Essorant wrote:A language is a collaborative monument of many ages. When people long began a great artwork it is only due that you should respect how it stands before you and preserve it and even restore ut where possible, and also contribute to it. When you approach the work of many ages before you, it is a disgrace if you will put only your own one self and your own one age over the authorship and art established by many people and many ages of the past, without which you wouldn't have the age-cultivated language you speak let alone to try to give over only into the authority of only your own self and your own age and pretend the past doesn't count anymore. The past has more authority because it established the language much before and much more than the present .
I think it is fallacious to compare a language to artwork or any other human production. It's more like a living creature: something that develops naturally, without the need for conscious interference or effort on the part of anyone. Nobody every "began" English or any other language. They simply spoke the language they were raised with in more or less the same fashion their entire lives. Whatever changes the language experienced were generational mutations, not the result of craft and artistic ingenuity.
Est ratio fallax linguam arti quodam vel unicuique rei a hominibus fabricato. Lingua est similior animali vel alicui viventi, qui naturaliter crescit sine alicuius ingerentia vel negotio. Nemo umquam linguam Anglicam vel alias "incohat," homines autem linguis, quibus docti fuerunt, locuti erunt uno quasi in modo usque ad vitarum fines suarum. Si lingua per tempus mutabatur, hoc e generationibus hominum multis factum est, non quodam e homine callido artificeque.
It makes no more sense to give "respect" to a language than to respect a tree which grows well or a bat which has echo location. These natural phenomena are complex and interesting, and in that sense they deserve our respect. Language is the same way. It changes and continues on its merry way despite what this or that person may think of it. I think language is terribly fascinating, and this is why I took classes linguistics. However, the respect due to language is found in observation, documentation, and analysis. We study it, understand how it functions, and watch it in action. This approach applies equally to Anglo-Saxon English as well as its most diverse creoles today.
Haud magis rationale est "honorare" linguam quam arborem bene crescentem vel vespertilionem usu echi in bestiolas inveniendas fungentem. Haec omnia sunt intricata necnon mira et ita, ut admirationem nostram postulant. Sec est lingua. Mutat progrediturque laete sine cura istius vel illius hominis ipsam arbitrantis. Puto linguam ipsam iucundam esse, quamobrem scientiam linguisticam paululum didisci. At lingua observatione, documentatione, inquisitioneque honoranda est. Eam perscrutamur, illius mores intellegimus, et dum agit spectamus. Haec via pari passu cum in linguam Anglicam priscam, tum in eius diversissimas linguas conmixtas hodie.
it is a disgrace if you will put only your own one self and your own one age over the authorship and art established by many people and many ages of the past, without which you wouldn't have the age-cultivated language you speak let alone to try to give over only into the authority of only your own self and your own age and pretend the past doesn't count anymore.
Isn't "pretending the past doesn't count anymore" exactly what you are doing by criticizing the historical innovations in the English language that have lead to "the age-cultivated language you speak"? The fact is that if you insist on some historical form of the English language--say before 1066--you have to arbitrarily fix a point in time and declare it the Pure English. You then have to ignore changes made after that date, or devise some system of what counts as legitimate change and what doesn't.
Nonne tu ipse agis "adsimulare tempus actum non tibi curae esse," qui innovationes historicas linguae Anglicae incusas quae "hanc linguam tempore cultam qua loqueris" fecerunt? Vires mihi desunt...
Also, languages don't have authority--people do. People use languages. Languages only exist as a tool for communication between people. We may use them for artistic and other grand purposes, but they are still and always a communicative tool for humans. If the English Speaking Populace adopts a word into its universal lexicon, then that word is English. The Anglo-Saxons adopted plenty of words, too. Everyone has always done it. There is nothing disrespectful or disgraceful in facilitating communication by all means. I actually find it disrespectful to insist on forms of language that are less efficacious and prevent complete communication. We should be attempting to clarify rather than obfuscate our meaning, and this is done by availing ourselves of the common idiom.