drift of this response. I do not wish to mandate anything,
let alone radically change the language, merely to allow (oh well, I suppose my rambling can be interpreted as encouragement for) the possibility of using, in Shavian, simpler sentence-structures, simpler words, perhaps even simpler grammar in certain circumstances when and if this could be helpful. Simple sentences can still be English. Hemingway thought so. The sun rose. We awoke. The bush came to life. Breakfast was waiting. Then we would hunt. Today we shoot a lion. The day will be good.
If you are objecting, perhaps, to the example of ‘he be...’ that I mentioned, that this is
a typical sample of bad English that should not to be encouraged, I can only say that
this is a speech-form used deliberately today to affirm
group loyalty in certain circles--
it might catch on for other groups, or probably not--but who can say? Apparently this usage came originally from Sussex or some nearby place. It occurs in Thomas Hardy’s novels, and now in urban America. If this is the way they speak, mayn’t they also write that way? Who’s to stop them? Perhaps the increasing use of the glottal stop (wha’appened?) follows a similar path. Some time ago (I may have already written about this, so please forgive me), one of the young royals in an interview used the glottal stop and other unspecified grammatical novelties (according to a blob I came across) and this surprise became that day’s sensational large-spread report in the tabloids. Did she do it deliberately to establish her democratic credentials, or had it crept into her speech without (which I think unlikely) her being aware of it?
If not this, then what? The variety found in spoken English surely exceeds
greatly that
of any written forms that occur, is frequently highly local in character, and moreover is subject to change with every generation that appears. Spoken speech is driven by emulation, for the most part, and has a social dimension readily altered to suit circumstances. I read a novel by Will Self last summer that exploited this possibility in
a rather frightening way. But writing is somewhat different. Think of Latin’s role in the middle ages (or even later as a method of education); one learned to read and write it; speaking it was secondary, relatively unimportant, and usually unnecessary. The point was to be able to communicate with others of similar skills and ambitions, not just one’s neighbours. Texts in Shavian, written simply, could perhaps serve a similar purpose, as
a primer in the use of English for non-native speakers, who could then be spared the intricacies of our historical spelling and yes, even grammatical conventions, at
least to begin with, One of the features of English that have contributed to its ready acceptance
as a lingua-franca worldwide is the ease, relatively speaking, in which people can make themselves understood, no matter how crude their language may be in a formal sense. Why not be allowed to write that way as well, if it helps to get started. Do not those of you who have learned to speak a foreign language competently still hesitate to write anything for fear of using some strange formulation or committing some simple error that will be instantly noticed? Native speakers could benefit from simpler forms as well, as this should allow them to concentrate upon their own speech which they must first examine and then attempt to clearly reproduce, rather than worrying about possible literary qualities--let that come later.
Recognizing the existence of different, or unformed, or alternative speech-forms which may appear strange or undesirable is not the same as calling for the acceptance of some unspecified
‘unreal’ form. Simple grammar, syntax, and words still it seems to me can be ‘real’ language, or do I miss something? Perhaps I do not understood the nature of your complaint.
probably not,
dshep