- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 0 Hour
- Reading permission
Yes, English is invented.
Hi Bossel, and sorry, I have to disagree also.|
"Of course, parts of languages can be invented, no discussion there. The evolution of language as such is a natural process, though. English came into being not through invention but through evolution."
I would argue that evolution and invention are not necessarily contradictory terms. And again not a single word or rule of grammar in English today would exist had someone not invented it at some stage or other.
"Regarding, creation: Hmm, well, you could say language was/is created, since it is somehow "produced through imaginative skill"(an M-W definition). But this is usually not done deliberately."
Whether creation is done deliberately or not, creation is still creation. In that sence the only difference between, say, English and Esperanto, is that one was created in a more ad hoc manner, whereas the other in a more planned fashion.
"Language is a cognitive process. That does not mean that every change in language is conscious. Language change can be triggered by one person or group through conscious adoption of a foreign (or invention of a new) word/phoneme/whatever, but the language changes only if the new word is also adopted by the majority of speakers. This adoption (if it happens at all) can be on a conscious level, but is more likely to be sub-conscious."
I would agree with this paragraph, but then again, I don't see any difference between English and Esperanto in that respect. New roots are being introduced into Esperanto all the time, sometimes conciously, sometimes subconsciously, but what's the difference in the end? It's still a created word. And just like in English it won't get widespread acceptance unless many in the community eventually choose to accept it. And usually that will depend on whether there really is a need for such a root or word in the end.
"(Grammar) Rules only describe what happens naturally, just like laws of nature. Laws of nature are only an attempt at describing why nature behaves in certain ways, in no way are they deliberate creations of nature itself."
On the contrary, grammar rules are very deliberate. As you may have noticed, many in society, for various social, political, historical and other reasons, will tend to prefer one form of English to another. For example, many opine British English to be refined or snobish, Southern American English to be corse, lower class, rednecked, uneducated, etc. Why? Not because one form is intrinsically better than the other, but because of various stereotypes formed through various processes, in the same way as there is a debate over ebonics. So if someone said "mouses" one day, due to constant drilling or, if you will, "avlovian conditioning" in school, most would regard it as incorrect usage, and therefore would not allow the language to evolve in that manner. Likewise, the fact that government itself has made it clear that ebonics will receive no government funding indicates clearly that language is a very human and social, not natural, process. After all, who would argue that "avlovian conditioning" in school to prevent the natural introduction of words like "mouses", or more logical spellings to be introduced, is a natural and not deliberate process. Without it, I can guarantee that spellings such as "colonel" would no longer exist today. Constant dictation in school could likewise be viewed in the same light. Therefore I must say that all languages are created in the end.
"I'm talking solely of spoken language, BTW, writing systems are a different matter."
"many words entered through Germanic, such as king (koenig), then through latin after the Romans conquered, such as "et cetera". Then when the Franks conquered England the English took more words such as "government"."
You're confusing the events in history a little bit, it seems."
My apologies on the historical errors on my part.
"English is a West Germanic language, it reached England only after the Romans already had left. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians & maybe some smaller tribes conquered "England" in the 5th century. Another conquest was in 1066, when the Normans (not the Franks) came & with them the 1st major influx of French words. Before the Normans, the Vikings (Norwegian & Danish) left their mark (in England & the language), esp. in the area of the Danelaw."
'"it's been proven by linguists that children naturally look for patterns in language."
I can't see how this could disprove that language change in general occurs naturally.'
As I'd mentioned above, seeing that children naturally look for patterns in language, then it stands to reason that for various social reasons, as mentioned above relating to social class, stereotyping, etc, then the only way for irregularities to survive in the long term is through deliberate "avlovian conditioning" generation after generation.
In conlusion, therefore, I must say that both English and Esperanto are equally created languages, though Esperanto is planned, English is not. That's perhaps the main difference. And from that standpoint, if planning can make a language easier to learn, then is that such a bad thing?