Newsgroups: sci.lang.translation,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!elna
From: elna@netcom.com (Esperanto League N America)
Subject: Re: International Language.
Message-ID: <elnaD2Fyy1.MK@netcom.com>
Followup-To: MSloper@aol.com  
Organization: Esperanto League for North America, Inc.
References: <3eeq5p$nb@access2.digex.net> <fangshim.4.789385855@student.msu.edu> <3el107INN7ug@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> <3f2g3k$geb@borg.svpal.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 10:10:49 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: sci.lang.translation,sci.lang
Lines: 91
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang.translation:716 sci.lang:34362

skrossa@svpal.svpal.org (Sharon Krossa) writes in a recent posting (reference <3f2g3k$geb@borg.svpal.org>):
>
>     There are a number of significant differences between Shakesperean
>English and Modern English (any variety). 

Of course there are; there are a number of significant differences
between any two dialects of any language. This is what determines dialect.
My point is that Shakespeare's English is *modern* English. Many 
non-native speakers refer to it as Old English and believe it is unintel-
ligable because it is essentially different from the current strain. I
disagree with this; it is essentially the same.

> I have a great
>deal of experince trying to help amateur improvisational actors give the
>impression they are speaking 16th century English. If I tried to teach
>them to *actually* speak 16th century English, as opposed to just
>appearing to (to a non-specialist audience) I would have to approach it in
>nearly the same way as I would approach teaching them a closely related
>foreign language, and it would take a great deal of time and practice
>(though not as much time I expect as learning a truly foreign language --
>unless the very similiarity causes more problems than difference?)
>
It matters little whether your target dialect is Jamaican, Basic Faire 
Accent (for RenFaire), Cockney, or true Elizabethan-- mastering a new
dialect is a serious undertaking.   

>: American English is
>: a truncated version of British, for the normal vocabulary is shrunken. It
>: is de facto a form of "Basic English" which GB Shaw supported. Compare a
>: British newspaper with one from the States, if you don't believe this.
>
>     American English is *not* a 'truncated version of British' English.

Of course not! This was flame bait. I was wondering if anybody was reading.

>American English is just one of the major groupings of English dialects,
>just as British English (or in this discussion probably more accurately
>English English) is another major grouping of dialects. The size of the
>average vocabulary base for American English and English English are about
>the same, or if anything one could probably argue that the American
>vocabulary is larger, since it seems to have less resistance to creating
>new vocabulary and usage (and if you believe the complaints of the English
>about those 'horrid' Americanisms! ;-) ).
>  [stuff deleted]
>      As for your challenge to "compare a British newspaper with one from
>the States, if you don't believe this" -- okay, I compared the New York
>Times with The Sun. Just to make sure this wasn't a fluke, I compared The
>Wall Street Journal with the Daily Record. [For those of you aren't
>familiar with these national papers, my rough impression was that the
>English Sun and Daily Record rarely use words longer than about 5 or 6
>letters, and always make sure their vocabulary and sentence structure can
>be understood by your average 6 year old, while the American NY Times and
>Wall Street Journal tend to use a broad, educated vocabulary that
>frequently includes long words and complicated sentence structures. The
>Sun has one of the highest if not the highest newspaper circulation in
>Britain. ;-)]
>
I assume the smiley at the end of this section indicates that you recognise
the absurdity of these comparisons. You have compared the worst of the
British papers to the best of the American.  Have a good look at the 
"Telegraph" for example, and then show me an American newspaper which has 
such a high level of prose style. I find it delightful after mucking 
through the flat dull ooze called journalism in the NY "Times".

While I would not go so far as to suggest that rich and stylish writing
is completely absent on this side of the Atlantic, I maintain that the
Mother Tongue is better applied there in Britain than in the States in 
most public forums. Debates in Parliament are lively, dynamic exchanges;
while American Senators drone on in pompous (at best) soliloquy. BBC has
much higher standards than ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN. And again I suggest that you
look through the best of British newspapers and the best from the States.

Getting back to Shakespeare, let me repeat my original claim in another
form. The main cause of the problems which people (whether native English 
speakers or not) encounter upon first exposure to the Bard is the profound
richness of the language, not its dialect-based quirks nor its (not so)
immense temporal remoteness. Shakespeare wrote *modern* English, as did
Dr. Johnson. Yet many people who have no trouble reading the "Enquirer" 
can make no sense out of essays from the "Rambler" or dialogue from "Hamlet"
(to say nothing of "Croilus"!) and they wrongly attribute this difficulty
to changes in the language itself. The difficulty in reading the AngloSaxon
homilies is unrelated to the difficulty of reading Shakespeare-- the former
is a simple expression in a different and distant dialect, while the latter 
is complex expression in a closely related dialect.

Miko Formiko
<MSloper@aol.com>




