GalacticCactus Forum
Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: Annie Subjunctive on June 21, 2005, 02:07:29 PM
-
I've been thinking, after listening to a Noam Chomsky lecture on tape, about the specificity of language. I've heard Jon Boy make remarks on the subject occasionally so would like to know his opinion, but anyone else's as well.
In losing some of the more difficult grammar in the English language, are we hampering the clarity and specificity of our ability to communicate? Chomsky said that even though Finnish has 19 cases and Chinese has 0, the language and underlying grammar are unaffected because usage conveys the same meaning regardless of structure.
But what about, say, if we were to lose the subjunctive in English? I could still make statements that portrayed perfectly well what I meant and others would understand — some dialects already do this — but wouldn't we be losing nuances that would then dull our conversational ability? Aren't there situations where using the subjunctive adds extra meaning that cannot be duplicated by manipulation of the indicative?
And not just grammatical structure — what about vocabulary? People who spoke like Jane Austen spoke had decidedly more options in how to express themselves. They weren't mad; they were vexed, irate, indignant and irascible. ( ;) ) Someone who doesn't know those words and can just use mad in all four situations is limited in his ability to converse, is he not?
Or does it make a difference? Maybe there are nuances in smaller vocabularies that cover for the lack of specificity... maybe being mad like a duck is different than being mad like lightning is different than being really really mad. I don't know.
What do you think?
-
I don't think losing the subjunctive would be a big deal. The meaning encoded by the subjunctive mood is being moved from the verb itself to modal verbs around the verb. And I've noticed that it's become increasingly common to hear things like "If I would have been there" instead of simply "If I had been there." It grates on my ears, but I think that's the future of the subjunctive. And once the subjunctive mood is dead—and it will die—no one will care. No one cares about moods that were lost hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Vocabulary is an entirely different issue, and personally, I'm not sure that there is an issue. If you look at Jane Austen and then look at Joe Shmoe today and then declare that our vocabularies are slipping, you're not making a fair comparison.
-
Why not?
-
Apples and oranges. It wouldn't be fair to look at Newton and then look at me and decide that people today are worse at math.
-
Ah. I see. Do educated people today have vocabularies as good as those of educated people in 1805?
-
I don't see why they wouldn't. I think that people in general are better educated today than they were 200 years ago. Writing styles have changed, though, so that may be most of what you're noticing.
-
And once the subjunctive mood is dead—and it will die—no one will care.
No! No!
I will care! :cry:
-
By the time it's really dead, you probably will be, too.
-
:angst: I don't care THAT much!
-
:)
Grammatical features have very long lifespans.
-
But that's a whole nother discussion.
-
Totally random comment: I'm getting really good at spelling radiopharmaceutical ever since I started editing this document.
-
But that's a whole nother discussion.
It occurred to me recently that there's a very good and very simple explanation for the phrase "a whole 'nother." It all has to do with syllabification.
-
It took you that long to figure it out? :P
-
No, but I only recently learned all the technical terms that enabled me to sound all pedantic about it.
-
Ah. Gotcha.
I think syllabification explains a lot of things about you, actually.
-
I think you're right, Ruth. I, for one, always call him Jo Nboy.
Also - what is radiopharmaceutical? Is that, like, drugs on the airwaves?
-
I think it has more to do with x-rays and mammograms and stuff.
Edit: I was wrong. M-W says: "a radioactive drug used for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes."
So MRIs? CT scans? Radiation therapy?
-
MRI and CT scans don't require radioactive drugs, although PET scans do.
-
Thanks!
-
I think syllabification explains a lot of things about you, actually.
Like what, exactly?
-
Your avatar, for one.
-
You're making no sense.
-
You're the one who asked me to explain my silly remark. :P
-
Umm . . . yeah. Still not making sense.
-
Is it syllabification when you say something like "abso-freakin'-lutely"?
(not that I ever say that.)
-
Syllabification is the process of breaking something up into syllables. Inserting a word into another like that is a sort of infixation process, though it does rely on syllable and stress boundaries.
-
I think it has more to do with x-rays and mammograms and stuff.
Edit: I was wrong. M-W says: "a radioactive drug used for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes."
So MRIs? CT scans? Radiation therapy?
Radioisotope-containing drugs are used for (among other things): diagnosing and treating thyroid problems; diagnosing and treating certain cancers; diagnosing certain digestive disorders (the infamous "barium enema"); making people glow in the dark and set off Geiger counters.
Detection methods include PET scans, x-rays, and gamma ray detectors (aka gamma cameras).
More here (http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~rer/rerhtml/rer_11.html), here (http://drkoop.com/ency/93/003827.html), and here (http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-medicine).