Soft Letters And Drunk Germans

My mind has a tendency to wander, and lately it's been trotting all over languages closely related to each other. Specifically, I've been thinking about Estonian and Finnish and Dutch and German - and how those languages sound to me in relation to each other.

Frankly, I can't help but think of it two ways: Dutch sounds like a drunk German whose native language is English, and Estonian sounds like a Finn being really lazy.

It's because of the gradation of vowels that happens across those languages. It makes everything sound more "lax". And of course Dutch is one of English's closest relatives, so I view things on sort of a continuum:

Tot -(soften the t) - Dood -(alter the vowel) - Dead
Tanz -(soften the t and z) - Dans - (strengthen the s back to a [ts] sound) - Dance
Und -(since the end vowel can't be gradated further, remove it) - En (strengthen the vowel) - And (It's worth noting that where I live, quite a few people, myself included, will actually pronounce "and" as "en" quite often.)

So yes, to me Dutch sounds more "relaxed" than German, especially because it's so close to English. Also...to me it just sounds pretty garbled, even when it's being spoken with the clearest of diction, simply because of the guttural qualities of the language. This isn't to say I don't love how you sound, Dutch! It just means that I keep thinking "hangover imminent" whenever I hear you.

And Estonian...it doesn't do the same thing with the consonants, for the most part. But I do see it in the vowels.

I call vowels like ä "sharper" than vowels like a, because it's what it sounds like to me. So, from Finnish to Estonian, those vowels are "softened". You can see it in common words like pronouns:

Minä - Mina
Sinä - Sina

So, no theories or questions today. Just an observation about how I interpret phonologies of related languages.

If Languages Were People...

For a long time, lately, I've been toying with the idea of writing a series of short stories using personifications of languages as main characters. (Mostly focused on the Uralic and Indo-European families.) Along the lines of Scandinavia-And-The-World applied to language. There would be two things that the languages' personalities, and the events of the stories, would be based on:

1.Actual historical linguistic fact. How have speakers of one language treated another at some points in time? Where did a language come from? Etc, etc.

And more importantly:

2.Stereotypes of different languages. Americans love stereotyping other languages, and other countries do the same thing. French is the "language of love", German sounds "angry", etc.

Occasionally there will be a crossover with historical fact, because language is a part of history.

Some traits I know I'm definitely going to have:

Hungarian is the one member of the Uralic family that everyone else thinks is adopted. When he tries to prove his relationship through his cousins (who look nothing like him), Khanty and Mansi, no one is convinced.

German is volatile, with a nearly non-existant fuse to her hostility.

French is sex-obsessed.

English is a rather selfish brat who obsessively steals from all the other languages.

Latin is a zombie.

Livonian is very (VERY) old, and living in the Uralics' attic. Everyone except Estonian thinks that she's dead, and Estonian only remembers because her room is close to the attic and she can hear Livonian singing occasionally (This will be explained if you don't get the joke - like Scandinavia And The World, there will be a quick explanation following each story. In the case of this specific joke, look up Tuļļi Lum, an Estonian band whose singer is one of the only speakers of Livonian.)

Finnish hates Swedish with every fiber of his body, and will attempt to strangle him every time he tries to set foot in Finnish's house.

Latvian and Lithuanian are twins, and completely seclude themselves from the rest of their family. They live in the house of their dead mother, Proto-Indo-European, and everyone who's met them says they look exactly like the pictures they've seen of her.

Võro is Estonian's younger sister, who Estonian completely ignores. There's a parallel situation with Karelian, Finnish's lonely younger brother. They just want your attention, guys!

I'm debating whether conlangs should be robots (because of their "constructed life" status) or Frankenstein-style creations. For a while I actually toyed with the idea of conlangs like Esperanto and Interlingua being vampires, because of how they leeched off other languages for their own life.

This won't be written any time soon, but I'm definitely considering (and liking) the idea.

Songs In Languages I Don't Speak - Round 11: Sanie Cu Zurgălăi

L.I.D.S.: Romanian!

First, I adore this song, and this singer is wonderful. She has a well-controlled operatic tone.

Second, it was said over at 37 Languages that "if you were to play any random Eastern European language and Italian at the same time then you'd have Romanian". From the multiple Romanian songs I've been listening to, and text I've been looking at, that seems pretty damn accurate. Specifically, throw any Balto-Slavic language and Italian into a blender, add a hint of Portuguese, and you've got Romanian.

Songs In Languages I Don't Speak - Round 10: Lama Bada Yatathanna

(Damn, a day late again! I'm sorry - I plead being incredibly busy yesterday.)

L.I.D.S.: Arabic!

I apologize if I got the transliteration wrong. I'm goin' off YouTube, here.

This song is certainly pleasant, and Lena Chamamyan has a very nice voice. That being said, Arabic is definitely not high up on my list of favorite languages, if only because of its mass popularity (not in America, but you could probably guess that) and the fact that I'm really picky about scripts.

Songs In Languages I Don't Speak - Round 9: Saigo No Dansu

L.I.D.S.: Japanese!

Is it cheating that I'm using the Japanese version of a song that's originally German? Yes. Do I care? No. The catchiness is just irresistible!

Side note about Japanese itself: To be honest again, I'm not a fan of Japanese. I'm all for languages with a lot of vowels (after all, Finnish fan), but when I hear Japanese being spoken, to me it always sounds a little...messy. Like everything is running together, almost sloppy. And of course, the script which has no phonological consistency is also a significant turnoff.

And I'm Like, "Get Over Yourselves Already"

I shouldn't have to tell you that there's a huge hatred by the majority of adults against the use of the word "like". My mother vigorously corrects me every single time I say it (EVEN IF I'm saying it in its "proper" context - "She danced like a ballerina"), and every teacher I know has gone on rants about how horrible it is, it's contributing to the (imaginary) "decline of proper English" among young people, how it's making the word "said" obsolete, etc. Dozens upon dozens of articles have been written on it, so I'm not even going to link to any specific one. Because I have the same response to all of them:

Get over it, people.


Introducing a familiar word into a new context in a language does not indicate a "decline" in that language. (I bet these people who are so vehemently opposed to this word would have been outraged back when "you" started to become singular...)

Moreover, here's a surprise: People use this word this way because it is useful. Everyone opposing the word points to the fact that you should say "said" instead - but "like" does far more than that.

"I was like, 'I would never do that.'"
"She was like, shocked."
"They were like," *shrug*
"I'm like, they wouldn't actually go that far..."

"Like" is used not just as a substitute for "said", or as a sentence "filler". It is used in most cases to indicate a general form of expression - emotion, action, words, appearance, and even thought. It is incredibly useful - many of the cases in which "like" is now used would be hard to word otherwise. And again, I keep coming back to this point - it is getting the same point across. In perhaps even a better way, you still understand what is being said.

So, I'm like, this word is good. Let's stick with it until something better begins to be accepted.

EDIT: Sofi makes an excellent point in the comments about how helpful the ambiguity of this word can be - when I say "She was like, 'woah'", I am not saying that those were her exact words. Instead, I'm giving a sense of her overall manner as it appeared to me.

Songs In Languages I Don't Speak - Round 8: Jsi Můj Pan

L.I.D.S.: Czech!

I adore this musical, and everything about this song is beautiful. I love how Lucie's voice is unique - rough by many people's standards, but gorgeous. She seems to have her own technique, some way of singing that no one else knows. (Okay, done with the fangirling.)

My Favorite Language-Learning Website

A while ago, while looking for materials on learning Polish, I found the amazing website I Kinda Like Languages.  It's not a thorough course for any one language - instead, it's a ton of introductory courses for many different languages, each designed for the complete beginner. There are also some more thorough course for about three languages.

What I love most about these courses is that each one gives you a good idea of what the language is like. You can decide whether you would want to further learn this language after you finish the courses. Heck, this is how I fell in love with Lithuanian. And the best part? You can make your own courses! Simply register, there's a guide on how to format lessons (it's very simple), and you can help teach a language.

The site needs some more support - go give it!

Songs In Languages I Don't Speak - Round 7: Szállj Velem

L.I.D.S.: Hungarian!

Yes, I know I'm doing two pop songs in a row But I love this singer, and this song is MORE than catchy.

Songs In Languages I Don't Speak - Round 6: Уште те има

(Sorry I'm a little off - better late than never!)

L.I.D.S.: Macedonian!

I have to admit, I'm not even a big fan of this song. But I know people who like it, and the pleasant-sounding language appeases it somewhat.

...And yes, I did copy and paste the Cyrillic. Remember what I said about my computer not having enough symbols?

Because This Much Stupidity Needs More Than One Tearing-Down

Oh, the idiocy of ignorant adults preaching about how the "illiterate" kids and texting are leading to a "collapse" of the English language.

BadLinguistics has already torn into Gerald Warner's idiotic, unfounded, and evidence-less arguments, but I think this needs another viewpoint - that of one of those "illiterate" children that is "attack[ing]" the English language.

Globalisation has meant that the predominance of English in computerised societies is making it more vulnerable to abuse than any other tongue.

If by "abuse" you mean "expansion of vocabulary", then maybe your argument could hold any water at all.

English has been left to fend for itself at a time when it is under unprecedented attack.

At this point I just have to quote Ms.Foster, because she says it better than I could: "Dear Gerald, you clearly know nothing of the history of English so get yourself a good book on the subject. Your native tongue has survived a massive loss of word morphology between the 9th and 12th centuries, a massive loss of native vocabulary to French borrowings between the 11th and 14th centuries, and a tidal wave of Latin and Greek terms in the 16th and 17th centuries. What's happening now that surpasses that?" Exactly. What "attack" is English under now? A more sturdy existence than it's had in centuries?

The worst problem, however, is the collapse of literacy within our education system – the forum that should have been the sturdiest bastion of correct practice.

This is the argument that is coming out of the mouths of so many adults (who are not within our education system), and guess what? It has no evidence whatsoever. Because it simply is not true. The fact that I can write these words, and six-and-seven year olds can read them, proves that there is no "illiteracy" going on. Warner does realize the definition of literacy, right? Since he obviously doesn't, maybe he shouldn't be preaching to children about how we can't read and write.

Instead, laissez-faire attitudes towards spelling, grammar and syntax, encouraged by trendy educationalists, have created a situation in which illiterate pupils have now been joined by a generation of largely illiterate teachers.

...The hell? To paraphrase Ms.Foster's response, find me one teacher that is "largely illiterate". If they were, they wouldn't have been able to fill out their job applications, or make it through high school.

There's also some subtext I see here. When he says "trendy educationalists", I can't help but think that he's referring to Special Education teachers. It probably was not the case, but it got me thinking: What about people who are traditionally "illiterate" because of severe dyslexia or other conditions? Are they contributing to the "unprecedented attack" on the English language?

(Also, as was pointed out by Ms.Foster, syntax is a part of grammar.)

The inarticulacy of young people’s speech is not something that will necessarily correct itself with maturity, as optimists rashly assume: where there is no understanding of the basic structures of our language, self-improvement can only be a hit-or-miss effort.

"Inarticulacy"? Is this guy serious? Children understand the basic structures of their language before they even go to school, typically. And if you can understand, at all, what someone is saying, then it is not inarticulate. What, exactly, can you not understand about young people's speech, Warner? And if you cannot understand it, I believe that's a problem on your part. Because children aren't sending English to hell in a handbasket.

Every literate individual has his own pet aversion. I would single out, in particular, the current pandemic misuse of the subjunctive, rampant in media reports. “Gordon Brown may have won the general election if he had had more convincing policies” suggests that there remains some doubt on the subject, that it could yet transpire that Brown had won the election: “Gordon Brown might have won the general election…” is obviously the correct version, which should come automatically to any educated person.

How many times is this guy going to misuse the word "literate" in this article? First, the people writing this media report are obviously not illiterate, because they could write it at all. Second, are people seriously still whining about the subjunctive? People do realize that use of the subjunctive in English has been dead for years, right? And this guy just gets more and more annoyingly arrogant - "which should come automatically to any educated person"? I presume his definition of "educated" is "full of yourself with antiquated knowledge of points of English that really don't matter at all".

Oh, and "his own pet aversion". Why am I not surprised that he's sexist as well? After all, it's not like we women can be literate, right?

And once again, there is no problem with the first sentence. To test whether there is a problem with grammar, conduct the following simple test:

1.Can you understand what the sentence is trying to say?

a.Yes

b.No

If you answered A, there is no problem. Now let's move on to his next idiotic point.

Oh, look - in addition to being ageist, he's misogynist too! Don't you just hate this guy more and more by the minute?

Aggravating the current crisis is state-sponsored illiteracy, with central and local government promoting politically correct Newspeak, such as “chair” for chairman, and innumerable hideous neologisms such as “spokesperson”, which are additionally offensive in patronisingly attributing infantile insecurity to women.

Just...stop. Stop it, right now. This man is seriously suggested that there is something horribly wrong with words that properly describe people. I am not a "spokesman". But calling me what I actually am is "hideous"? Honestly, who gave Gerald Warner the right to open his mouth, let alone write?

There is nothing wrong with a language evolving – English has always done so; but what is happening now is not evolution but nihilism.

HAHAHA! HAAA!! Oh, my - oh wait, he's serious? Let's point out the ridiculousness of this sentence, one section at a time:

"There is nothing wrong with language evolving"? He has spent this entire article telling us "AAAH! My language is evolving and we need to stop those damn kids and politically correct women from changing it RIGHT NOW!"

"Nihilism"? Nothing entertains me more than this level of hypocrisy - he's shouting that the sky is falling over misuse of words, yet, again, he completely misuses a word. A nihilistic language would mean no language at all. And guess what? People are still using words.

All champions of literacy will wish the society success in establishing a much-needed Academy of English.

"Champions of literacy"? Really, dude? I'll say it again: He's writing things like this to pat himself on the back and stroke his own ego, and this sentence just further proves it.

Well, that was a lot of stupidity in one article. Now, I suppose I shall go back to attacking the English language with my politically correct neologisms. Who's with me?

In The Defense Of Slang

I may not agree with how you say with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it and not be harassed by arrogant grammatical bigots. 
-Me, sending Voltaire rolling over in his grave.

You know what I'm really, really sick of? Well, a lot of things, but here's one: How adults* are so insistent that there is one "correct" way to speak English. And that the "correct" way is the way they, personally speak it.

If I hear one more teacher correct a student over something they said conversationally in an antagonistic way, I will launch into a lecture, right there. Because adults who correct children's grammar are not doing it because they want the child to speak in a way that will make the child happier or improved in any way. They are doing it because they want to make themselves feel better, plain and simple.

It's a fact of life I am exposed to every day: Adults think they are better than children, and they want to constantly reaffirm themselves of that notion. When a teacher would tell me to "correct myself" when I said "ain't"**, it was not because they thought that the contraction hindered my speaking in any way. They were doing it because pointing out how "Kids these days are ruining the English language" would make them feel superior.

Perhaps the thing that bothers me most is when these people insist that there is one form of a language. Indeed, when I confronted my asshole of a Latin teacher (I have mentioned her briefly on The Darker Side Of The Light), after she completely mis-defined the word "agnostic", her only line of defense was "That's the definition of the word in the English language. That's the definition in the English language." Eventually, all I could say was "I don't know what English language you were raised with, but you obviously are too Christian to know anything about other religions."

You should already have realized the problem with her argument: What English language? Perhaps one of the most recognizable defining features of a language is that it is fluid, constantly shifting to accommodate both the expression of new ideas, and the new ways of defining those ideas.

And that's what these people are ignoring: The fact that there is more than one way to express an idea. I know, shocker, right? It's absolutely horrible  that "ain't", "is not", and "are not" can all express a negation. WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE POOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE?!

To further this ridiculous idea that ideas can only be expressed one way, I've heard several adults who, when challenged about why one style of talking was acceptable and another was not, say "That is not how people talk! The English language does not accept that phrase[/word/whatever]! No language does!"

Obviously, people talk that way - someone just was before you started harping about how something they apparently didn't say. (*Logic bomb*) The English language does accept it, and you should accept that, too. If someone can say something to me, and I can understand what they mean, then whatever language we're speaking in "accepts" it, end of story.

And yes, I have actually heard the last one, several times. A troubling assumption that reveals both an arrogance about English being representative of all languages, and a misunderstanding about the abilities of communication of ideas, is that what we call "slang" in English is as "unacceptable" in other languages as you want it to be.

I actually find the "no other languages" defense quite amusing. The people saying this do know that many of the things they're antagonizing this poor person for saying actually are "accepted" in other languages, don't they?

For example, something I hear a lot around this high school is the erasure of sentence-beginning copulas in questions. Either by having no copulas, or putting them in some place other than the "accepted" beginning of a sentence. "You got some gum?" (remember the partitive!). And in fact, that is how questions can be expressed in several languages - as if it were a statement with a different intonation. In Lithuanian: "Tu kalbi Lietuviškai." = "You speak Lithuanian." And "Tu kalbi Lietuviškai?" = "Do you speak Lithuanian?" The only difference between the two sentences is the rising intonation at the end - and this is how some people express questions in English.

So, arrogant grammatical-picking adults, does Lithuanian "not accept" that?

And another huge  thing I hear is the admission of copulas altogether in statements. And I mean any use of the copula - identity, class, auxilary usage, all of it. "She over there." "We good." "They ready." And guess what? In both Hungarian and Mandarin Chinese, use of "to be" is quite often admitted. The situation in Hungarian is a little more complicated (it's used sometimes...long explanation), but the fact remains that in general, you are saying "My name Annie." ("A nevem Annie", by the way.)

Let's hear again about that being "unacceptable"?

So yes, one of my pet peeves is arrogant adults stroking their ego by striking down every use of slang they see. This goes for everyone, including myself: Just think before you correct someone - could you understand what they were saying? If so, there's no reason for you to be correcting them.

*I have never seen someone under 15 doing this to another child, and only a couple people 15-18.

**I had to force myself to stop using that word, which was hard, as there was a strong Texan taint to both my accent and vocabulary. I'll explain more about that later, but now I never even use it unless I'm really angry or upset.

Songs In Languages I Don't Speak - Round 5: A Merced De La Lluvia

L.I.D.S.: Spanish!

I'll admit: I really don't like Spanish as a language. It's got all my worst points against it - gendered, Romance language, distinction between formal and informal "you", and so popular in America that people sometimes refuse to give other languages a chance.

But this song, and this band, is awesome.

Songs In Languages I Don't Speak - Round 4: Amar Shonar Bangla

L.I.D.S.: Bengali!

Yes, perhaps I'm cheating by using a national anthem. But I think it's a very nice song. I know very little about the Bengali language, and I'm hoping to fix that in the future. Until then, I'm going to enjoy how catchy this tune is.