Read Online Writing well (for the rest of us): No Grammar. No Rules. Just Common Sense. by Alex Eckelberry - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Alex Eckelberry
Ads: Link
southeastern
Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia) or Anatolia (Turkey), and that several
waves of migrations both east and west created the basis of the languages we
know today.
To quote William Harris:
“Most of the ancient and modern
languages of Europe belong to a family of languages which is called by modern
scholars "Indo-European" and their study falls within the range of
research known as Historical Linguistics. It was first noticed by Sir William
Jones, a linguistically minded employee of the British East India Company in
the late l8th century as he began private lessons in Sanskrit, that most of the
languages of Europe bore a strong resemblances to each other in basic, primary
vocabulary. These languages furthermore seemed connected structurally with the
ancient Sanskrit which he was learning.” [8]
I won’t exhaust the issue, when frankly, there are better
qualified authors easily found through some rapid internet searches.
The imitative creation of language (onomatopoeia ) The theory of the use onomatopoeia as a developing agent for language is
widely discussed in a number of works. The theory’s ultimate veracity, however,
will probably never be determined, and it continues to be debated among
scholars.
It’s interesting, for example, to note that chicken , hen and rooster all have the same onomatopoeic root:
“An originally onomatopoetic term
for 'chicken', 'hen', or 'rooster', derived from *k h erk h -,
is attested in a number of Indo-European dialects. Its dialect distribution
gives reason to consider it Proto-Indo-European: Skt. krka-vriku- 'rooster',
Avest. kahrka- 'hen', Pehl. kark 'hen', Pers. kark
'chicken', 'hen', Gk. kerkos 'rooster', MIr. cercc 'brood hen';
Toch. B krariko 'rooster'. In its onomatopoetic character this word can
be compared with innovated forms meaning 'rooster' in separate recent branches,
based on words meaning `sing', 'cry': Lat. gallus 'rooster' (cf. OCS glastu 'voice', Russ. golos ); Goth. hana 'rooster', OHG hano 'rooster' (Ger. Hahn), OE henn 'hen' (Engl. hen),…” [9]
Darwin also had some thoughts on the subject:
“The child who was just beginning
to speak called a duck ‘quack’ and by special association it also called water
‘quack’. By an appreciation of the resemblance of qualities it next extended
the term ‘quack’ to denote all birds and insects on the one hand and all fluid
substances on the other. Lastly, by a still more delicate appreciation of
resemblance the child eventually called all coins ‘quack’ because on the back
of a French sou [money] it had once seen the representation of an eagle. Hence
to the child the sign ‘quack’ from having originally had a very specialized
meaning became more and more extended in its significance until it now seems to
designate such apparently different objects as ‘fly’, ‘wine’, and ‘coin’.” [10]
I leave it up to your own spirit of curiosity to delve into
it further. The theory is valid, at least in my view.
On the “earthiness ” of English English is more visceral, earthy language, a fact pointed out by Henry
Hitchings in his delightful book, The Secret Life of Words. I quote:
“Often we have three terms for the
same thing – one Anglo-Saxon, one French, and one clearly absorbed from Latin or Greek. The Anglo-Saxon word is typically a neutral one; the French word
connotes sophistication; and the Latin or Greek word, learnt from a written
text rather than from human contact, is comparatively abstract and conveys a
more scientific notion. Consider, for example, the verbs rise,
mount and ascend, or go, depart and exit. In each case, the first word has an
Anglo-Saxon source and is informal, the second is French and comparatively
formal, while the third is Latin and suggests something more specialized or
technical. A more extreme example is fire, flame and conflagration; another,
holy, sacred, consecrated.” [11]
On the perceived incorrect usage of “myself .”
etc. It’s
Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia) or Anatolia (Turkey), and that several
waves of migrations both east and west created the basis of the languages we
know today.
To quote William Harris:
“Most of the ancient and modern
languages of Europe belong to a family of languages which is called by modern
scholars "Indo-European" and their study falls within the range of
research known as Historical Linguistics. It was first noticed by Sir William
Jones, a linguistically minded employee of the British East India Company in
the late l8th century as he began private lessons in Sanskrit, that most of the
languages of Europe bore a strong resemblances to each other in basic, primary
vocabulary. These languages furthermore seemed connected structurally with the
ancient Sanskrit which he was learning.” [8]
I won’t exhaust the issue, when frankly, there are better
qualified authors easily found through some rapid internet searches.
The imitative creation of language (onomatopoeia ) The theory of the use onomatopoeia as a developing agent for language is
widely discussed in a number of works. The theory’s ultimate veracity, however,
will probably never be determined, and it continues to be debated among
scholars.
It’s interesting, for example, to note that chicken , hen and rooster all have the same onomatopoeic root:
“An originally onomatopoetic term
for 'chicken', 'hen', or 'rooster', derived from *k h erk h -,
is attested in a number of Indo-European dialects. Its dialect distribution
gives reason to consider it Proto-Indo-European: Skt. krka-vriku- 'rooster',
Avest. kahrka- 'hen', Pehl. kark 'hen', Pers. kark
'chicken', 'hen', Gk. kerkos 'rooster', MIr. cercc 'brood hen';
Toch. B krariko 'rooster'. In its onomatopoetic character this word can
be compared with innovated forms meaning 'rooster' in separate recent branches,
based on words meaning `sing', 'cry': Lat. gallus 'rooster' (cf. OCS glastu 'voice', Russ. golos ); Goth. hana 'rooster', OHG hano 'rooster' (Ger. Hahn), OE henn 'hen' (Engl. hen),…” [9]
Darwin also had some thoughts on the subject:
“The child who was just beginning
to speak called a duck ‘quack’ and by special association it also called water
‘quack’. By an appreciation of the resemblance of qualities it next extended
the term ‘quack’ to denote all birds and insects on the one hand and all fluid
substances on the other. Lastly, by a still more delicate appreciation of
resemblance the child eventually called all coins ‘quack’ because on the back
of a French sou [money] it had once seen the representation of an eagle. Hence
to the child the sign ‘quack’ from having originally had a very specialized
meaning became more and more extended in its significance until it now seems to
designate such apparently different objects as ‘fly’, ‘wine’, and ‘coin’.” [10]
I leave it up to your own spirit of curiosity to delve into
it further. The theory is valid, at least in my view.
On the “earthiness ” of English English is more visceral, earthy language, a fact pointed out by Henry
Hitchings in his delightful book, The Secret Life of Words. I quote:
“Often we have three terms for the
same thing – one Anglo-Saxon, one French, and one clearly absorbed from Latin or Greek. The Anglo-Saxon word is typically a neutral one; the French word
connotes sophistication; and the Latin or Greek word, learnt from a written
text rather than from human contact, is comparatively abstract and conveys a
more scientific notion. Consider, for example, the verbs rise,
mount and ascend, or go, depart and exit. In each case, the first word has an
Anglo-Saxon source and is informal, the second is French and comparatively
formal, while the third is Latin and suggests something more specialized or
technical. A more extreme example is fire, flame and conflagration; another,
holy, sacred, consecrated.” [11]
On the perceived incorrect usage of “myself .”
etc. It’s
Similar Books
