4 ms·

> Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national lang

by jhgb 5y ago

> Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.

CRConrad 5y ago
> > Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. > This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages. Counterexample: The German Rechtschreibreform of 1996 was mainly retracted after a decade of popular resistance. Seems even languages that are ostensibly “regulated by a central authority” in the end follow the will of those who use the language. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1...
- jhgb 5y ago
  English is already a counterexample. As for orthography reforms, well, they don't affect language as such, as languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant. And the fact that orthography reforms in particular may not be often successful is not surprising either since written words tend to more conservative as they have facilitated communication through time. Just look at the discrepancy between English speech and writing.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > English is already a counterexample. I meant counterexample in the sense of "language that does at least ostensibly have a central authority (the Duden) still in the end having to bow to the will of the language-using public". English isn't a counterexample of that, since it doesn't even remotely claim to be governed by any central authority. > ...languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant "Primarily" is not the same as "only". You haven't heard a word I've said, have you? And yet here we are, talking to each other...

by jhgb 5y ago

> Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.

CRConrad 5y ago

> > Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. > This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages. Counterexample: The German Rechtschreibreform of 1996 was mainly retracted after a decade of popular resistance. Seems even languages that are ostensibly “regulated by a central authority” in the end follow the will of those who use the language. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1...

jhgb 5y ago
English is already a counterexample. As for orthography reforms, well, they don't affect language as such, as languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant. And the fact that orthography reforms in particular may not be often successful is not surprising either since written words tend to more conservative as they have facilitated communication through time. Just look at the discrepancy between English speech and writing.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > English is already a counterexample. I meant counterexample in the sense of "language that does at least ostensibly have a central authority (the Duden) still in the end having to bow to the will of the language-using public". English isn't a counterexample of that, since it doesn't even remotely claim to be governed by any central authority. > ...languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant "Primarily" is not the same as "only". You haven't heard a word I've said, have you? And yet here we are, talking to each other...