# idiom- language- idiolect- dialect



## Artrella

I don't know if this thread has to be in English exclusively.  I want to tell you that when I studied in the first year of the Profesorado de Ingles, we made a difference between "lengua" "lenguage" "dialecto" e "idiolecto".  Moreover, in English Language Class we were taught that "language" is "la lengua" spoken in a country whereas "idioms" are certain expressions used by people living in one country.  So idiom is not the same as idioma in Spanish, in this case it'd be "language".  Then I'm going to bring my notes and enlarge this subject.  What do you know about it? Art.


----------



## garryknight

In English, "language" refers to the generic written and spoken language of any country. English is an example of a language and so is Spanish. "Language" translates directly into Spanish as "idioma".

 The Spanish word "lengua" could be translated into English as "language" but is perhaps better translated as "tongue": language in general as opposed to any one specific language. An example of use would be "We may all speak different tongues but we're all human underneath". This is not to be confused with "speaking in tongues" or "glossolalia" (which isn't in my Spanish dictionary but I would guess is the same in Spanish since it's a Latin word) which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 "Dialect" refers to local variations of a language. Users of a dialect share the bulk of their vocabulary with the bulk of the surrounding population but use many words that the rest of the population don't use. They also pronounce some of the shared words differently. In my country, for example, there is a Yorkshire dialect, a Geordie dialect and a Cockney dialect, to name just three.

 I think most linguists would take Castellano to be a dialect of the Spanish language, likewise Gallego and Catalan, while Basque (Euskera) would be a different language rather than a dialect of Spanish. But all of these are subject to the whim of politics (both national and personal) as well as linguistics.

 "Idiom" really means the same as "modismo" and doesn't really bear any relation to the Spanish word "idioma". Examples of shared idiom would be "have to" and "tener que"; and "since 3 months ago" and "hace tres meses" are an example of non-shared idiom.

 Whereas "tongue", "language", "idiom" and "dialect" are phenomena relating to groups, "idiolect" is the variety of form of a language used by a particular individual: that person's own idiosyncrasies in their use of their own language. There was an English gentleman of times gone by whose name was Reverend Spooner. He had a habit (or more likely, a rare psychological condition) whereby in his speech he would transpose the first letters of two closely-juxtaposed words which would result in unintentional humour. For example, he might say "our queer old Dean" rather than "our dear old Queen". This type of "play on words" became known as the "Spoonerism" and it's an example of an idiolect.

 Getting a grasp of these English terms might be easier if you imagine a series of concentric circles where "tongue=lengua" is the largest, inside that is "language=idioma", inside that are the three non-overlapping circles of "dialect", "idiom" and "idiolect".


----------



## cuchuflete

High Garry,

I think you have given a useful exposition, and the graphic concept, concentric circles is great.  Artrella and I had a small difference of opinion about the use of the word "idiom" in another thread.  In addition to your correct definition of it, I believe it also carries a broader meaning.  I have seen it used, and I use it myself on infrequent occasions, to be nearly synonymous with 'language'.  For me, it is, in this usage, still a subset of language, but a rather large subset.

Here's what a modern American dictionary, Merriam-Webster, has to say:



Main Entry:	id·i·om 
Pronunciation:	'i-dE-&m
Function:	noun
Etymology:	Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French idiome, from Late Latin idioma individual peculiarity of language, from Greek idiOmat-, idiOma, from idiousthai to appropriate, from idios
1 a : the language peculiar to a people or to a district, community, or class : DIALECT b : the syntactical, grammatical, or structural form peculiar to a language

The OED, in my 1933 edition, says:

1. The form of speech peculiar to a people or country.

It then goes on to give distinct, even conflicting definitions, including
dialect and idiotism.  If we delve further into related terms, such as *idiomatic*, we find the broader meaning cropping up again:
(OED) Peculiar to or characteristic of a particular language; vernacular; colloquial.

In short, your definition is correct. There are other broader definitions which are also correct.  In both U.S. and English dictionaries, the broader definition is given first, but I do not take that as meaning that one definition should be preferred over another.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## garryknight

cuchufléte said:
			
		

> There are other broader definitions which are also correct.


 Yes, I was defining it more in the sense of "idioms" or "idiomatic usage" than in the widest sense. Ultimately, the meaning of a word isn't what it says in the dictionary, it's what it evokes for you when you hear or see it.


----------



## Artrella

I was browsing my Linguistics Dictionary from the Caen University (France) and it defines IDIOM as a fixed combination of elements with an idiosyncratic (not completely compositional) meaning, such as kick the bucket, spill the beans.  Idioms are generally inaccessible for syntactic and/or semantic variation:  Eg,
  1) He kicked the bucket last week
  2)  * Some buckets were kicked last week
We can see that sentence 2) cannot mean that some people died last week.

When I first studied about language and tongue (lengua) we considered that language (lenguaje) is the capacity of the brain to produce lengua (tongue).

Reading Cassirer, we jumped to the conclusion that Language (lenguaje) es the communicative capacity in general.  Language as a capacity inherent to the man.  The Lengua (Tongue) in included in the language (cosmovision)
So, Language would be the capacity and Tongue the instrument for communication.  Language is the capacity that men have to abstract, in this capacity for abstraction is that men differs from animals.  (Cassirer)
The tongue is an esential part of the language  (capacity).  It is a social product of the capacity of language.  It is a set of conventions adopted arbitrary by the social group to allow the exercise of the capacity of language.  The tongue has to subordinate to language, but we start from the tongue to infere language features as a capacity.    Language is the faculty we have given by nature to create tongue.(Cassirer)

The arbitrary explains the great variety of tongues / languages.  The confusion might have arisen because in Spanish we have LENGUAJE- LENGUA-GIRO IDIOMATICO- DIALECTO E IDIOLECTO

Jakobson says that communications have no interferences, so the message emitted by a person reaches the recipient just like it was emitted.  No interference.
But this is a metaphore because THERE ARE interferences.  And these are the IDIOLECTS.  Idiolect is the codes that every person has, let's say their own "tongue" or "lengua" and given that different idiolects we cannot say that a message emitted by one person will reach the other such as it had been emitted.  There does not exist homogeinity, every human being has its own idiolect.

Summarizing; what I wanted to establish is the difference between (in Sp) lenguage como capacidad de abstraer y generar lengua; lengua lo que nos permite comunicarnos y construida en base al arbitrio de un grupo social (variedad de lenguas en el mundo); dialectos (diversificaciones de la lengua por causas de distancia principalmente o de idiosincracia: acá es interesante leer a Bourdieu y Passeron en lo que ellos llaman "El capital lingüístico"), e idiolectos (lengua personal de cada ser).
What I objected to the mail posted by Mr. Cuchufléte was that it seemed to me that he used the word "idiom" (giro idiomático) as a synonym of "tongue" or "idioma" in Spanish.  And as we deal with different languages, not idioms, this has been simply a misunderstanding.  But I took advantage of it to brush up what I had seen in First Year.
Best Regards, Art.


----------



## cuchuflete

Artrella,
Notwithstanding all of the above, which is most interesting, *Idiom* in English,
can be used as a synonym for language, especially the language of a defined place or group of people.  To put it differently, it comes close to a term you have not included in your discussion: parlance.

You persist in attributing to me an act I did not commit.  You state above that,
"...he used the word "idiom" (giro idiomático)..."  when in fact, the entire dispute is about the fact that I used the word "idiom" to mean something other than giro idiomático. Please feel free to convict me of my true linguistic errors, rather than those you may imagine me to have made.

I used "idiom" to indicate a 'tongue', 'parlance' or 'language' and not a dialect nor a phrase.  You kindly offered to correct what you perceived to be an error in this usage.
I politely and respectfully declined, and continue to decline, that gracious offer.

"Idiom may be employed loosely and figuratively as a synonym of language or dialect, but in its proper sense it signifies the totality of the general rules of construction which characterize the syntax of a particular language and distinguish it from other tongues."
- G. P. Marsh.

Please take from all of this the possibility that the word "Idiom" has multiple meanings in English.  The meaning chosen is often obvious from the context in which the word is used.  
Example: The musical idiom of Bartok is infused with Hungarian folk melodies.

             In the idiom of the politician, simple catch phrases are favored as a means of                propagating false premises.

Peace,
Cuchufléte


----------



## LadyBlakeney

I read the thread where the discussion arised and I find this subject most interesting. Reading this thread I have learned a lot about this linguistic issue, and I hope to see Art and Cuchu get to an agreement on the use of "idiom".

Thank you all for your insight.


----------



## valerie

garryknight said:
			
		

> "Dialect" refers to local variations of a language. Users of a dialect share the bulk of their vocabulary with the bulk of the surrounding population but use many words that the rest of the population don't use. They also pronounce some of the shared words differently. In my country, for example, there is a Yorkshire dialect, a Geordie dialect and a Cockney dialect, to name just three.
> 
> I think most linguists would take Castellano to be a dialect of the Spanish language, likewise Gallego and Catalan, while Basque (Euskera) would be a different language rather than a dialect of Spanish. But all of these are subject to the whim of politics (both national and personal) as well as linguistics.


A famous French general, Louis-Hubert Lyautey (1854-1934), who knew the subject very well, once said: «Une langue, c'est un dialecte qui possède une armée, une marine et une aviation.» (a language is a dialect which owns an army).

You can say in English that Castellano, Gallego or Catalan are dialects of Spanish language, but you can not say that in Spain in Spanish. You would be stating a political position relative to language, obviously, but also to History, to state organization, cultural financing, education etc...  The use of the words language / dialect (idioma / dialecto, langue / patois) is highly political wherever two languages compete or just coexist.

Linguists use the concept of language proximity or language distance. You could say Spanish and Catalan have a close proximity, which makes it easier to learn the other language, whereas Spanish and Basque have a greater language distance (are more different from each other).

For those of you who can read French, I attach an link where you can find information about the languages (the international ones, and the 'small' ones) and information about linguistics and politics
http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/Langues/acces_languesmonde.htm


----------



## dave

valerie said:
			
		

> For those of you who can read French, I attach an link where you can find information about the languages (the international ones, and the 'small' ones) and information about linguistics and politics
> http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/Langues/acces_languesmonde.htm



There are some fascinating stats here Valerie, but I wish it would list all the languages that it counts - for example it gives 12 languages for the UK. I can think of only:

1. English
2. Welsh
3. Scotts Gaelic
4. Irish
5. Cornish (extinct?)
6. Manx ?

I'm really interested to know what the other 6 are, or is it counting dialects of English such as Geordie (spoken in Newcastle) and Glaswegian?! I presume it isn't including languages spoken by immigrant populations, as then the total would be in the hundreds! Can anyone enlighten me?


----------



## valerie

dave said:
			
		

> There are some fascinating stats here Valerie, but I wish it would list all the languages that it counts - for example it gives 12 languages for the UK. I can think of only:
> 
> 1. English
> 2. Welsh
> 3. Scotts Gaelic
> 4. Irish
> 5. Cornish (extinct?)
> 6. Manx ?
> 
> I'm really interested to know what the other 6 are, or is it counting dialects of English such as Geordie (spoken in Newcastle) and Glaswegian?! I presume it isn't including languages spoken by immigrant populations, as then the total would be in the hundreds! Can anyone enlighten me?



Here is the source of the statistics:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=United+Kingdom


----------



## dave

valerie said:
			
		

> Here is the source of the statistics:
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=United+Kingdom



Thanks Valerie - some of these are very dubious! They include *polari * in the count, which was a completely fabricated slang language popular within the gay and theatrical communities in the 1950s! It is no more a language than cockney rhyming slang, or verlan!


----------



## Artrella

Anyone interested in deepen their knowledge as regards semiotics and subjects related to linguistics, langue, parole and so on I can recommend reading Saussure, Derrida, Jacobson, Foucault.  I've searched for some links which are so interesting.  As you might know Derrida passed away if not yesterday the day before yesterday.  He was a great philosopher.  Of course is not easy reading but take your time and read his material.  ARt.


----------



## cuchuflete

valerie said:
			
		

> Here is the source of the statistics:
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=United+Kingdom




Thanks Valerie, 

This is fascinating.  I just visited the link and learned, to my amazement, that there are 176 languages in use in the U.S., including Basque, Valencian, and Spanish, with its 22,400,000 speakers in this country!

saludos,
Cuchufléte


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> 1) He kicked the bucket last week
> 2)  * Some buckets were kicked last week
> We can see that sentence 2) cannot mean that some people died last week.


 I've known some people to use exactly this kind of inversion as a mild form of humour. For example, on discovering that someone had made an error at work which would mean having to redo an entire day's figures, one might say "There will be rolling heads!" - an oblique reference to the saying "Heads will roll!".



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> Reading Cassirer ...
> Jakobson says ...


 I haven't read anything by these two, but I have read some Saussure and Derrida (as mentioned in your later post) and one of the major problems when talking about this subject is that everyone has their own definitions (in the sense of meanings, which I'll talk about more below) for the terminology used so they're all, in effect, talking at cross purposes. Read Pinker or Chomsky and you'll get more interesting stories about what language "is" and how it is developed and used. Read Lakoff & Johnson and you'll get more stories. And each of these stories tells you as much, if not more, about the writer than it does about language. It's somewhat like the game of Chinese Whispers.

 Chomsky talks about the Deep Structure and Surface Structure of language. The Surface Structure is language as it reaches our ears and eyes, before our brains start interpreting it; it consists of patterns of sounds and written words, symbols, and so on. In order to produce it we must encode the Deep Structure into words, phrases, sentences, and so on. The Deep Structure is the low-level representation that's "stored" in our brains (I'm simplifying a great deal).

 Now, say I want to get a message across to you (just as I'm doing now), I think about what I want to say and this thinking is in the form of internal images, sounds, feelings, even tastes and smells sometimes - my set of internal representations of whatever the subject of the message is. At some point in the process, all of this gets encoded into words; maybe "inside my head" at first but sooner or later as speech: spoken, typed, written, via whichever medium I choose. When you hear or read my words you perform the reverse process: each word, phrase, sentence, and so on, elicits in you your own internal representation, which includes internal images, sounds, feelings, etc.

 Now, because your internal representation of any "language unit" (word, phrase, idiomatic expression, etc) is more or less different from mine, *every single individual on this planet has a different language*. And I'm not talking about idiolect here.

 Let's take the word "home", for example. If you were to take the time to write down what this word means to you (and I mean the complex internal representation of the meaning of the word, not some dictionary definition) and I were to do the same and we were to compare the results, there would be significant differences.

 But so what? As long as we recognise that there are differences, and as long as we can also recognise the similarities, we can communicate more or less effectively. The problem comes when we take a meta-position and attempt to analyse and write about all of this: unless we take this Deep-Structure difference into account, we're all "singing from different hymn sheets". And none of us are "right", we're all just teling different stories. And that - above all - is what makes this forum so interesting, in my humble opinion.



			
				cuchufléte said:
			
		

> Please take from all of this the possibility that the word "Idiom" has multiple meanings in English.


 And it has multiple meanings in any and every language. There are more meanings for the word "idiom" and its local translations than there are people who know the word. (And, of course, there are many who don't know any variation of the word.)



			
				dave said:
			
		

> I'm really interested to know what the other 6 are, or is it counting dialects of English such as Geordie (spoken in Newcastle) and Glaswegian?!


 Ah t'ink dey includin' Sahflunnon, innit?

 ¡Miércoles! This thread's getting interesting...


----------



## garryknight

garryknight said:
			
		

> "Idiom" really means the same as "modismo"


 I've been thinking some more about this and it's not that simple. In my opinion I'd have to include under the heading of "idiom" (as I've defined it) such features of language as metaphor, simile, proverb, and cliché (and almost certainly others that escape me at the moment).

*Simile* tells you a lot about the culture of the people who speak a particular language. For example, in any English-speaking country I might be "ugly as sin" but in a Spanish-speaking one I'm more likely to be "mas feo que Picio". *Proverbs*, equally, can demonstrate how different cultures developed rules by which to live; and the fact that different cultures developed some of the same rules but put them in different words highlights the similarities between all of us: in English "the early bird gets the worm" while in Spanish "Al que madruga, Dios le ayuda".

*Metaphor* is the richest part of any language; so rich, in fact, that our speech and writing are full of it and we hardly know we are doing it any more. We have many types of spatial metaphors, for instance, of which hierarchical metaphor is just one example ("top in my class", "highest principles", "closely-held values"). Rather than stuff this post with other examples (I could write an essay... several essays...) I'll recommend Lakoff and Johnson's "Metaphors We Live By" - it's an eye-opener.

 Of course, there are those metaphors and sayings that are so overused that we might feel like doing damage to the person using them: the *cliché*. Some of my pet hates are "at the end of the day" ("At the end of the day we can win this game." "You mean, you play football at midnight?"), "at this moment in time" (isn't is simpler just to say "now"?), "I hear what you're saying" (yes, but you're not actually listening, are you?). The Plain English Campaign has a website I think learners-of-English might find interesting.

 As a postscript, it occurred to me to wonder: Where do these features fit into my concentric circles metaphor?



			
				garryknight said:
			
		

> Getting a grasp of these English terms might be easier if you imagine a series of concentric circles where "tongue=lengua" is the largest, inside that is "language=idioma", inside that are the three non-overlapping circles of "dialect", "idiom" and "idiolect".


 On rethinking, it seems to me that "metaphor", "simile", "proverb", and "cliché" all belong inside the "language=idioma" circle along with "dialect", "idiom", and "idiolect", but that all of these circles (the inner ones along with the outer ones) overlap and interweave to such a degree that "it fair makes my head spin thinking about it" ...


----------



## LadyBlakeney

First of all, I am no expert on the subject so take my words for what they're worth, and please correct any misunderstanding on my part.

I agree with Garryknight that *proverbs* and *clichés* can be considered as idioms (_modismos_) because they have a conventionally accepted structure (with variations depending on the region) and because the use of one group of proverbs/clichés or other is characteristic of each geographic area, big or small as it can be.

However, I think that the notions of metaphor and simile can not be considered as idioms, because we need to be more specific. *Metaphores* and *similes* are what we call in Spanish *stylistical resources/figures*. What I mean is that a metaphore or simile is something you can create when speaking of writing to transmit your thought or mental images more accurately, and they are not necessarily idioms. They become idioms when they are adopted by a group of people who use them always with the same structure and meaning and always in the same context. 

For instance, in Spanish Romantic literature and poetry (with a capital "R", that refers to the nineteenth century literary trend) there were some metaphores which were considered as "clichés" by readers and critics, such as "Your hair is gold" or "Your teeth are pearls". Yes, they were "clichés" as far as they were excessively used by third rate writers and poets, but they never got to be "idioms", as you wouldn't hear anybody using them in common speech. Perhaps some aristocrats may have entertained themselves with such daintiness in the luxury of their parlors, but we all know they were a minority.

I hope I didn't bore you all to death. Please bear in mind that I only studied linguistics in high school, so I didn't get very far.


----------



## cuchuflete

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> However, I think that the notions of metaphor and simile can not be considered as idioms, because we need to be more specific. *Metaphores* and *similes* are what we call in Spanish *stylistical resources/figures*. What I mean is that a metaphore or simile is something you can create when speaking of writing to transmit your thought or mental images more accurately, and they are not necessarily idioms. They become idioms when they are adopted by a group of people who use them always with the same structure and meaning and always in the same context.




Lady B-

Nice exposition.  I suggest we start a new thread about metaphores/similes [NOT smilies!] that have come to be idioms.

Here are a few in english, just to start the ball rolling:

dumb as a doornob [muy bobo]
slick as dear guts on a door nob [listillo]
as interesting as watching paint dry [aburrido]

Looking forward to your collections,
Cuchu


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> I've known some people to use exactly this kind of inversion as a mild form of humour. For example, on discovering that someone had made an error at work which would mean having to redo an entire day's figures, one might say "There will be rolling heads!" - an oblique reference to the saying "Heads will roll!".
> 
> 
> I haven't read anything by these two, but I have read some Saussure and Derrida (as mentioned in your later post) and one of the major problems when talking about this subject is that everyone has their own definitions (in the sense of meanings, which I'll talk about more below) for the terminology used so they're all, in effect, talking at cross purposes. Read Pinker or Chomsky and you'll get more interesting stories about what language "is" and how it is developed and used. Read Lakoff & Johnson and you'll get more stories. And each of these stories tells you as much, if not more, about the writer than it does about language. It's somewhat like the game of Chinese Whispers.
> 
> Chomsky talks about the Deep Structure and Surface Structure of language. The Surface Structure is language as it reaches our ears and eyes, before our brains start interpreting it; it consists of patterns of sounds and written words, symbols, and so on. In order to produce it we must encode the Deep Structure into words, phrases, sentences, and so on. The Deep Structure is the low-level representation that's "stored" in our brains (I'm simplifying a great deal).
> Now, say I want to get a message across to you (just as I'm doing now), I think about what I want to say and this thinking is in the form of internal images, sounds, feelings, even tastes and smells sometimes - my set of internal representations of whatever the subject of the message is. At some point in the process, all of this gets encoded into words; maybe "inside my head" at first but sooner or later as speech: spoken, typed, written, via whichever medium I choose. When you hear or read my words you perform the reverse process: each word, phrase, sentence, and so on, elicits in you your own internal representation, which includes internal images, sounds, feelings, etc.
> 
> Now, because your internal representation of any "language unit" (word, phrase, idiomatic expression, etc) is more or less different from mine, *every single individual on this planet has a different language*. And I'm not talking about idiolect here.
> 
> Let's take the word "home", for example. If you were to take the time to write down what this word means to you (and I mean the complex internal representation of the meaning of the word, not some dictionary definition) and I were to do the same and we were to compare the results, there would be significant differences.
> 
> But so what? As long as we recognise that there are differences, and as long as we can also recognise the similarities, we can communicate more or less effectively. The problem comes when we take a meta-position and attempt to analyse and write about all of this: unless we take this Deep-Structure difference into account, we're all "singing from different hymn sheets". And none of us are "right", we're all just teling different stories. And that - above all - is what makes this forum so interesting, in my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> And it has multiple meanings in any and every language. There are more meanings for the word "idiom" and its local translations than there are people who know the word. (And, of course, there are many who don't know any variation of the word.)
> 
> 
> Ah t'ink dey includin' Sahflunnon, innit?
> 
> ¡Miércoles! This thread's getting interesting...










  I cannot say anything else.  You read CHOMSKY!!!! Welcome to my Club!  You know? I took Grammar II with Mr. Blanco -a linguist who had gone to some lectures with Mr Chomsky- and he made us read some notes about D and S structure.  I must admit I'd have to brush up this subject, but it makes me so happy to know sb else -apart from me who likes this things!- I also read Mike Baker who follows Chomsky's theory.  As regards Derrida it's a lot more difficult to understand but all the same I like reading these excellent linguists, philosophers.  I'm also interested in Neurolinguistics and in sign language.  I'd like to learn how to teach English through sign language.  My Grammar II teacher told us that Chomsky had been once at the Profesorado giving a lecture for teachers.  For the time being I'm busy with Language II , English Literature and German.  But when I could make me some time I'll go to my Grammar notebook and refresh Binding- C-command- pro and so on.  The subject I like the most is Grammar and Linguistics. It's difficult but so interesting!  Do you like sometime to share some topics with me? 
Don't take offence about the smiley, it's pure admiration for a man who likes linguistics! It's difficult to find people who likes it!  
I didn't get your last phrase, was it Inuit? (Ja,ja)
Sláinte!  Art


----------



## garryknight

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> I agree with Garryknight that *proverbs* and *clichés* can be considered as idioms (_modismos_)


 Well, I started out saying that but by the end of my post I'd decided that:


			
				garryknight said:
			
		

> On rethinking, it seems to me that "metaphor", "simile", "proverb", and "cliché" all belong inside the "language=idioma" circle along with "dialect", "idiom", and "idiolect", but that all of these circles (the inner ones along with the outer ones) overlap and interweave to such a degree that "it fair makes my head spin thinking about it" ...


 So I think we agree.



			
				LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> Please bear in mind that I only studied linguistics in high school, so I didn't get very far.


 I went to what in the UK is called "grammar school" (nothing like the US grammar school, it's for children aged 11-18) and the nearest we got to studying linguistics were the classes in English grammar and literature. I learnt what little I know since leaving school. But then I learnt most of what I know outside of school - the school system appears to be set up to close down children's minds and turn them away from learning - at least, when I was there; things might have changed a little since...


----------



## garryknight

cuchufléte said:
			
		

> I suggest we start a new thread about metaphores/similes [NOT smilies!] that have come to be idioms.


 Um... this isn't a new thread...



			
				cuchufléte said:
			
		

> Here are a few in english, just to start the ball rolling:


 I hadn't heard of the first two. In the UK you're likely to hear "thick as two short planks" (no, I didn't mean you're likely to hear it aimed at you...). I don't think we have a simile for 'slick', apart from the generic non-simile the style of which originated in the Blackadder TV series: "as slick as um... a slick thing".


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> I took Grammar II with Mr. Blanco -a linguist who had gone to some lectures with Mr Chomsky- and he made us read some notes about D and S structure.


 Chomsky later changed his mind about some of his earlier work, Transformational Grammar for example, but I haven't read much of his later work and I steer away from anything that looks like politics.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> I'm also interested in Neurolinguistics and in sign language.


 Neurolinguistics as in the study of how neural damage affects speech understanding and output? Or the newer, non-scientific application of neurolinguistic programming (NLP)? Or both, maybe?



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> The subject I like the most is Grammar and Linguistics. It's difficult but so interesting! Do you like sometime to share some topics with me?


 While I can write with reasonable intelligence on some topics, in this area I think you're way ahead of me: I'm only a dabbler - an amateur.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> I didn't get your last phrase, was it Inuit? (Ja,ja)
> Sláinte!  Art


 Inuit? More like dimwit! And your last phrase was more Belfast than Buenos Aires...


----------



## JimTheDim

cuchufléte said:
			
		

> High Garry,
> 
> I think you have given a useful exposition, and the graphic concept, concentric circles is great.  Artrella and I had a small difference of opinion about the use of the word "idiom" in another thread.  In addition to your correct definition of it, I believe it also carries a broader meaning.  I have seen it used, and I use it myself on infrequent occasions, to be nearly synonymous with 'language'.  For me, it is, in this usage, still a subset of language, but a rather large subset.
> 
> Here's what a modern American dictionary, Merriam-Webster, has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> Main Entry:	id·i·om
> Pronunciation:	'i-dE-&m
> Function:	noun
> Etymology:	Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French idiome, from Late Latin idioma individual peculiarity of language, from Greek idiOmat-, idiOma, from idiousthai to appropriate, from idios
> 1 a : the language peculiar to a people or to a district, community, or class : DIALECT b : the syntactical, grammatical, or structural form peculiar to a language
> 
> The OED, in my 1933 edition, says:
> 
> 1. The form of speech peculiar to a people or country.
> 
> It then goes on to give distinct, even conflicting definitions, including
> dialect and idiotism.  If we delve further into related terms, such as *idiomatic*, we find the broader meaning cropping up again:
> (OED) Peculiar to or characteristic of a particular language; vernacular; colloquial.
> 
> In short, your definition is correct. There are other broader definitions which are also correct.  In both U.S. and English dictionaries, the broader definition is given first, but I do not take that as meaning that one definition should be preferred over another.
> 
> saludos,
> Cuchu




OED of 1933 is so massively out of date.  Maybe not in this case but you cannot rely on an English Dictionary that is 70 years old.  The English Language is always changing.  I think the OED comes out every 10 years or so.  This is an opportunity to add many words that are now in common use.  It is also a chance to amend explanations that are now out of date.  Words are even removed from the dictionary because they have not been quoted in publications enough.  Using a dictionary that was written before WWII is asking for trouble.  And all of this is just my opinion.


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> Chomsky later changed his mind about some of his earlier work, Transformational Grammar for example, but I haven't read much of his later work and I steer away from anything that looks like politics.
> 
> 
> Neurolinguistics as in the study of how neural damage affects speech understanding and output? Or the newer, non-scientific application of neurolinguistic programming (NLP)? Or both, maybe?
> 
> 
> While I can write with reasonable intelligence on some topics, in this area I think you're way ahead of me: I'm only a dabbler - an amateur.
> 
> 
> Inuit? More like dimwit! And your last phrase was more Belfast than Buenos Aires...





Look, I don't have a deep knowledge about Neurolinguistics, but sometimes Mr. Blanco told some interesting things about it, and so I decided than when I have time I'd like to deepen in this subject.  Here I send you a link where you can have an idea about Neurolinguistics:http://www.lsadc.org/fields/index.php?

Well, don't you think that I am an expert as regards Linguistics, I haven't even taken that course, next year I'll do it.  But Grammar II and the study of thematic roles, X-theory, c-commanding and a lot of other topics in addition to Pragmatics which is super interesting!!!  But you have to have time to read all that stuff.  Some years ago (when our country was better than now) I bought via Amazon a BEAUTIFUL Grammar Book (it came from Kent) by Quirk et all "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language", although it's traditional grammar I compare it to another book I bought in US by Haegeman & Gueron called "English Grammar -a generative perspective" based on X-bar theory.

Bye Garry    and yes, it's Gaeilge Slán


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> Here I send you a link where you can have an idea about Neurolinguistics:http://www.lsadc.org/fields/index.php?
> 
> thematic roles, X-theory, c-commanding ... Pragmatics ... X-bar theory ...
> 
> it's Gaeilge Slán


 1) Thanks for the link. I'll check it out later when I have more time.
 2) As I said, I'm a dabbler when it comes to linguistics. I don't recall even coming across those particular terms before.
 3) "Gaeilge Slán"? I'm impressed! How many languages do you speak???


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> 1) Thanks for the link. I'll check it out later when I have more time.
> 2) As I said, I'm a dabbler when it comes to linguistics. I don't recall even coming across those particular terms before.
> 3) "Gaeilge Slán"? I'm impressed! How many languages do you speak???




wow!!! Who was the beautiful excellent delirious person who gave this thread 5 glorious stars?  
Garry "Slán" = "good bye" and it is Irish Gaelic; "sláinte" = "cheers"  In fact I don't speak it but I'm just learning it and if I have the chance to practise it, why not? Here it goes sth I've learnt from my father who was born a Spaniard, although now he is a US citizen...

Adeu, yo agraixc... de dónde es? Adiviná!


----------



## Artrella

valerie said:
			
		

> A famous French general, Louis-Hubert Lyautey (1854-1934), who knew the subject very well, once said: «Une langue, c'est un dialecte qui possède une armée, une marine et une aviation.» (a language is a dialect which owns an army).
> 
> You can say in English that Castellano, Gallego or Catalan are dialects of Spanish language, but you can not say that in Spain in Spanish. You would be stating a political position relative to language, obviously, but also to History, to state organization, cultural financing, education etc...  The use of the words language / dialect (idioma / dialecto, langue / patois) is highly political wherever two languages compete or just coexist.
> 
> Linguists use the concept of language proximity or language distance. You could say Spanish and Catalan have a close proximity, which makes it easier to learn the other language, whereas Spanish and Basque have a greater language distance (are more different from each other).
> 
> For those of you who can read French, I attach an link where you can find information about the languages (the international ones, and the 'small' ones) and information about linguistics and politics
> [url]http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/Langues/acces_languesmonde.htm[/url]





Valerie, I hadn't noticed your post.  Now I'm re-reading the thread and no sooner had I seen that address I tried it and its....great!!!  Thanks again for sharing this with us.  Bye, Art


----------



## cuchuflete

JimTheDim said:
			
		

> OED of 1933 is so massively out of date.  Maybe not in this case but you cannot rely on an English Dictionary that is 70 years old.  The English Language is always changing.  I think the OED comes out every 10 years or so.  This is an opportunity to add many words that are now in common use.  It is also a chance to amend explanations that are now out of date.  Words are even removed from the dictionary because they have not been quoted in publications enough.  Using a dictionary that was written before WWII is asking for trouble.  And all of this is just my opinion.



Thanks for the (?) rebuttal.  I agree that languages are dynamic, and thus current, or newer, words and meanings should not be sought in an older reference.  That said, your characterization of the old OED as 'massively out of date' bears a reply.  First, please go back and re-read my post.  It showed definitions from the 'massively out of date' source, and a from amuch more current one.  Curiously, they were nearly identical.  Second, in reading Shakespeare or Lope de Vega, you might find modern dictionaries of scant use.  When I studied Spanish Golden Age literature, I made frequent use of a fascimile edition of the volumes of the Diccionario de Autoridades, whose original was published hundreds of years ago.  Modern dictionaries would have helped far less.

Hence, your final point, that one is 'asking for trouble' by using an older publication, should be understood as correct or massively incorrect, depending on the topic in question.  I believe that, were you to further investigate the use of the word 'idiom' over the past hundred years or so, you would find it to be relatively static, as evidenced by the two dictionary citations provided.

cheers,
cuchufléte


----------



## jsquarek

It seems to me that in modern American english there is no longer an extensive commonly understood body of idioms.  For example, I have found recently that almost no one knows the idiom "shibboleth" nor the idiom "a voice crying in the wilderness".  When this happens it is frustrating because the flow of a conversation, rather than being enhanced by an idiomatic usage, is interrupted.

My question, then, would be whether the degree of idiomatic usage in an given language is a measure of the general health and vitality of that language.


----------



## munchkin5000

dave said:
			
		

> Thanks Valerie - some of these are very dubious! They include *polari *in the count, which was a completely fabricated slang language popular within the gay and theatrical communities in the 1950s! It is no more a language than cockney rhyming slang, or verlan!


 
But surely they are languages considering you can't understand them without one of those rather funky dictionaries?

Isn't that what a language is in the academic sense, a form of speech that is not mutually comprehensible by an outsider to the speech community? (plus they have their own dictionaries, check on amazon!!!)


----------



## futhark

> Orignally posted by *valerie: *A famous French general, Louis-Hubert Lyautey (1854-1934), who knew the subject very well, once said: «Une langue, c'est un dialecte qui possède une armée, une marine et une aviation.» (a language is a dialect which owns an army).


What is the source for this citation? It appears in various online contexts but I haven't been able to locate any actual bibliographic reference to its origin.


----------



## ivoice

Thanks, everyone, for a wonderful thread. I have enjoyed it immensely! Especially the line about the "deer guts" on the doorknob. 

"It's the relationship between the threads that creates the tapestry."


----------



## Outsider

futhark said:
			
		

> What is the source for this citation? It appears in various online contexts but I haven't been able to locate any actual bibliographic reference to its origin.


See this thread.

Since I'm going to bump this thread, anyway, I can't help expressing my surprise at the fact that none of the respondents disputed Valerie's following statement, even though it's been a long time since the discussion:



			
				valerie said:
			
		

> You can say in English that Castellano, Gallego or Catalan are dialects of Spanish language, but you can not say that in Spain in Spanish. You would be stating a political position relative to language, obviously, but also to History, to state organization, cultural financing, education etc...  The use of the words language / dialect (idioma / dialecto, langue / patois) is highly political wherever two languages compete or just coexist.


I strongly disagree. You can't say that Galician and Catalan are dialects of 'the Spanish language' in _any_ language. That's simply incorrect!


----------



## Roi Marphille

Outsider said:
			
		

> See this thread.
> 
> Since I'm going to bump this thread, anyway, I can't help expressing my surprise at the fact that none of the respondents disputed Valerie's following statement, even though it's been a long time since the discussion:
> 
> I strongly disagree. You can't say that Galician and Catalan are dialects of 'the Spanish language' in _any_ language. That's simply incorrect!


 
Ms. Valerie, 
*That's simply incorrect!!! also infamous, insulting and completely unacceptable!!!*   

Obrigado pela ajuda Outsider.


----------



## cuchuflete

As a non-ibérico with no political axe to grind in this, let me add my voice of protest.
Catalan grew up along side the sundry dialects that came to form what we know today as "the Spanish language".  It is not a dialect of Spanish, never was, and as far as I can predict, never will be.
Galego may be the parent of Portuguese, or the other way around.  
The nationalists and politicians can fight that useless battle.  It may also be another parallel language.   It is not, and has never been a dialect of Spanish.


----------



## Roi Marphille

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> As a non-ibérico with no political axe to grind in this, let me add my voice of protest.
> Catalan grew up along side the sundry dialects that came to form what we know today as "the Spanish language". It is not a dialect of Spanish, never was, and as far as I can predict, never will be.
> Galego may be the parent of Portuguese, or the other way around.
> The nationalists and politicians can fight that useless battle. It may also be another parallel language. It is not, and has never been a dialect of Spanish.


Dear Cuchuflete, 

Thanks for your post. 

My opinion is that you can just say the truth and there is no need to get involved with politics. 

It really pisses me off (sorry for the expression) when people argues about whether Catalan is a dialect or not. If people don't know it for sure? OK, read more! Acknowledge! Check Wikipedia or something. Ask..whatever...BUT don't say what it is not true!!!. I read this thread and seen than it had more than 2,000 visits!!! THIS IS VERY SAD.You know, it seems everybody is comfortable to say whatever they want about Catalan! they invent things, they say it's a dialect, they say it's an accent, you read an article in Washington Post or in New York Times saying that it is a dialect (I've seen this!). What happens? NOTHING!. Sometimes, some Catalan may complain and then they say: "oh, look at these Nationalists, they don't accept this or that" 

Gentlemen, it is not an opinion or point of view, it is neither something seen thru a Nationalistic prism. 

Note that down, you like it or not, *it is a fact*: *CATALAN IS A LANGUAGE.*


----------



## Outsider

You shouldn't take these things too seriously, though, Roi. I've seen people claim that Portuguese was a dialect of Spanish, too -- and these were linguists! I guess the distance turns Iberia into one big blur for them.
Oh, well, life goes on.


----------



## cuchuflete

Roi,

I can certainly understand why you are upset, but as Outsider has said, some people make some thoroughly ridiculous claims.  To say that your language, yes, *language*, is a dialect of Spanish makes about as much sense as saying that mine in a dialect of Latin or of early German.  

regards,
Cuchu


----------

