5 ms·

Changes in speech drives changes in writing — every linguist will tell you that (I should know, I am one). Writing is — and always has been — way behind speech

Changes in speech drives changes in writing — every linguist will tell you that (I should know, I am one). Writing is — and always has been — way behind speech in terms of innovation. Edit: Downvoting isn't going to change that. But you're welcome to show me an example of a linguist that claims that writing is the driving force in linguistic evolution.

emodendroket 9y ago
I completely agree, but I can't see how that contradicts anything I just said. Using "of" here is not an example of "language evolution" any more than confusing "to" and "too" is.
- JPLeRouzic 9y ago
  I am not a linguist but you are using "evolution" as having another meaning than LilleSvin. For you it is something which is positively improving as in the layman idea about Darwin's evolution theory and for LilleSvin "evolution" means exactly what it means in biology: Changes that are at a wide scale. For example in old Norse that was used on the north and east coasts of UK in 900 CE, "time" was not pronounced like "ta-ii-me" and the English word for "ship" was pronounced "skip", the more modern pronunciation happened after the great vocalic change, an evolution of the spoken dialect. There is nothing positive or negative in the great vocalic change, but it is an evolution of the language because after some time, most people spoke it that way, not anymore like old vikings did. (edited because I made many spelling errors)
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    No, I'm not using "evolution" in some sort of Enlightenment sense where only things that contribute to the onward march of Progress count. I'm saying changes in spelling are nothing like the process of organic language evolution. Also, one wonders why the "great vocalic change" (maybe the Great Vowel Shift, you mean) would have changed the pronunciation of the consonants leading "ship."
- lillesvin 9y ago
  It most certainly is evolution. Among other things it shows a change in how "would have" is analyzed by speakers (into "would of"). They wouldn't actually be writing "would of" if it wasn't coherent with their analysis of the parts. (I feel like I shouldn't need to say that the analysis is of course subconscious, but now I did anyway.) Re-analyses like this aren't exactly uncommon. Here are a few other examples with "would have/of": http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001291.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001291.h...
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    What analysis could plausibly link the word "of" with this usage?
- rdiddly 9y ago
  You're both right - it's evolving the language, just like lies evolve the truth, and a kid's clumsy drawing of a flower is a creative and unique artwork. Not being flippant. There is an inherent conflict between how people want it and how it is. The future might not care either way.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    To my way of thinking, questions of orthography should be thought about differently than questions of grammar or vocabulary or other spoken-language issues. After all, we all learn to speak naturally and a standards body's decrees have little effect on how we speak. On the other hand, we have to make a conscious effort to learn to read and write, and standards bodies do regularly undertake, successfully, efforts to reform spelling.

emodendroket 9y ago

I completely agree, but I can't see how that contradicts anything I just said. Using "of" here is not an example of "language evolution" any more than confusing "to" and "too" is.

JPLeRouzic 9y ago
I am not a linguist but you are using "evolution" as having another meaning than LilleSvin. For you it is something which is positively improving as in the layman idea about Darwin's evolution theory and for LilleSvin "evolution" means exactly what it means in biology: Changes that are at a wide scale. For example in old Norse that was used on the north and east coasts of UK in 900 CE, "time" was not pronounced like "ta-ii-me" and the English word for "ship" was pronounced "skip", the more modern pronunciation happened after the great vocalic change, an evolution of the spoken dialect. There is nothing positive or negative in the great vocalic change, but it is an evolution of the language because after some time, most people spoke it that way, not anymore like old vikings did. (edited because I made many spelling errors)
- emodendroket 9y ago
  No, I'm not using "evolution" in some sort of Enlightenment sense where only things that contribute to the onward march of Progress count. I'm saying changes in spelling are nothing like the process of organic language evolution. Also, one wonders why the "great vocalic change" (maybe the Great Vowel Shift, you mean) would have changed the pronunciation of the consonants leading "ship."
lillesvin 9y ago
It most certainly is evolution. Among other things it shows a change in how "would have" is analyzed by speakers (into "would of"). They wouldn't actually be writing "would of" if it wasn't coherent with their analysis of the parts. (I feel like I shouldn't need to say that the analysis is of course subconscious, but now I did anyway.) Re-analyses like this aren't exactly uncommon. Here are a few other examples with "would have/of": http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001291.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001291.h...
- emodendroket 9y ago
  What analysis could plausibly link the word "of" with this usage?
rdiddly 9y ago
You're both right - it's evolving the language, just like lies evolve the truth, and a kid's clumsy drawing of a flower is a creative and unique artwork. Not being flippant. There is an inherent conflict between how people want it and how it is. The future might not care either way.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  To my way of thinking, questions of orthography should be thought about differently than questions of grammar or vocabulary or other spoken-language issues. After all, we all learn to speak naturally and a standards body's decrees have little effect on how we speak. On the other hand, we have to make a conscious effort to learn to read and write, and standards bodies do regularly undertake, successfully, efforts to reform spelling.