"Decay" in aspects of English grammar

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
At some point I heard the gradual disappearance of the case endings from Old English to Modern English described as the "decay" of the cases, this coming after a time when, I believe, Proto-Indo-European had seven (or maybe eight cases). I believe that the same word could be applied to the reduction of the importance of gender; and, in a related thread, the suggestion that "If I were" and "If I was" carry the same meaning strikes me as a decay in the use of subjunctive mood.

I start this thread with some trepidation, but I would like to see a discussion. English, I believe has BY FAR the biggest vocabulary of any language, but does it have the same GRAMMATICAL ability to deal with nuances as other languages do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5jj

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
English, I believe has BY FAR the biggest vocabulary of any language, but does it have the same GRAMMATICAL ability to deal with nuances as other languages do?
Thanks for starting this potentially fascinating thread.

To start with your question: My personal view, not supported by any serious research on my part, is that speakers of all languages can say anything and everything they might conceivably wish to say in their own language. If new concepts are introduced from outside, there may be a borrowing* of lexis, but the speaker's language will handle the grammar.

English grammar has been, and will continue to be, influenced by the grammar of other languages. AmE, for example, has been influenced by Yiddish, and that influence is having its effect on other dialects. But this is part of the 'same GRAMMATICAL ability to deal with nuances as other languages'.

The grammar of English has changed, and continues to change. To take one example, the progressive (continuous) aspect has been a comparatively recent addition to our range of tenses/aspects. A need was (not consciously!) felt, and the form appeared to satisfy that need.

The 2011 grammar of English will not be able to cope with the needs of the speakers of 2111. But, by the time we get to 2111, the 2111 grammar of English will be able to cope with it.

As you, rightly, point out, case endings in English have almost disappeared, as has the importance of grammatical (not natural) gender. Philo, if he joins this thread, will disagree, but I think that the subjunctive is 'decaying' in BrE.

I think that's enough for a first response.:)


* 'borrowing'. What a silly word. We are going to use it for a time and then hand it back?

(And notice the American/Yiddish influence on that last [asterisked] sentence.)
 

orangutan

Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Russian Federation
Perhaps this might be a good place to recommend Jean Aitchison's book Language Change: Progress or Decay?
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Well, this thread is off to a good start.

I worry a little, though, that dazzling academics could stand in the way of understanding.

I would like to present myself as someone, somewhat simple-minded, and ask that the forthcoming exchanges be made "user friendly" to those not knowledgeable but wanting to understand, e.g. could you sum up Aitchison?
 

NikkiBarber

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
Danish
Home Country
Denmark
Current Location
United States
An English teacher once told me that when part of a population moves to a different area then the language will develop slower in the new settlement. Is this true? Would this mean that British English is developing (decaying/progressing) quicker than American or Australian English?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
An English teacher once told me that when part of a population moves to a different area then the language will develop slower in the new settlement. Is this true? Would this mean that British English is developing (decaying/progressing) quicker than American or Australian English?
AmE appears to be more conservative (developing more slowly) in some areas of grammar*, but it appears to be quicker to take on new lexis. Other threads in this forum indicate that American rules about punctuation are stricter (more conservative?) than British.

* In preserving the present subjunctive and objective whom, for example.
 

orangutan

Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Russian Federation
Well, this thread is off to a good start.

I worry a little, though, that dazzling academics could stand in the way of understanding.

I would like to present myself as someone, somewhat simple-minded, and ask that the forthcoming exchanges be made "user friendly" to those not knowledgeable but wanting to understand, e.g. could you sum up Aitchison?

Just meant as a tip for those who don't regard reading books as a dangerously academic activity. That is all I have time for at the moment.
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England

If we are to discuss "decay" (or "progress", for that matter), we first need to establish how it might be measured.

What would be your criteria, Frank?
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
To take one example, the progressive (continuous) aspect has been a comparatively recent addition to our range of tenses/aspects.

Yes; the establishment of the progressive passive was particularly recent (early to mid 19th century), and delayed by claims of barbarism; the same meaning would previously have been expressed with an active form. Thus where now we would say e.g.

1. The house is being built.

our great-great-grandfathers might have said:

2. The house is building.

(Examples can be found in e.g. the works of Jane Austen.)

On the question of subjunctives and their supposed decay, it may be worth observing that our current conditional forms are themselves products of similar processes. Thus in the if-clause of the so-called 3rd conditional,

3. If I had done X, Y would have happened.

the apparent indicative derives from the (now assimilated) past perfect subjunctive; while in the 2nd conditional,

4. If X were the case, Y would be the case.

the verb in the main clause would once have been subjunctive:

5. If X were the case, Y were the case.

Hence the absurdity of supposing that early to mid 20th-century linguistic habits are in some sense particularly worthy of conservation. It's a little akin to suggesting that birdsong or the grunts and squealings of livestock are somehow not what they were.

MrP
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5jj

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Regarding my criteria...
I am not sure.
I am going to have to take my time with this thread. I did not create that term "decay". Maybe "abandonment" would have worked as well.
If there has in fact been something lost, it may be hard for us, now, to realize it. Today, for example, I was thinking about the drift away from such words as "thither" or "whither" or "hence", "whence" etc. Or the distinction between "shall" and "will" (something that I believe has been written about extensively). In "Much Ado about Nothing" two adjacent lines go "I will be heard. And shall."
At present, I am quite ready to accept that language must serve its users and that something can be said periphrastically that might otherwise be said with a single word e.g "to where" as opposed to "whither". In this particular example only two syllables are used in either case. But, now that I think of it, the "to" in "to where" would probably not be spoken, so that "where" is now serving two functions.

Perhaps the most profitable example of what I am wondering about is what has happened to the second person pronoun in English, as compared to, say, for example, in Spanish -- or almost any other language. (I believe that Swedish, however, has also experienced the kind of "decay" that appears to have happened in English.)
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Maybe "abandonment" would have worked as well.

Though "abandonment" might imply that actions have collectively been performed upon the language.

Would "change" be too mild a term to discuss?

Perhaps the most profitable example of what I am wondering about is what has happened to the second person pronoun in English, as compared to, say, for example, in Spanish -- or almost any other language. (I believe that Swedish, however, has also experienced the kind of "decay" that appears to have happened in English.)

Suppose for the sake of argument that ordinary evolutionary processes apply in language as they do in e.g. the development of anatomical features (which is admittedly a large assumption).

Since the 2.s./2.pl. distinction in English maintained itself for a significant period, we might then say:

1. The development of the distinction was at least not disadvantageous to its users, for a certain period, under the prevailing conditions.

Further questions then might be:

2. What were the conditions under which the distinction flourished, and what were the conditions under which it disappeared?

3. Given that the distinction has now been absent for at least two centuries, can we say that its disappearance has been at least not disadvantageous to users?

Best wishes,

MrP
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I just want to go back to a previous question:
does it [= English] have the same GRAMMATICAL ability to deal with nuances as other languages do?
I see a potential problem with 'grammatical ability'.

Frank mentioned Shakepeare's, "I will be heard. And shall." It is clear that most native speakers today cannot express this precise idea using modal verbs exclusively. But they can express the precise idea using other words.

Are we to say we have lost a grammatical ability when the alternative is grammatically expressed?

Another thought. The German "Ich wäre dankbar" is used often to express the same idea as the English "I would be grateful". Modern German uses a subjunctive; modern English uses a modal verb. Does English, which has 'lost' the subjunctive here have the same grammatical ability as German?

These may seem to be hair-splitting questions but, unless we are discussing the same idea, then there may be some confusion.
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Another thought. The German "Ich wäre dankbar" is used often to express the same idea as the English "I would be grateful". Modern German uses a subjunctive; modern English uses a modal verb. Does English, which has 'lost' the subjunctive here have the same grammatical ability as German?

It seems to me at least possible that if we were able to slice the tops off our two speakers' heads, like boiled eggs, and watch what happened when they uttered their respective phrases, we might find that one set of connections lit up with the German subjunctive (all the contexts and situations in which a subjunctive might be used), and another different set (all the contexts, etc.) with the English modal.

But while the feeling of uttering a subjunctive or modal verb might differ, each language would nevertheless provide a method of dealing with "dankbar/grateful" situations.

MrP
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
It's clear that in English there are some examples of what would appear to be a grammatical deficiency when compared to other languages.
"You" stands for both singular and plural second person, and can cause confusion.
"We" does not have an inclusive and exclusive form, which some languages do.
We - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We don't have a word at all for "whichth"
There is no simple correction of the non-sentence, "How to do X".

But you seem to have asked two questions. The above examples might have nothing to do with 'decay'.
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
With the second person pronoun the deficiency is not only in the singular/plural overlapping but also the loss of levels of formality. I know that some modern-day German exchange students are quite uncomfortable addressing a teacher as "you". And yet "You, sir" doesn't do the job either. I believe that in Spanish and Portuguese there are at least three levels of formality -- "tu", "Usted", and "el señor". Each, of course, has its singular and plural.
 

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
I believe that in Spanish and Portuguese there are at least three levels of formality -- "tu", "Usted", and "el señor". Each, of course, has its singular and plural.
But in Brazil, the Portuguese version of "usted", "você", is replacing "tu", which leaves the speakers with two levels.
 

orangutan

Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Russian Federation
It's clear that in English there are some examples of what would appear to be a grammatical deficiency when compared to other languages.
"You" stands for both singular and plural second person, and can cause confusion.
"We" does not have an inclusive and exclusive form, which some languages do.
We - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We don't have a word at all for "whichth"
There is no simple correction of the non-sentence, "How to do X".

But you seem to have asked two questions. The above examples might have nothing to do with 'decay'.

Certainly English does not make certain distinctions that some other languages make. And in some cases it has lost these distinctions over time.

On the other hand, it has quite a rich aspectual system (the bane of German students), is very fussy about definiteness (the bane of Russian students), and distinguishes between comparative and superlative (and gradable and limit adjectives), which not all languages do. In at least some of these cases, the relevant grammatical distinctions have been acquired over time.

Swings and roundabouts?
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
But in Brazil, the Portuguese version of "usted", "você", is replacing "tu", which leaves the speakers with two levels.

This is true, at least in the Northeast of Brazil. But I suspect that English is not the only language that may possibly be decaying. I mentioned Swedish earlier in this sense.

A related thought to this, at least in my mind, is the possibility that poetry may be thought of as decaying in the loss of the importance of beat in language. The iambic pentameter of Shakespeare's blank verse, for example, offers a power in language that the unusual word choices and combinations of modern "poetry" can't duplicate.
 

NikkiBarber

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
Danish
Home Country
Denmark
Current Location
United States
This is true, at least in the Northeast of Brazil. But I suspect that English is not the only language that may possibly be decaying. I mentioned Swedish earlier in this sense.

Are you saying that Swedish also uses the same pronoun for plural or singular 2. person? I didn't know that. I thought there were two different forms, but I might be wrong. I cannot speak Swedish and I am only able to understand it because it is very similar to Danish.

In my opinion there is no problem labeling a linguistic development decay if it has resulted in a clear loss to the language, as is the case with the 2. person pronoun.
"You" being the pronoun for plural as well as singular has always confused and bothered me. There really is no acceptable way to make it grammatically clear how many people are included in the word. If "y'all" could be recognized as correct English I would be fine with that. Even though it sounds uneducated it serves to fulfill a need that no other word currently does.
It doesn't solve the problem when it comes to addressing people politely, but since this practice seems to be disappearing from other languages as well it might just be something that we have to accept.
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I actually know very little about Swedish, but the little bit that I looked at it made me think that aspects of it were simple, like English. Maybe it was the word "the", which in German has at least 8 or 10 forms, some of which also serve as precise relative pronouns.
I suppose I should not have mentioned Swedish. It is just that I was surprised to find a simplicity there. At the time that I noticed it, I thought that it might be part of a westward movement in language, but Icelandic destroys that hypothesis.
As far as the second person plural is concerned, I believe I have written about this elsewhere on this forum. Where I live, the form "you'uns" exists. I like to point out to my students that the waitress who goes to a table of tourists passing through and who says "Are you'uns ready to order?" is being polite. She would never say that if one person were sitting at the table. For saying that, the linguistically unenlightened are liable to think of her condescendingly. The local dialect has not accepted a grammatical decay that has occurred in standard English.
I would probably not care about this so much if I had never learned to speak Portuguese fluently. Now, if I use the pronoun "you'uns" my own family members disapprove. I use it anyway at times because it is not affected but a genuine attempt to speak precisely. Why not? when I understand the grammar and have it readily available?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top