7 ms·

Separating actual language from things like orthography is important here. I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in th

Separating actual language from things like orthography is important here. I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in the past. Internet communication environments do favour changing orthographic norms, which is still interesting, but not the same thing as language change.

BurritoAlPastor 7y ago
In what way do changes to the orthography not constitute changes to the language?
- Udik 7y ago
  Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language.
  - benj111 7y ago
    That seems a poor example. 'normal' writing v text speak or leet speak would seem to be a better example?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language. For ancient civilizations (pre 3000 B.C) when it was all about the oral language, maybe. We've moved way beyond that, and orthography is not a pure recording medium, but it's forms are historically tied to the language and its development (including borrowings from other languages). All kinds of continuity is lost if you "switch" orthography en masse (instead of organically). And it's more like using guitars or synths, or B-3 vs Rhodes to play the same melody, than mp3 vs magnetic tape. The timbre when you change orthography is not the same -- something most poets, writers etc, would be quick to point out.
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      It's more tied to which 19th century prescriptivist happened to have more influence on your side of the Atlantic. Before them, English orthography wasn't even expected to be consistent. Switching orthography en masse through particular prescriptions being adopted by schools in actuality changed the spoken language very little. The new tendency to ignore those spelling rules has also changed the spoken language very little. Moving to consistent spellings obscured the origins of English words maybe as often as it illuminated them.
- _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
  orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems. it's like what font you use for writing code. it doesn't affect the syntax or semantics of the language. which isn't to say that orthography (or fonts) aren't interesting.
  - ohduran 7y ago
    That's a fair point, although I think that writing has been with us for so long that we can no longer say that it's something we haven't adapted our language to. Think of it this way: when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down? That is probably a different mindset from the one people who can't read are in. Plus, many times orthography has to do with how the word has evolved from a different language.
    - autora 7y ago
      >when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down? Interesting hypothesis. I don't think I do, and my assumption is that most other people don't either? I learnt to speak well before I learnt to read and write. The process of speaking without any knowledge of the letters was deeply embedded in my brain. People that are unable as adults to read or write, or have severe impediments to reading/writing in the same way that I do (e.g. dyslexia) don't speak any differently. If I try to, I can picture how my spoken word is written down, but I'm pretty sure when I'm talking in a more "autonomic" fashion I'm not really picturing the words?
      - ohduran 7y ago
        That's actually a very good point. The way I see it, although I may be wrong, is that people that have difficulties in reading/writing are a minority, at least in developed countries. Thus, they are nevertheless exposed to a way of speaking that is mainly influenced by the majority, who are influenced somehow by the written word. On the other hand, what strikes me as a contribution of Internet to the language is our capacity to communicate through videos and pictures. Which means that our vocabulary is narrower. I don't have to be so elaborate when describing my room; I can just take a picture, and tweet it.
coldtea 7y ago
>I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in the past. Internet communication environments do favour changing orthographic norms, which is still interesting, but not the same thing as language change. Orthography is just the spelling part of the language. But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much faster). There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak"). And since english is the dominant web/movies/pop culture language, even more change has incurred in smaller languages, where turns of phrase and syntactic forms from english adopted wholesale by younger speakers ("anglicisms").
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  I find this fascinating. I'm learning German at the moment, and the traditional "y"-sound for the letter "j" is not used in words borrowed from English ("jeans", "jogging", etc). And there are so many words borrowed from English! Also, I know German people who find it easier to have conversations on some subjects in English, even between native German speakers. I can't work out if this is the equivalent of chefs having to learn French; the language of technology is English, so if you want to talk about tech, you need to learn English. Or whether the world's language is becoming more Anglicised and so it's just easier to use English for modern conversations.
- _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
  > But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much faster). Do you have a source for this? > There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak"). So there are new styles which appear which impose additional constraints upon language (e.g. doge speak). Such things have arisen at previous points in time (different poetry styles). Again, I'm not saying that the things you point to aren't interesting or aren't worthy of study. But I think calling them 'language change' is a mislabelling.

BurritoAlPastor 7y ago

In what way do changes to the orthography not constitute changes to the language?

Udik 7y ago
Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language.
- benj111 7y ago
  That seems a poor example. 'normal' writing v text speak or leet speak would seem to be a better example?
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language. For ancient civilizations (pre 3000 B.C) when it was all about the oral language, maybe. We've moved way beyond that, and orthography is not a pure recording medium, but it's forms are historically tied to the language and its development (including borrowings from other languages). All kinds of continuity is lost if you "switch" orthography en masse (instead of organically). And it's more like using guitars or synths, or B-3 vs Rhodes to play the same melody, than mp3 vs magnetic tape. The timbre when you change orthography is not the same -- something most poets, writers etc, would be quick to point out.
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    It's more tied to which 19th century prescriptivist happened to have more influence on your side of the Atlantic. Before them, English orthography wasn't even expected to be consistent. Switching orthography en masse through particular prescriptions being adopted by schools in actuality changed the spoken language very little. The new tendency to ignore those spelling rules has also changed the spoken language very little. Moving to consistent spellings obscured the origins of English words maybe as often as it illuminated them.
_emacsomancer_ 7y ago
orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems. it's like what font you use for writing code. it doesn't affect the syntax or semantics of the language. which isn't to say that orthography (or fonts) aren't interesting.
- ohduran 7y ago
  That's a fair point, although I think that writing has been with us for so long that we can no longer say that it's something we haven't adapted our language to. Think of it this way: when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down? That is probably a different mindset from the one people who can't read are in. Plus, many times orthography has to do with how the word has evolved from a different language.
  - autora 7y ago
    >when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down? Interesting hypothesis. I don't think I do, and my assumption is that most other people don't either? I learnt to speak well before I learnt to read and write. The process of speaking without any knowledge of the letters was deeply embedded in my brain. People that are unable as adults to read or write, or have severe impediments to reading/writing in the same way that I do (e.g. dyslexia) don't speak any differently. If I try to, I can picture how my spoken word is written down, but I'm pretty sure when I'm talking in a more "autonomic" fashion I'm not really picturing the words?
    - ohduran 7y ago
      That's actually a very good point. The way I see it, although I may be wrong, is that people that have difficulties in reading/writing are a minority, at least in developed countries. Thus, they are nevertheless exposed to a way of speaking that is mainly influenced by the majority, who are influenced somehow by the written word. On the other hand, what strikes me as a contribution of Internet to the language is our capacity to communicate through videos and pictures. Which means that our vocabulary is narrower. I don't have to be so elaborate when describing my room; I can just take a picture, and tweet it.

coldtea 7y ago

>I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in the past. Internet communication environments do favour changing orthographic norms, which is still interesting, but not the same thing as language change. Orthography is just the spelling part of the language. But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much faster). There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak"). And since english is the dominant web/movies/pop culture language, even more change has incurred in smaller languages, where turns of phrase and syntactic forms from english adopted wholesale by younger speakers ("anglicisms").

marcus_holmes 7y ago
I find this fascinating. I'm learning German at the moment, and the traditional "y"-sound for the letter "j" is not used in words borrowed from English ("jeans", "jogging", etc). And there are so many words borrowed from English! Also, I know German people who find it easier to have conversations on some subjects in English, even between native German speakers. I can't work out if this is the equivalent of chefs having to learn French; the language of technology is English, so if you want to talk about tech, you need to learn English. Or whether the world's language is becoming more Anglicised and so it's just easier to use English for modern conversations.
_emacsomancer_ 7y ago
> But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much faster). Do you have a source for this? > There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak"). So there are new styles which appear which impose additional constraints upon language (e.g. doge speak). Such things have arisen at previous points in time (different poetry styles). Again, I'm not saying that the things you point to aren't interesting or aren't worthy of study. But I think calling them 'language change' is a mislabelling.