The evolution of the English language over time

[Mcr Warrior]

Porthcawl is a funny one... "Gate soup"

Thought it was 'port' and 'sea kale'. But, we're not exactly discussing the evolution of the English language here, are we?

 

[AY1975]

I'm never sure whether the current trend is to say "presently" to mean in the near future or at the present time. I believe that it has traditionally meant at the present time but in recent decades people have tended to use it to mean in the near future. Recently it has tended to revert to mean at present, though.

Two other traditional features of the English language that have died out over the years, which most other European languages still have, are the subjunctive and separate polite and familiar forms of "you". AIUI in old English "thee" and "thou" was the familiar form (hence its use in traditional religious language). The subjunctive tends to be used more in US English, though some Brits still use it: "It is important that you be here on time" is the subjunctive form, but in colloquial UK English most people nowadays tend to say "It is important that you are here on time." The subjunctive also occurs in phrases such as "If I were you" and "So be it."

Another feature of most other languages that English doesn't have, although it did at one time, is grammatical gender. These three videos explain why English did have this but doesn't anymore:

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Thought it was 'port' and 'sea kale'. But, we're not exactly discussing the evolution of the English language here, are we?

I was referring to the bit in the post I quoted about making up your own meanings, for comedic effect. But you're right, it is off-topic.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It needs sorted ----ggrrrrr

It needs to be sorted - -- correct English.

 

[takno]

It needs sorted ----ggrrrrr

It needs to be sorted - -- correct English.

I imagine you probably mean it needs to be sorted out. Otherwise you're going to have to decide whether you mean alphabetically or in some other order

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I imagine you probably mean it needs to be sorted out. Otherwise you're going to have to decide whether you mean alphabetically or in some other order

Touche

 

[Gloster]

The word kontaktledningsstolpsborrningsmaskintåg (OHL mast hole-drilling (machine) train) is the longest Swedish one that I have seen, although I suspect there was a touch of humour in its use. Swedish rarely seems to stick more than two or three words together to form portmanteau words.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Swedish rarely seems to stick more than two or three words together to form portmanteau words.

Once again, we're not exactly discussing the evolution of the English language here, are we?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Once again, we're not exactly discussing the evolution of the English language here, are we?

The English language has developed over the last two millennia from an input of different languages which had different grammatical derivations, some of which were transferred into common usage. One might ask how far back in time do we start on the language evolutionary process?

 

[Purple Train]

Once again, we're not exactly discussing the evolution of the English language here, are we?

Kind of. Most European languages develop from the same stem, so it has some relevance.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Evolution of language presupposes a more intelligent usage, but there are those who seem happy to accept a lessening of the more intelligent usage.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Once again, we're not exactly discussing the evolution of the English language here, are we?

Kind of. Most European languages develop from the same stem, so it has some relevance.

That's as may be, but the ongoing development of some other European language, by definition, is not directly relevant to the evolution of the English language.

What might be more relevant would be a side discussion focusing on just how the English language in Great Britain has evolved over the past few centuries compared with the English language in the U.S., (and which version will tend to predominate in the years to come).

As George Bernard Shaw may have said... "Two countries separated by the same language" and all that!

 

[12LDA28C]

Evolution of language presupposes a more intelligent usage, but there are those who seem happy to accept a lessening of the more intelligent usage.

It goes further than that - some on this thread appear to be advocating an inexorable slide into illiteracy. God help us as a nation if complacency, indifference or people metaphorically shrugging their shoulders and saying 'it doesn't matter' allows that to happen. Illiteracy is even creeping into national newspapers, books and suchlike. People need to start standing up for grammar, spelling and syntax or we will eventually 'loose' the ability to communicate effectively.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

People need to start standing up for grammar, spelling and syntax or we will eventually 'loose' the ability to communicate effectively.

I see what you did there!

 

[Purple Train]

That's as may be, but the ongoing development of some other European language, by definition, is not directly relevant to the evolution of the English language.

It does provide an interesting insight into developments in related languages and the similarities and differences between the way English is developing and the other language is developing. It may not be directly relevant, but it is still a useful side discussion that gives extra context.

focusing on just how the English language in Great Britain has evolved over the past few centuries compared with the English language in the U.S., (and which version will tend to predominate in the years to come).

As George Bernard Shaw may have said... "Two countries separated by the same language" and all that!

American will definitely predominate. Even though they can't spell "aluminium".

 

[cb a1]

Evolution of language presupposes a more intelligent usage, but there are those who seem happy to accept a lessening of the more intelligent usage.

I don't understand why evolution of language presupposes a more intelligent usage? Ordinary evolution doesn't (unless one ascribes to the Intelligent Design version). Evolution is generally a hard-nosed driver of efficiency.

I recall reading somewhere about there being 4 types of language that we use:

• Familial - this is the language we use within long-established groups of people. You can say one word and everyone in that group may laugh or groan but anyone outside that group doesn't have a clue what you're talking about.
• In-group - this is language that is deliberately used to denote who is in the in-group and who isn't (e.g. Polari).
• Written - this is where we are looking to communicate effectively and efficiently with people who we don't know. This forum is a good example of where a well-written post is appreciated. It generally difficult to convey nuance that one can add to the 'spoken' word as it lacks facial and body language (and why emoticons have 'evolved'). A good writer can reduce or eliminate ambiguity by using the most appropriate words and correct grammar.
• Spoken - this is the language that we use to communicate with anyone and everyone. This generally uses fewer words than the written language (lowest common denominator) and feedback on meaning can be obtained immediately reducing the benefits that come with using a wider vocabulary and correct grammar.

An example is that before the availability of predictive text, we saw a lot of text speak evolve because it was a quicker way for some to effectively communicate. As predictive text is now par for the course, text speak has largely disappeared as it has lost the advantage it once had.

The evolution of language in each of the above types can bleed through into the other types.

 

[GusB]

American will definitely predominate. Even though they can't spell "aluminium".

Aluminum/aluminium is an interesting example; we're quite happy with alumina being the substance used in its production, but shouldn't we be saying "aluminia" instead?

 

[Purple Train]

Aluminum/aluminium is an interesting example; we're quite happy with alumina being the substance used in its production, but shouldn't we be saying "aluminia" instead?

Quite possibly, but it may be the case that both can be valid simultaneously, if the -ium is seen, linguistically speaking, as the equivalent of the -on in silicon that is taken off to create the word "silica". I call it the dyscalculia problem - the stress naturally comes in different places when saying "dyscalculia" and "dyscalculic", so the pronunciation of the "u" changes. I may well just be pronouncing one or both of them wrong though!

 

[takno]

.

• Spoken - this is the language that we use to communicate with anyone and everyone. This generally uses fewer words than the written language (lowest common denominator) and feedback on meaning can be obtained immediately reducing the benefits that come with using a wider vocabulary and correct grammar

I'm not convinced that spoken language is more terse than written language. There are a lot of different styles of both though.

It's noticeable now that TV actors have stopped doing delivering lines like they're on the stage booming out Shakespeare and started talking like normal humans, that subtitles often leave out chunks of the speech in order to stay readable.

At the converse, audiobooks almost never feel the need to skip the more florid sentences. There's an argument that they should, on the basis that you've got the gist and they want to keep the pace up. Sadly however they never do.

Written-spoken language, like what I stick in chat on my phone is perhaps like spoken text in the sense of being more casual and less planned, but I'd almost invariably shorter than it would have been if I was speaking, because typing is more work than speaking

 

[cb a1]

I'm not convinced that spoken language is more terse than written language. There are a lot of different styles of both though.

Rather than say fewer words, I should have written a smaller vocabulary. I would agree with you that the written language can be more terse (subject to style). A larger vocabularly enables you to get your point across with fewer words. Probably worth including the aphorism attributed to Voltaire (or was it Twain) of 'I didn't have time to write you a short letter so I wrote you a long one instead'.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't understand why evolution of language presupposes a more intelligent usage? Ordinary evolution doesn't (unless one ascribes to the Intelligent Design version). Evolution is generally a hard-nosed driver of efficiency.

Maybe the meaning of the word 'evolution' has evolved

Seriously, I do agree with you. In the context of biology, evolution implies adaptation to whatever the current circumstances the species has to live in are: There's certainly no implication that a species will necessarily evolve to become more intelligent (although in practice that may well happen).

I believe in astronomy, evolution has a very different, but related meaning: It refers to how a star changes over its lifetime from cloud of gas to eventual supernova/black hole/white dwarf/whatever. (Again, no implications about intelligence).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2023 ==

American will definitely predominate. Even though they can't spell "aluminium".

To add to so many words that Americans don't know how to pronounce correctly

 

[Purple Train]

To add to so many words that Americans don't know how to pronounce correctly

Don't get me started... this discussion always reminds me of the very ancient Jeremy Clarkson Top Gear sketch on how Southern Americans mispronounce every car brand!

 

[Calthrop]

Rather than say fewer words, I should have written a smaller vocabulary. I would agree with you that the written language can be more terse (subject to style). A larger vocabularly enables you to get your point across with fewer words. Probably worth including the aphorism attributed to Voltaire (or was it Twain) of 'I didn't have time to write you a short letter so I wrote you a long one instead'.

It's Pascal, to whom I've heard that aphorism attributed. My own experience is that while I consider that I have a pretty large vocabulary; I've a tendency to a high degree of wordiness, and to mighty difficulty in expressing myself succinctly. (And I doubt whether any of the historic French or American gentlemen involved here, suffered from a meagre-vocabulary problem !)

 

[cb a1]

Maybe the meaning of the word 'evolution' has evolved

I believe in astronomy, evolution has a very different, but related meaning: It refers to how a star changes over its lifetime from cloud of gas to eventual supernova/black hole/white dwarf/whatever. (Again, no implications about intelligence).

To my mind, there's already a more appropriate word for that process - ageing. I guess that doesn't capture the transformative element but again there's already a word for that - metamorphosis.
However, as you note definitions 'evolve'...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The usage of words based upon ancient languages is still in vogue with the hobby enthusiasts in two examples being known as philatelists and lepidopterists.

 

[Calthrop]

The usage of words based upon ancient languages is still in vogue with the hobby enthusiasts in two examples being known as philatelists and lepidopterists.

Not, basically, the case with enthusiasts for our particular hobby: a couple of such words in reference to our pursuit have been thought up, but have failed to catch on. As Bryan Morgan writes, a bit snootily: "we leave all that sort of thing to the matchbox-collectors". (Word for those particular hobbyists: phillumenists.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The time to start worrying is when you confuse "gricer" with "grocer".

 

[Purple Train]

The time to start worrying is when you confuse "gricer" with "grocer".

Presumably that will lead to the advent of the "gricer's apostrophe", which occurs in such phrases as "Class 142's" and "Class 156's".

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Presumably that will lead to the advent of the "gricer's apostrophe", which occurs in such phrases as "Class 142's" and "Class 156's".

Moot point as to whether apostrophes should be used when numbers are pluralised. Opinions in style guides seem to differ. Probably fine if used consistently and there is no confusion when used, for example, could be either the 1970s or the 1970's.

 

[12LDA28C]

Moot point as to whether apostrophes should be used when numbers are pluralised. Opinions in style guides seem to differ. Probably fine if used consistently and there is no confusion when used, for example, could be either the 1970s or the 1970's.

Why would an apostrophe be necessary for a simple plural? A Class 142, several Class 142s is surely correct.