# Deprecation of ones own language



## Hulalessar

Meyer Wolfsheim said in another thread:



> My native language is English and find it incredibly vague and at times too analytical. When I read newspaper headlines, I often get confused and it sometimes takes me a minute to figure out which idiom/expression/ellipsis is being used for a given set of words, because some phrases can have many meanings depending on context. English I can say is one of the most unexpressive languages in terms of communicating without confusion; its only redeeming qualities are the ability to create new verbs/words on the spot and the beauty of its phrasal/prepositional verbs. I also find many features of English redundant, like the verb "to be" and I was surprised when I first realized that English didn't even have a working plural form for the definite article "the" (let's not count null plural markers here).



This is the sort of thing that native French speakers often say about English! It is perhaps surprising to find a native English speaker saying it. It reminded me that at various times different societies have deprecated their own language and favoured another. For example:

The Assyrians wrote in Sumerian for centuries after it stopped being spoken.

The earliest Japanese poetry is in Chinese.

The Romans always felt that Greek was superior to Latin.

Nineteenth century Russian aristocrats were brought up speaking French.

Why is this?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Probably because they were conditioned to do so. The English have always - whether they admit it or not - had a sense of the French being better than them, perhaps due to a mentality engendered during the Norman Conquest. 
Even in today's English, a French word thrown in here or there often leads an air of "education" or "refinement" to the piece. I suppose the same holds true for the other groups you mentioned.


----------



## Arabus

Hulalessar said:


> The Assyrians wrote in Sumerian for centuries after it stopped being spoken.



Who said that?

This is an exaggeration. This is one guy being dramatic. I don't think there is any nation in history that willingly chose to abandon its own language. The Japanese, Romans, etc. all had to write at some pints in foreign languages but they never consciously decided that the other language was better to use. This is dreaming.


----------



## Erick404

Well, people may have different opinions. 
Since it's their native language, they are supposed to notice its "flaws", since they speak/hear/listen it everyday. When they learn another language, then they have something more concrete to compare with, and they may find some foreign structures more interesting than the equivalents in their native tongue.
This may be the case with Meyer Wolfsheim. But with the other cases mentioned, it's more likely to be just an opinion being very influential because it was expressed by a society's elite.


----------



## Joannes

Exactly. The examples you give are about distinction: high social classes that speak or write glorified languages (which were glorified rather because of the fact that great works of all sorts had been written in them, rather than because of its linguistic structure), to set them apart from the people. Sociolinguistic diglossia.

I think Meyer Wolfsheim's thoughts are about someone who knows about linguistics, therefore knows what possibilities languages in the world have, and misses them in their own language. In Dutch I can have the same sometimes. I tend to get frustrated when I have to rewrite a complete sentence because you can't just complementize everything to anything, which seems to be easier in other languages I know. Now, I have to say, I think this kind of awareness is not as common as sociolinguistic diglossia..


----------



## jmx

Joannes said:


> I think Meyer Wolfsheim's thoughts are about someone who knows about linguistics, therefore knows what possibilities languages in the world have, and misses them in their own language.


Rather than knowing about linguistics, I think the point is more about knowing foreign languages. For example, if I had never studied English or German, I wouldn't be aware of how awkward Spanish is when it comes to coining new words. Another feature I miss in my language is something like the _davon, darauf_, etc. of German.

On the other hand, from time to time when I'm reading an English text, I find myself thinking "where on earth is the verb in this sentence", as you don't have any verbal ending there to help you!


----------



## Heitor

For what it is worth, I also find English incredibly vague and at times too analytical. I think it has to be more than a coincidence that many people have that impression.

I suppose all languages have flaws. My native Portuguese, for instance, is so complex that unless you happen to write for a living, you will always make grammatical mistakes without even being aware of it. I can't really see how such complexity adds anything to the language.

But to favour a foreign language in detriment of your own is, in any case I have seen, simply a matter of snobbery or social distinction. Silly pride, nothing else.


----------



## boadicea7

I think the only thing we all can agree on is that the only way to truly know your own language, its deficiencies and advantages is to know other languages.
And the same goes for culture in general



Viva la difference!!

One thing that I can say about my language (Spanish) is that it becomes clumsy when trying to express non personal ideas.
For instance, the French have the unpersonal pronoun : *On* for that.
In German they have *Man*.
In Spanish I suppose we can use 'one' , like in English
Ex: If one is sad/ Si uno está triste.

Or we can use '*se'*: Si se está triste.

But still I feel that though it approaches the exact meaning French and German transmit, it is not quite the same, and it is kind of clumsy in my opinion.
Just an aproximation.

I really wonder why Italian and Spanish didn't get an equivalent of the French *On*


----------



## capials

Further to Boadicea's question:/

French is a dialect of Latin ;let us keep it simple.Scholars where does *ON *come in?
Le petit Robert :On     du_ nominatif latin *Homo*   voir Homme


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,*

*French "on" already has been discussed **here**.*

*This is a very general thread. Let's not go into details here. One can always open a new thread for more detailed information on particular issues.*

*Frank*
*Moderator*


----------



## Hulalessar

Arabus said:


> Who said that? [That Sumerian was written for centuries after it ceased to be spoken]



Just about every source I have consulted on the point since I made it.


----------



## Mishe

Hulalessar said:


> Meyer Wolfsheim said in another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the sort of thing that native French speakers often say about English! It is perhaps surprising to find a native English speaker saying it. It reminded me that at various times different societies have deprecated their own language and favoured another. For example:
> 
> The Assyrians wrote in Sumerian for centuries after it stopped being spoken.
> 
> The earliest Japanese poetry is in Chinese.
> 
> The Romans always felt that Greek was superior to Latin.
> 
> Nineteenth century Russian aristocrats were brought up speaking French.
> 
> Why is this?



This has to do with language _prestige_, which is, of course strongly connected with political, economic and cultural power throughout history. The languages you mentioned above had their periods when they were influenced by other, but they survived and flourished on their own later. Unfortunately, many languages (especially smaller ones) go extinct after their speakers decide to abandon them and adopt a language of higher prestige. It is happening at this moment in many, many places around the world.


----------



## koniecswiata

How "good" "bad" "expressive" "analytical", etc... a language is has to do with the psychology of the people commenting on it this way.  A language is as the people who use it wish it to be.  So, every language is equal in this sense.  Besides to say that a language is "vague" and "analytical" at the same time makes no sense.  Whether or not verbs are marked, etc... is an issue of mechanics of that language.  In theory, a language could have one verb, one noun, and one adjective, and that would be enough if the contexts of communication were served by that structure.  In that case, that language would be thoroughly expressive, analytical, beautiful, etc...


----------



## Sepia

koniecswiata said:


> How "good" "bad" "expressive" "analytical", etc... a language is has to do with the psychology of the people commenting on it this way. A language is as the people who use it wish it to be. So, every language is equal in this sense. Besides to say that a language is "vague" and "analytical" at the same time makes no sense. Whether or not verbs are marked, etc... is an issue of mechanics of that language. In theory, a language could have one verb, one noun, and one adjective, and that would be enough if the contexts of communication were served by that structure. In that case, that language would be thoroughly expressive, analytical, beautiful, etc...


 
I pretty much agree with you in this. Thinking a bit further in that direction it would mean that languages develop in accordance with the purpose they serve. Just as much as a persons command of the language develops in accordance with the purpose he is attempting to fulfill with the language. More or less the same thing, just viewed from different angles. 

The really interesting question, however, is why very similar languages, or even the same language spoken in different regions, suddenly can change in hugely different directions in over of a few centuries.


----------



## koniecswiata

That is part of the "mystery" about how and why languages change.  The answer should fill a book--and has--basically a lot of historical, sociological, psychological, anthropological-cultural factors impacting the language.  I firmly believe that languages are an expression of how their speakers use them.  Hence, I don't like the currently popular expression "Languages are alive" because it sounds like the language is this thing with its own volition, etc... I'd rather say that they "seem alive" because their speakers are alive!  I might be splitting hairs, but I think it shows a profound difference, i.e. "It's the speaker/user, not the language itself".


----------



## Awwal12

I personally love the Russian language.  Whatever you want to say in any style, sounds perfect. You can properly express thoughts with one or two words, or you can express them in different ways with slightly different tones, or add some feeling to the speach just adding some suffix to noun or adjective. It can be motherly soft or hard in military way, sensual or cold, laconic and apt or variegated and magnificent...  Synthetical nature lets to play with word order and intonations, giving unexpected sense to any common set of words.

But it is a complicated and fine instrument, which one should learn from the birth to have an ability to use it properly and feel all its fine points.


----------



## koniecswiata

What you say, Awwal12, I agree with completely...the characteristics of all human languagues.


----------



## Sepia

koniecswiata said:


> That is part of the "mystery" about how and why languages change. The answer should fill a book--and has--basically a lot of historical, sociological, psychological, anthropological-cultural factors impacting the language. I firmly believe that languages are an expression of how their speakers use them. Hence, I don't like the currently popular expression "Languages are alive" because it sounds like the language is this thing with its own volition, etc... I'd rather say that they "seem alive" because their speakers are alive! I might be splitting hairs, but I think it shows a profound difference, i.e. "It's the speaker/user, not the language itself".


 
You are probably right about the history bit. I am convinced that if we would find out more about what makes languages change we could also reverse the picture: History would not only give us hints about what made languages change rather than changes in the language would give us information or at least solid material for assumptions about what historians did not tell us or even lied about. There is probably a very logical reason for Russian having maintained its highly complicated system of flexions etc. while most languages in Western European languages have lost a good deal or even most of them.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Hence, I don't like the currently popular expression "Languages are alive" because it sounds like the language is this thing with its own volition, etc... I'd rather say that they "seem alive" because their speakers are alive! I might be splitting hairs, but I think it shows a profound difference, i.e. "It's the speaker/user, not the language itself".


I don't think anyone believes an actual language is alive, the expression refers to the speakers, its united usage behaving in a flexible way with new words coming in and going out of fashion all the time, I don't understand what profound difference there could be because even though the expression is 'languages are alive' the reference is directly that of the people (speakers) being alive, and well, united in the tongue they speak.

What do you perceive to be the difference?


----------

