3 ms·

The article doesn't explain why it should be saved. The only reason would be for historical context. But there's no reason to keep speaking it. All language cha

The article doesn't explain why it should be saved. The only reason would be for historical context. But there's no reason to keep speaking it. All language changes over time. We're not all still speaking Proto-Indo-European. h₂áu̯ei̯ h₁i̯osméi̯ h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést, só h₁éḱu̯oms derḱt. só gʷr̥hₓúm u̯óǵʰom u̯eǵʰed; só méǵh₂m̥ bʰórom; só dʰǵʰémonm̥ h₂ṓḱu bʰered. h₂óu̯is h₁ékʷoi̯bʰi̯os u̯eu̯ked: “dʰǵʰémonm̥ spéḱi̯oh₂ h₁éḱu̯oms-kʷe h₂áǵeti, ḱḗr moi̯ agʰnutor”. h₁éḱu̯ōs tu u̯eu̯kond: “ḱludʰí, h₂ou̯ei̯! tód spéḱi̯omes, n̥sméi̯ agʰnutór ḱḗr: dʰǵʰémō, pótis, sē h₂áu̯i̯es h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ gʷʰérmom u̯éstrom u̯ept, h₂áu̯ibʰi̯os tu h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁esti. tód ḱeḱluu̯ṓs h₂óu̯is h₂aǵróm bʰuged.

fake-name 8y ago
In that case, why save anything? The internet archive is obviously pointless. Everything should be just one grey homogeneous mass. People save stuff like this because it provides a interesting window into the human condition, not because of some assigned analytical "value".
- csydas 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure the GP is suggesting the article doesn't provide a compelling reason why the dialect/language in the article should be preserved beyond just being a note in a book somewhere. There are tons of things which we keep a copy of, but for no more reason than just to remember it. With regards to Chicagoese, maybe I was just listening to the wrong people, but I grew up in Milwaukee and went to Chicago basically whenever I wanted for most of my young adult life, and I never heard the term Chicagoese until reading this article. I actually thought the article was satire on first read, and I would agree with the GP that there isn't really a compelling argument for it, any more than I would suggest that we preserve the idiosyncrasies that my deep-woods Wisconsinite grandparents would come up with as I grew up, even if everyone in their region used the terms. I really don't get the thrust of the article's argument other than being upset that Chicago was ranked the accent as unattractive in the YouGov survey.
  - wahern 8y ago
    If it didn't have a name it's probably because, much like the Italian Beef, nobody outside Chicagoland was aware of it or cared to be aware of it. Also, though so-called Chicagoese has its own distinctive features, it's part of a larger regional dialect. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_Engli...). But that dialect is disappearing and Chicago, being the largest representative city, may become the location by which people remember it (e.g. in parody) in the future. That's the heart of it: the dialects are now quickly disappearing (after a brief period where researchers were sure some of them were growing!) making them increasingly prominent as part of a larger social discourse.
justbaker 8y ago
Heh. This is rather interesting when translated.
drasticmeasures 8y ago
>The article doesn't explain why it should be saved. >[It's] for historical context.

fake-name 8y ago

In that case, why save anything? The internet archive is obviously pointless. Everything should be just one grey homogeneous mass. People save stuff like this because it provides a interesting window into the human condition, not because of some assigned analytical "value".

csydas 8y ago
I'm pretty sure the GP is suggesting the article doesn't provide a compelling reason why the dialect/language in the article should be preserved beyond just being a note in a book somewhere. There are tons of things which we keep a copy of, but for no more reason than just to remember it. With regards to Chicagoese, maybe I was just listening to the wrong people, but I grew up in Milwaukee and went to Chicago basically whenever I wanted for most of my young adult life, and I never heard the term Chicagoese until reading this article. I actually thought the article was satire on first read, and I would agree with the GP that there isn't really a compelling argument for it, any more than I would suggest that we preserve the idiosyncrasies that my deep-woods Wisconsinite grandparents would come up with as I grew up, even if everyone in their region used the terms. I really don't get the thrust of the article's argument other than being upset that Chicago was ranked the accent as unattractive in the YouGov survey.
- wahern 8y ago
  If it didn't have a name it's probably because, much like the Italian Beef, nobody outside Chicagoland was aware of it or cared to be aware of it. Also, though so-called Chicagoese has its own distinctive features, it's part of a larger regional dialect. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_Engli...). But that dialect is disappearing and Chicago, being the largest representative city, may become the location by which people remember it (e.g. in parody) in the future. That's the heart of it: the dialects are now quickly disappearing (after a brief period where researchers were sure some of them were growing!) making them increasingly prominent as part of a larger social discourse.

justbaker 8y ago

Heh. This is rather interesting when translated.

drasticmeasures 8y ago

>The article doesn't explain why it should be saved. >[It's] for historical context.