Control Group ([info]control_group) wrote,
@ 2005-10-31 08:26:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
"The king's English" -or- "Everything that can be invented has been"

Apropos of not much:

Every time a discussion comes up regarding any one of several Asian languages, you hear comments about tonal languages, that the intonation of certain words in, say, Mandarin changes their meaning. This is generally followed up by a comment about how it might be difficult for an English speaker to understand, because English isn't a tonal language.

Malarkey.

English isn't a formally tonal language; it doesn't have a set of grammatical rules regarding what effects tonal changes have on meaning. On the other hand, it also doesn't have a set of strict grammatical rules regarding almost anything that affects meaning, so there's no reason to expect them for tonal shifts. But consider the following sentences:

  • I didn't mean to shoot her.
  • I didn't mean to shoot her.
  • I didn't mean to shoot her.
  • I didn't mean to shoot her.

The meaning of the sentence is fundamentally changed by a shift in intonation. Or, if you think of emphasis and intonation as unrelated concepts, consider the following phrase:

I'm going to the store

Adding terminal punctuation can give a variety of meanings:

  • I'm going to the store.
  • I'm going to the store?
  • I'm going to the store!

In spoken English, that terminal punctuation is voiced via tonal shift.

The upshot, here, is that it isn't necessarily difficult for an English speaker to comprehend the idea of a tonal language. We already use tone to convey meaning, it's not much of a stretch to understand a language using tone more formally and pervasively for the same purpose.

This blurb has been brought to you by Slashdot and the Bob & Brian show.


(Post a new comment)


[info]slave2tehtink
2005-10-31 02:35 pm UTC (link)
I think the only hard-and-fast grammatical rule that truly affects meaning is the one concerning word order. We have to stick to subject-verb-object-indirect object, or the sentence DOES change its meaning entirely. Otherwise, one of the chiefest beauties of English is its flexibility within the rules, and the flexibility OF the rules.

You're dead on in your comments vis a vis tonality. Tone makes the difference between sincerity and sarcasm, compassion and complaint. One of the deliciously language-blind things about the military is that it is VERY difficult to prosecute someone for saying things that are PHRASED properly but given an entirely different spin by a sarcastic tone of voice. You can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for calling your superior a crackhead, but not for saying "Aye aye, sir" in a tone of voice that implies you think he had a lobotomy recently.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]control_group
2005-10-31 04:44 pm UTC (link)
I don't even think S-V-O-I structure is completely fixed. It's probably the firmest rule English has, but all three of the following convey essentially the same meaning (albeit with different flavors):
  • Childe Roland came to the dark tower
  • Childe Roland to the dark tower came
  • To the dark tower came Childe Roland

I admit the last does sound awkward, but I think the meaning is still clear.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]slave2tehtink
2005-10-31 02:42 pm UTC (link)
And just to continue rambling on, I think the reason there are no codified rules for tonality in English is that the rules focus on written English, where we must rely on a multitude of subtle tricks (and the perceptions of our audience) to convey what can be said with merely a raised eyebrow face to face.

Strangely enough, only the largest,most sheerly ignorant mistakes in spoken English bother me the way a tiny thing like a lacking comma does in written English. Just out of curiosity, do you react the same way? Are you more tolerant of errors in spoken English, or written English?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]control_group
2005-10-31 03:54 pm UTC (link)
Absolutely—I hold written English to a far higher standard for criticism than spoken English. In large part, I suspect this is because the author (presumably) has more time to polish his/her construction when writing than when speaking, due to the very nature of the medium. Slips of the tongue are easily forgiven; slips of the fingertips, less so (as any sexual harassment suit will amply demonstrate).

There is, however, another consideration. Some of the errors that bother me most in text can't be detected in speech. One can't tell if a speaker is correctly placing a comma in "it's," or using the correct homophone of "there," or tossing a bonus "o" into "lose."

Those are just retroactive rationalizations, though. There are differences that fall into neither of those categories. For example, I am wont to say "me and Ian are blah blah blah," because it sounds well. At the same time, I am loath to write "me and Ian are blah blah blah," because it's so blindingly wrong.

I'm guilty of maintaining a double standard, and I'm wantonly unapologetic about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]assfingers
2005-10-31 02:49 pm UTC (link)
Our dryer's intonation (several exclamation points, an airplane, and a few tildes I'm sure) is being taken care of currently.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2005-10-31 03:05 pm UTC (link)
The lack of Civ IV content in your post is disturbing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]_sterno_
2005-10-31 03:06 pm UTC (link)
LJ seems to like logging me out, these days.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]assfingers
2005-10-31 03:09 pm UTC (link)
Based on the contents of our apartment, I'd have to say that I own the only copy of Civ 4 in it.

That's not to say that I've done anything useful like INSTALL it yet, but I've read the handbook and taken a nap (in that order) since it was purchased.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2005-10-31 03:14 pm UTC (link)
I bet you'll set Communism as your system of government.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]assfingers
2005-10-31 03:18 pm UTC (link)
I'd like to get on Ghandi's good side, though. I've heard he's an asshole.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]comkilserv
2005-10-31 05:53 pm UTC (link)
was it one of our classes where we learned that ghandi's hunger strikes did not succeed because he was hungry?

that they succeeded because britain knew that if he died india would, as a whole, go bananas?

or was that one of my own classes?


it may have been my terrorism class..

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]assfingers
2005-10-31 06:44 pm UTC (link)
I don't remember discussing that in Abercrombie, but there is a lot of that class that I have blocked out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
YOU WOULD
[info]comkilserv
2005-10-31 08:25 pm UTC (link)
you were sitting next to that guy that saw nothing wrong with people SUFFERING AT THE HANDS OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS


JERK

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: YOU WOULD
[info]assfingers
2005-10-31 08:42 pm UTC (link)
well, actually, I was sitting much closer to you. you know, the guy that would sleep for 38 minutes, say something astute and almost on-topic, then sleep for another 10 minutes.

it's my understanding that this is how you worked ALL of your polisci courses and got your degree. fascinating.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]chairtomorrow
2005-10-31 11:02 pm UTC (link)
As Zach Galifainakis said, it's not what you say...it's how you say it.

"She had a crack baby." Nothing positive there.

Now, if you say it this way,

"She had a crack, baby."

...

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…