4 ms·

> Our English masks this because anciently it seems never to have had such a high-low division What an odd assertion. There's a massive difference between "pro

> Our English masks this because anciently it seems never to have had such a high-low division What an odd assertion. There's a massive difference between "proper English" and how it's commonly spoken. Reading something like Trainspotting makes that evidently clear if you happen not to chat with ordinary people regularly.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I thought this strange as well. It makes me wonder if "proper English" is much closer to our various dialects than in these other high/low language pairs.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  English definitely has two registers, that you might find in use in the same sentence. This becomes clear if you e.g. translate a scientific text into Dutch or German. "Carbon" becomes "Kohlenstoff", and "metabolism" becomes "Stoffwechsel" in German. These might be literally translated back as "Coal-stuff" and "stuff-change" but that is an unfamiliar way to say it in English because it remains in the lower register, not derived academically from old Latin and Greek.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I don’t buy this argument. No one says “Coal-stuff” or “Stuff-change” in the Anglophonic world, so to the extent that those constructs form a lower register, the lower register isn’t spoken anywhere or by anyone. I can believe the idea that there is a gradient of formality that exists across the anglophonic world—I grew up in a rural area and my original dialect would be considered uneducated and low class, but I learned how to speak in a more educated manner in college (not deliberately mind you—I just adapted via immersion). There are probably more French-derived words in my “higher” dialect, but I don’t think that’s the biggest distinction between the two (probably the higher dialect has fewer irregularities and a larger vocabulary in general). Still, I get the impression that the author is describing an altogether different phenomena.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      > I don’t buy this argument. No one says “Coal-stuff” or “Stuff-change” in the Anglophonic world, so to the extent that those constructs form a lower register, I think you're missing the point entirely. Of course no-one says those. Did you miss the "that is an unfamiliar way to say it in English" part? We do say "coal" and "stuff", but we just switch up when talking about carbon, the stuff of coal. The point is not that there are different dialects (although there are to an extent, but that's an entirely sperate discussion) It's that English vocabulary can be sorted into these two registers, a common and an academic one, and that this distinction is largely absent in several other European languages. This may be "an altogether different phenomena" to what the author is describing, though that should not stop you buying it. Equivalently, it should not impede your purchase of the concept that English does have some form of "high/low language pairs".
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        I do think I'm missing your point, but it wasn't because I missed your 'unfamiliar' remark so much as it's confusing (how can a manner of speech be universally confusing unless it simply doesn't exist, and presumably you aren't arguing that it doesn't exist while also arguing that it does exist?). > The point is not that there are different dialects (although there are to an extent, but that's an entirely sperate discussion) It's that English vocabulary can be sorted into these two registers, a common and an academic one, and that this distinction is largely absent in several other European languages. I don't understand the distinction you're describing in English. You give an example of "coal" and "stuff" and "carbon", but I don't understand why you're arguing that "carbon" belongs to a higher/academic register. Your examples seem to support the inverse of your argument, which is that German (and presumably other languages) has a distinction between a higher and lower register (one could choose between "Carbon" or "Coal-stuff") and English doesn't have this distinction (you must use "carbon" when talking about carbon and "coal" when talking about coal). > This may be "an altogether different phenomena" to what the author is describing, though that should not stop you buying it. Equivalently, it should not impede your purchase of the concept that English does have some form of "high/low language pairs". I don't disbelieve the author's premise, but that's not your premise. English doesn't have a single "high dialect" or a single "low dialect", but again, I don't think that's what TFA is talking about with respect to other European languages. Rather, I'm guessing the author is arguing that because Latin was the written language for continental Europe, and because the scribal class was markedly different than the illiterate masses, there was a considerable divergence between formal/written Latin and vulgar Latin which was persisted as vulgar Latin became the Romance languages--indeed, this division has deep historical roots into Latin itself (scribal/educated Latin was different than spoken Latin) and perhaps even earlier. On the other hand, in England, that educated Latin tradition never took root--the English vernacular quickly became the language of literacy hundreds of years before written French, Spanish, Italian etc came into existence (continental scribes were clinging to written Latin). Again, I'm not sure if that's what the author is driving at, but it seems that way to me.
Sniffnoy 6y ago
I think you've missed the word "anciently" in that sentence. He's talking about pre-modern English.
- phaemon 6y ago
  Well, they say "Our English masks this", which suggests they're talking about contemporary English and offering the lack of past division as an explanation for a lack of current division. I don't buy it. In fact, prior to broadcasting, the differences were greater I reckon.
ivanbakel 6y ago
"Proper English" i.e. Received Pronunciation is not a high dialect. It was not used in court or government before the development of modern English some 700 years ago. Before then, that role was filled by French, thanks to the Norman conquest - so the need for a high-low distinction never developed in English to its typical extent. In general, English in England does not display the variety of dialect found in mainland Europe or elsewhere in the world. Despite a variety of accent, it is overwhelmingly homogeneous in grammar and vocabulary (outside of slang). There is no equivalent for English to the difference between Hoch- and Plattdeutsch, or between Tuscan Italian and its other variants - in both of these cases, the overwhelming part of the population learns both their local low dialect and the high dialect as distinct "languages".
- prox 6y ago
  What is interesting though is that middle and old-english sound a lot more similar to German / Saxon. Things like good morning is very similar in german, dutch and Scandinavian languages.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I thought this strange as well. It makes me wonder if "proper English" is much closer to our various dialects than in these other high/low language pairs.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
English definitely has two registers, that you might find in use in the same sentence. This becomes clear if you e.g. translate a scientific text into Dutch or German. "Carbon" becomes "Kohlenstoff", and "metabolism" becomes "Stoffwechsel" in German. These might be literally translated back as "Coal-stuff" and "stuff-change" but that is an unfamiliar way to say it in English because it remains in the lower register, not derived academically from old Latin and Greek.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I don’t buy this argument. No one says “Coal-stuff” or “Stuff-change” in the Anglophonic world, so to the extent that those constructs form a lower register, the lower register isn’t spoken anywhere or by anyone. I can believe the idea that there is a gradient of formality that exists across the anglophonic world—I grew up in a rural area and my original dialect would be considered uneducated and low class, but I learned how to speak in a more educated manner in college (not deliberately mind you—I just adapted via immersion). There are probably more French-derived words in my “higher” dialect, but I don’t think that’s the biggest distinction between the two (probably the higher dialect has fewer irregularities and a larger vocabulary in general). Still, I get the impression that the author is describing an altogether different phenomena.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > I don’t buy this argument. No one says “Coal-stuff” or “Stuff-change” in the Anglophonic world, so to the extent that those constructs form a lower register, I think you're missing the point entirely. Of course no-one says those. Did you miss the "that is an unfamiliar way to say it in English" part? We do say "coal" and "stuff", but we just switch up when talking about carbon, the stuff of coal. The point is not that there are different dialects (although there are to an extent, but that's an entirely sperate discussion) It's that English vocabulary can be sorted into these two registers, a common and an academic one, and that this distinction is largely absent in several other European languages. This may be "an altogether different phenomena" to what the author is describing, though that should not stop you buying it. Equivalently, it should not impede your purchase of the concept that English does have some form of "high/low language pairs".
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      I do think I'm missing your point, but it wasn't because I missed your 'unfamiliar' remark so much as it's confusing (how can a manner of speech be universally confusing unless it simply doesn't exist, and presumably you aren't arguing that it doesn't exist while also arguing that it does exist?). > The point is not that there are different dialects (although there are to an extent, but that's an entirely sperate discussion) It's that English vocabulary can be sorted into these two registers, a common and an academic one, and that this distinction is largely absent in several other European languages. I don't understand the distinction you're describing in English. You give an example of "coal" and "stuff" and "carbon", but I don't understand why you're arguing that "carbon" belongs to a higher/academic register. Your examples seem to support the inverse of your argument, which is that German (and presumably other languages) has a distinction between a higher and lower register (one could choose between "Carbon" or "Coal-stuff") and English doesn't have this distinction (you must use "carbon" when talking about carbon and "coal" when talking about coal). > This may be "an altogether different phenomena" to what the author is describing, though that should not stop you buying it. Equivalently, it should not impede your purchase of the concept that English does have some form of "high/low language pairs". I don't disbelieve the author's premise, but that's not your premise. English doesn't have a single "high dialect" or a single "low dialect", but again, I don't think that's what TFA is talking about with respect to other European languages. Rather, I'm guessing the author is arguing that because Latin was the written language for continental Europe, and because the scribal class was markedly different than the illiterate masses, there was a considerable divergence between formal/written Latin and vulgar Latin which was persisted as vulgar Latin became the Romance languages--indeed, this division has deep historical roots into Latin itself (scribal/educated Latin was different than spoken Latin) and perhaps even earlier. On the other hand, in England, that educated Latin tradition never took root--the English vernacular quickly became the language of literacy hundreds of years before written French, Spanish, Italian etc came into existence (continental scribes were clinging to written Latin). Again, I'm not sure if that's what the author is driving at, but it seems that way to me.

Sniffnoy 6y ago

I think you've missed the word "anciently" in that sentence. He's talking about pre-modern English.

phaemon 6y ago
Well, they say "Our English masks this", which suggests they're talking about contemporary English and offering the lack of past division as an explanation for a lack of current division. I don't buy it. In fact, prior to broadcasting, the differences were greater I reckon.

ivanbakel 6y ago

"Proper English" i.e. Received Pronunciation is not a high dialect. It was not used in court or government before the development of modern English some 700 years ago. Before then, that role was filled by French, thanks to the Norman conquest - so the need for a high-low distinction never developed in English to its typical extent. In general, English in England does not display the variety of dialect found in mainland Europe or elsewhere in the world. Despite a variety of accent, it is overwhelmingly homogeneous in grammar and vocabulary (outside of slang). There is no equivalent for English to the difference between Hoch- and Plattdeutsch, or between Tuscan Italian and its other variants - in both of these cases, the overwhelming part of the population learns both their local low dialect and the high dialect as distinct "languages".

prox 6y ago
What is interesting though is that middle and old-english sound a lot more similar to German / Saxon. Things like good morning is very similar in german, dutch and Scandinavian languages.