Log in:  

Register

Language discussion thread

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: peloton, Irondan, Eshnar, Alpe d'Huez, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky

Re:

21 Apr 2015 12:57

hrotha wrote:Of course it's elitist to suggest the speech of the popular classes is debased, corrupt and inferior. How could it not be? That's what makes your argument elitist, not the way you talk.

I wasn't addressing any point you raised about the classical language, I'm raising it myself by saying the speech you hold so dear is nothing but a "corruption" of older variants. It's arbitrary to draw the line at a particular speech and say that's the standard that should be upheld forever and ever, regardless of all other considerations.

This model of "linguistic corruption" is outdated for a reason.


Well if we have gotten to the point at which just saying that the popular parlance of today is debased, then call me an elitist. Naturally I think that nothing could be further from the truth, but this isn't the place to have a serious discussion about the matter.

I don't agree that language evolution is necessarily the "corruption" of what came before, otherwise we would not have arrived at Ciceronean Latin from archaic Latin, or Shakespeare's English from that of Beowulf. It is, to the contrary, possible for common language to experience degeneration. Call me whatever you like, but I find the language mutations currently taking place as being endemic of a certain superficiality in the culture.

Common language can be intelligent and poetic, or merely uninspired and insipid. I think what matters are the forces at work guiding it.
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

22 Apr 2015 07:45

i dig ya, rhubroma.
many cases in point concern not the English language itself, but languages such as Dutch which increasingly borrow from English in all domains of society, including politics and (higher) education. It is painful to watch (I mean to hear). For many politicians soaking their Dutch with English terms seems merely a cheap form of populism (look at us talking the way John Ordinary talks).
Imo, all the points you made above apply here: it's endemic of increasing superficiality in the culture, lowering of expectation and standard.
I see hrotha's argument that there is some linguistic elitism/purism here, but if tomorrow all radio stations would exclusively broadcast techno-music, could we complain about that or would that be elitist?
Is it elitist to complain about the rise of e-books substituting traditional paper (and all the side effects that has, such as the demise of traditional libraries/bookstores)?
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Language discussion thread

14 Jun 2015 10:46

Yesterday I had an actual conversation in Spanish for the first time. Like, not practicing with people who could actually know English or Dutch anyway, but with actual Spaniards who didn't speak a word of English (or Dutch). They were some Spanish tourist going from Brussels to Amsterdam by train, but the international train wasn't riding up north from Antwerp and there was some crazy detour with buses and everything to replace the train and the two Spaniards didn't have a clue what was going on so they were very happy to find somebody who could speak Spanish on the station in Antwerp to explain them how to get to Amsterdam. So I traveled from Antwerp to Rotterdam with them so I had plenty of time to practice some Spanish. :D

I had a lot of difficulty understanding them though, now obviously that was mostly because my Spanish is really bad and I struggled having the simplest of conversations with them, making stupid mistakes every sentence (like saying sabo instead of sé :o), but I was wondering, since they were Aragonese whether people from Aragón often have a strong accent or something? Maybe it was just my crappy Spanish, but I had more difficulty following them than I thought I'd have even when they talked slowly.
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,234
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

Re: Re:

14 Jun 2015 13:02

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:The examples that you name have to the with the series of fricatives that Dutch has. Originally Dutch has a series of consonants called 'voiceless fricatives': /f s x/ which are usually written <f s ch> and a corresponding set of 'voiced fricatives': /v z ɣ/ usually written <v z g>. In (almost?) all northern Dutch dialects (everything in the Netherlands except Brabants and Limburgs) the set /x ɣ/ has merged to /χ/. Okay, so /χ/ is further back in your throat; it's typically called 'harde g' in Dutch. I think this phoneme is actually extremely rare in European languages.


I believe Bulgarian has a 'hard g' as well.
User avatar l.Harm
Member
 
Posts: 1,938
Joined: 24 Jul 2011 22:54
Location: Holland

Re: Language discussion thread

14 Jun 2015 17:08

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:Yesterday I had an actual conversation in Spanish for the first time. Like, not practicing with people who could actually know English or Dutch anyway, but with actual Spaniards who didn't speak a word of English (or Dutch). They were some Spanish tourist going from Brussels to Amsterdam by train, but the international train wasn't riding up north from Antwerp and there was some crazy detour with buses and everything to replace the train and the two Spaniards didn't have a clue what was going on so they were very happy to find somebody who could speak Spanish on the station in Antwerp to explain them how to get to Amsterdam. So I traveled from Antwerp to Rotterdam with them so I had plenty of time to practice some Spanish. :D

I had a lot of difficulty understanding them though, now obviously that was mostly because my Spanish is really bad and I struggled having the simplest of conversations with them, making stupid mistakes every sentence (like saying sabo instead of sé :o), but I was wondering, since they were Aragonese whether people from Aragón often have a strong accent or something? Maybe it was just my crappy Spanish, but I had more difficulty following them than I thought I'd have even when they talked slowly.

afaik, in Zaragoza, the street standard is pretty much mainstream Castellano, i.e. quite similar to what is spoken in Madrid and surroundings.
These travelers you met may have been from the countryside though.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

14 Jun 2015 23:01

Aragonese variants of Spanish are reputed to be heavily accented, but in practice that accent translates mostly into distinctive intonation patterns. The phonology and vocabulary are not particularly different from standard European Spanish - unless you were dealing with older, rural folk who are likely to be somewhere on the Spanish-Aragonese language continuum.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 14,920
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

15 Jun 2015 09:18

Thanks guys! They weren't very old, but they said they lived in the Pyrenees 20km away from the French border, so they might have been more rural. Definitely not Zaragoza at least :p

But yeah, it may have just been different intonation patterns that put me off a bit.
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,234
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

Re:

30 Jul 2015 15:13

slosada wrote:American? Referring to the continent? Quintana hands down
Northamerican? I find Ryder Hesjedal more entertaining and I value his 5th in Giro more than a 2nd in Dauphiné (plus 2nd and 3rd places in GT stages).
US Citizen? TJVG. No competition. A subpar year, though.

Let's wait for Utah, USPC and the Worlds to call it


You are thinking the term American means Pan-american which it does not. It implies citizen of the united states in both American and British English.
User avatar myrideissteelerthanyours
Member
 
Posts: 383
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 05:39

Re: Re:

30 Jul 2015 16:36

myrideissteelerthanyours wrote:
You are thinking the term American means Pan-american which it does not. It implies citizen of the united states in both American and British English.

Would you mind telling me on which continent the following countries are located:
Peru
Belize
Canada

And, the same way we call Europeans anyone who was born (or raised) in Europe, which demonym related to the continent would you use?

Honest question,as English is not my native language.
User avatar slosada
Member
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 29 May 2013 17:36

Re: Re:

30 Jul 2015 17:03

slosada wrote:Would you mind telling me on which continent the following countries are located:
Peru
Belize
Canada

And, the same way we call Europeans anyone who was born (or raised) in Europe, which demonym related to the continent would you use?

Honest question,as English is not my native language.

Usually, South American, Central American (rarely North American as well) and North American. As in most other languages. "By convention there are seven continents: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe, Australia, and Antarctica." I'd completely agree that a four-or-five continent structure seems more geographically apt. But unfortunately I don't define convention.

While it may sound overly-broad or even close-minded, as has been stated before, there is no serviceable alternative to American in English. In other languages march on: Estadounidenses in spanish/portuguese is fine (although Americanos has a certain ring to it). A similar demonym is just not available in English, although there may come a day were US-Americans becomes standard usage. That day has yet come. If you remain unconvinced, I'd advise you to take it up with Websters and the Oxford University press and in forums on linguistics, who may be more qualified than cycling forum members in answering this particular query.
User avatar carton
Member
 
Posts: 998
Joined: 04 Aug 2014 15:25

Re: Re:

30 Jul 2015 17:31

slosada wrote:
myrideissteelerthanyours wrote:
You are thinking the term American means Pan-american which it does not. It implies citizen of the united states in both American and British English.

Would you mind telling me on which continent the following countries are located:
Peru
Belize
Canada

And, the same way we call Europeans anyone who was born (or raised) in Europe, which demonym related to the continent would you use?

Honest question,as English is not my native language.


I'll answer:

Peru - South America - South Americans/Peruvians
Belize - North America - North Americans/Belizeans
Canada - North America - North Americans/Canadians
United States of America - North Americans/Americans

Yes, people born in Europe are Europeans
People from South America are South Americans
People from North America are North Americans

Pretty easy.
User avatar jaylew
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,047
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 05:46
Location: ATX

30 Jul 2015 18:17

Having in-laws from Nicaragua, and having worked in three Andean countries, I can assert that the USA's annexation of a demonym that should be applicable to the continent is by no means popular.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,005
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

Re: Re:

30 Jul 2015 18:49

jaylew wrote:I'll answer:

Peru - South America - South Americans/Peruvians
Belize - North America - North Americans/Belizeans
Canada - North America - North Americans/Canadians
United States of America - North Americans/Americans

Yes, people born in Europe are Europeans
People from South America are South Americans
People from North America are North Americans

Pretty easy.

I didn't want to confuse and overly digress, but since this was moved to the appropriate forum I'll have to concede that it's not really quite that easy for a non-native English speaker. If you click through the definition of continent in different languages, the Spanish language shows the 6 continent model as dominant, the Portuguese version espouses the four continent model, and the French version refuses to pick a winner.

So back to the matter at hand in English the Webster definition of American is thus as follows:

Webster's wrote:1: an American Indian of North America or South America
2: a native or inhabitant of North America or South America
3: a citizen of the United States
4: american english

That second definition is readily used in terms like the OAS (Organization of American States). And both definitions are clearly valid. However, since the only standard demonym for someone from the United States is "American", that term almost overwhelmingly refers to US Citizens to the point where it's not really ambiguous in common English parlance.
Last edited by carton on 30 Jul 2015 18:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar carton
Member
 
Posts: 998
Joined: 04 Aug 2014 15:25

Re: Re:

30 Jul 2015 18:52

slosada wrote:
myrideissteelerthanyours wrote:
You are thinking the term American means Pan-american which it does not. It implies citizen of the united states in both American and British English.

Would you mind telling me on which continent the following countries are located:
Peru
Belize
Canada

And, the same way we call Europeans anyone who was born (or raised) in Europe, which demonym related to the continent would you use?

Honest question,as English is not my native language.


South American, Central American, and North American respectively. Latin America is a term for Central and South American countries but you don't call someone Latin American. You call them Latino or if you want to include iberian nationalities you can say hispanic. example sentence: Alberto Contador is the most overrated hispanic rider in the history of cycling.
User avatar myrideissteelerthanyours
Member
 
Posts: 383
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 05:39

Re:

30 Jul 2015 18:55

Armchair cyclist wrote:Having in-laws from Nicaragua, and having worked in three Andean countries, I can assert that the USA's annexation of a demonym that should be applicable to the continent is by no means popular.


Wikipedia explicitly disagrees with you as does reality.

Non-english usage doesn't count. Do these Andeans you hang out with speak English? Do they speak it accurately?

This is just more anti North American anti anglo snobbery yet again as if Nicaraguans set the standard for English dialect.
User avatar myrideissteelerthanyours
Member
 
Posts: 383
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 05:39

Re:

30 Jul 2015 19:04

Armchair cyclist wrote:Having in-laws from Nicaragua, and having worked in three Andean countries, I can assert that the USA's annexation of a demonym that should be applicable to the continent is by no means popular.

what's popular by your definition anyways? Anecdotal examples? They dont consider south americans to be americans in china they are nanmeiren literally SOUTH american people. in japan us citizens are Amerika-jin. South Americans are minami Amerika-jin again SOUTH american.

I think you mean "fits my biased worldview"
User avatar myrideissteelerthanyours
Member
 
Posts: 383
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 05:39

Re: Re:

30 Jul 2015 19:05

myrideissteelerthanyours wrote:
Armchair cyclist wrote:Having in-laws from Nicaragua, and having worked in three Andean countries, I can assert that the USA's annexation of a demonym that should be applicable to the continent is by no means popular.


Wikipedia explicitly disagrees with you as does reality.

Non-english usage doesn't count. Do these Andeans you hang out with speak English? Do they speak it accurately?

This is just more anti North American anti anglo snobbery yet again as if Nicaraguans set the standard for English dialect.

Webster's wrote:Popular:
1: of or relating to the general public
2: suitable to the majority: as
a : adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority <a popular history of the war>
b : suited to the means of the majority : inexpensive <sold at popular prices>
3: frequently encountered or widely accepted <a popular theory>
4: commonly liked or approved <a very popular girl>

Are you absolutely sure you're speaking English accurately?

On a side-note if these fora haven't taught you that reality differs with perspective...
User avatar carton
Member
 
Posts: 998
Joined: 04 Aug 2014 15:25

Re: Re:

30 Jul 2015 23:35

myrideissteelerthanyours wrote:
Armchair cyclist wrote:Having in-laws from Nicaragua, and having worked in three Andean countries, I can assert that the USA's annexation of a demonym that should be applicable to the continent is by no means popular.


Wikipedia explicitly disagrees with you as does reality.

Non-english usage doesn't count. Do these Andeans you hang out with speak English? Do they speak it accurately?

This is just more anti North American anti anglo snobbery yet again as if Nicaraguans set the standard for English dialect.

what's popular by your definition anyways? Anecdotal examples? They dont consider south americans to be americans in china they are nanmeiren literally SOUTH american people. in japan us citizens are Amerika-jin. South Americans are minami Amerika-jin again SOUTH american.

I think you mean "fits my biased worldview"


I simply mean that people who, by another definition could be described as American, don't appreciate the definition that you prefer being offered as though it were the only valid one. Why you have such a problem with that fact is something you must consider for yourself.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,005
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

Re: Language discussion thread

29 Sep 2015 15:55

From the Richmond 2015 WC thread:
hrotha wrote:I don't think LS is a woman. I just don't assume LS is a man, because they have never identified as such as far as I know. Neutral they exists just for this kind of situation.

phanatic wrote:'He' is the neutral, and was for centuries, until a bunch of vagrants who have no love for the English language took it upon themselves to make a deliberate assault on my culture and language and that of my ancestors. The use of the plural to indicate an individual drives me up the wall; you may as well spit in my face.

hrotha wrote:Then maybe you should take issue with "you" for the singular too. Neutral they is a perfectly organic development to fill a perceived gap in the English language, and it's also older than you seem to think.

edit: Uton sprecan ymb "they" and englisces gereordes lufe, gif þe lyst. And ymb þine yldran.

MrTea1976 wrote:This is an embarrassing post to read. English is a living, adapting language and always has been. 'He' in that sense is a social construct for a variety of purposes and is outdated, just like the use of 'mankind' to describe humanity. It is not an assault on British culture. Nothing is permanent, everything that survives changes.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 14,920
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

29 Sep 2015 15:58

'They' is the correct neutral in English, as there is no formal 'you' word, like 'lei' in Italian or 'usted' in Spanish. 'He' is the commonly used neutral word, but is wrong. You can also say 'it' but that's pretty rude.
Brullnux
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,531
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Back to top