The Applied Epistemology Library :: View topic

The Library Index

FAQ

Profile

Flying Chaucers (Linguistics)

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28 ... 73, 74, 75 Next

View previous topic :: View next topic

berniegreen

Brian Ambrose wrote:

Ah, Bernie... I was asking how you could tell that the poetic text

A sword and buckler bore he by his side
A white coat and a blue hood wear-ed he
A bagpipe well could he blow and sound
And there with all he brought us out of town

was from the 14th/15th century and not from last week. Am I to deduce from your response that you would date this text based on its use of the word 'buckler' (since it exhibits none of the other attributes of your reply)?

It's a bit of a clue, don't you think?

But to be friendly and because I like you, Brian, I could accept that the verse was either really written in the 15th century or it was written last week by somebody who was imitating a 15th century style. How's that?

Chad

In: Ramsbottom

berniegreen wrote:

Chad,
I think that you must misunderstand my view... it is all just straightforwardly English in my view...

Then your position is fundamentally identical to Mick's and you have been arguing simply for the sake of being argumentative.

Applied Epistemology is all about fundamentals... the nitty gritty can be left to lesser mortals to nitpick over, once an incorrect orthodox paradigm has been replaced by a fundamentally correct one.

AEists should not waste their talents arguing over minutia... once the fundamentals have been established they should move on to the next big thing.

Brian Ambrose

berniegreen wrote:

Brian Ambrose wrote:

Hi Bernie, I like you too, but I don't think we should let that get in the way. Your compromise does at least indicate a shift in your position - it's now not about grammar or vocabulary, but style. This is a little more promising, and you may be onto something, but which bit of the text has a 15th century style, or rather, what is it that typifies 15th century style poetry? Do you mean back to front sentences such as "A bagpipe well could he blow and sound"? Don't we find this type of construction in poetry of all periods?

I reckon that if you hadn't seen this text before, you really, really, could have read it in the budding-poets section of your local newspaper and not thought of it as anything other than a more than usually intelligible modern, if idiosyncratic, poetic verse, though you might have had to look up what a buckler is, and you might have thought wear-ed a bit of a cheeky way for the poet to obtain those two syllables. Cheeky, smart ass poet writing in standard English.

berniegreen

Chad wrote:

berniegreen wrote:

Chad,
I think that you must misunderstand my view... it is all just straightforwardly English in my view...

Firstly, I do not regard AEism as a religion with a set of precepts. I do not therefore consider myself as an AEist. Merely as a contributor to this interesting discussion group.

Secondly, I do not think that what I said is, in fact, Mick's position. It seems to me (and he will be quick to correct me if I have got it wrong, I am confident) that MJH was arguing that Middle English doesn't exist and there is only Modern English and that, consequently, there is no difference between The Elliott quotation and the Chaucer one.

I regard that as an unnecessary step too far. I would maintain that there is no distinct thing called Modern English. It is merely a too convenient label coined by linguists and dictionary makers and now "sanctified" by custom and usage. There is only English of which there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of different versions. I also think that it is fatuous to try to pretend that there is no difference between the different versions even though it is obviously the case that all versions have sufficient in common to be recognisably versions of the same language.

If that is really what Mick was putting forward originally, then I have certainly arrived at the same point albeit by a different route. But it certainly did not seem to be the case. I hope that Mr H will now allow himself to be "sucked in" and give us the benefit of his wisdom.

berniegreen

Brian Ambrose wrote:

Your compromise does at least indicate a shift in your position - it's now not about grammar or vocabulary, but style. This is a little more promising, and you may be onto something, but which bit of the text has a 15th century style, or rather, what is it that typifies 15th century style poetry? Do you mean back to front sentences such as "A bagpipe well could he blow and sound"? Don't we find this type of construction in poetry of all periods?

I reckon that if you hadn't seen this text before, you really, really, could have read it in the budding-poets section of your local newspaper and not thought of it as anything other than a more than usually intelligible modern, if idiosyncratic, poetic verse, though you might have had to look up what a buckler is, and you might have thought wear-ed a bit of a cheeky way for the poet to obtain those two syllables. Cheeky, smart ass poet writing in standard English.

Well, yes, the last paragraph is unarguably a possibility. Not that any contemporary poet that I have read recently would stoop so low as to do straightforward narrative or figurative verse and certainly not to make it rhyme or even to force a strict scansion as this example does.

There have always been writers in poetry and prose who have deliberately recreated the language of earlier times, sometimes for genuinely artistic ends and sometimes just for profit. Wasn't there, for example, the theory put forward by Mick in another thread that Beowulf was a forgery created in Tudor times (which I must say I found highly plausible).

But style is a ticklish subject which can contain within it issues of lexicon, grammar, semantics and syntax. For example, you may be familiar with the novels of Patrick O'Brien who does a wonderful job or recreating the English of the Napoleonic era. And one might well think that he had actually created novels that could be mistaken for ones written in that period. But if you read, for example, Vanity Fair by Thackery and Master and Commander side by side you realise that there is something there in the contemporaneous writing, some aspect of style, which is simply "different" from the O'Brien.

For a better textual analysis you need an EngLit person. I am merely an enthusiastic reader.

I would like to return to the issue of what changes and what stays unchanged in a language in a later post.

Ishmael

In: Toronto

berniegreen wrote:

But to be friendly and because I like you, Brian, I could accept that the verse was either really written in the 15th century or it was written last week by somebody who was imitating a 15th century style. How's that?

Or somebody from the 15th century imitating someone from the 10th. How could you know? Poets do tend to pride themselves in being behind the times.

berniegreen

Ishmael wrote:

berniegreen wrote:

Or somebody from the 15th century imitating someone from the 10th. How could you know? Poets do tend to pride themselves in being behind the times.

Yes, absolutely. A nice point that I had not considered. You would have to be a real real real expert to spot that sort of fakery if it could ever be spotted. Certainly well outside my sphere of knowledge.

Ishmael

In: Toronto

berniegreen wrote:

I do not regard AEism as a religion with a set of precepts.

Applied Epistemology is a scientific method. In fact, it is the scientific method, better-formulated.

...that, consequently, there is no difference between The Elliott quotation and the Chaucer one.

Wrong. Each uses different words from the same language (the choice of words is influenced by fashion and local custom).

I regard that as an unnecessary step too far.

We regard it as an unnecessary step in the wrong direction.

I would maintain that there is no distinct thing called Modern English. It is merely a too convenient label coined by linguists and dictionary makers and now "sanctified" by custom and usage. There is only English of which there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of different versions. I also think that it is fatuous to try to pretend that there is no difference between the different versions even though it is obviously the case that all versions have sufficient in common to be recognisably versions of the same language.

My advice: Less talk; more listen.

If that is really what Mick was putting forward originally, then I have certainly arrived at the same point albeit by a different route.

You mean you have arrived at this point by the route of reading Mick's book, in contrast with his arriving there by its writing.

Ok. Granted. Those routes are different.

But it certainly did not seem to be the case. I hope that Mr H will now allow himself to be "sucked in" and give us the benefit of his wisdom.

See aforementioned book.

berniegreen



Ish, You have been a bit too hasty in the "slapping-him-down" department. And consequently you have not taken on board what I was saying. If you don't care, we can leave it there. But if you do care then you might go back several posts and trace through the dialogue between Chad, Brian and myself and reconsider your response.

berniegreen

Ishmael wrote:

berniegreen wrote:

I do not regard AEism as a religion with a set of precepts.

Applied Epistemology is a scientific method. In fact, it is the scientific method, better-formulated.

Does this mean that you agree with my sentiment or that you approve of Chad's?

...that, consequently, there is no difference between The Elliott quotation and the Chaucer one.

Wrong. Each uses different words from the same language (the choice of words is influenced by fashion and local custom).

Because you have taken this out of context it now appears that you are saying that Mick Harper's position is wrong. Do you really mean that? You might find it helpful to go back and re-read pages one and two of this thread.

I regard that as an unnecessary step too far.

We regard it as an unnecessary step in the wrong direction.

For whom are you speaking with your "we"? And what does the sentence mean anyway?

My advice: Less talk; more listen.

This seems particularly meaningless, even for you.

If that is really what Mick was putting forward originally, then I have certainly arrived at the same point albeit by a different route.

You mean you have arrived at this point by the route of reading Mick's book, in contrast with his arriving there by its writing.

Ok. Granted. Those routes are different.

One would hope that we got there by thinking about the problem and it seems to me that the paths along which our thinking has travelled are different.

DPCrisp

In: Bedfordshire

I would maintain that there is no distinct thing called Modern English... There is only English of which there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of different versions.

That has been the point, the whole point and nothing but the point from the very beginning.

Old English is not English but Anglo-Saxon.

"Modern" is redundant: everyone has been happy to study linguistics and literature across the globe and across several centuries all within the context of what is indisputably just English.

The Middle phase is not distinct from the Modern: it's all just English. What appears to be a significant (and miraculous) period of turmoil is nothing other than a period of pre-standardised spelling. But it's a piece of piss to peer through the spelling and see the plain English lying there.

Of course, there could be lifetimes of work in studying the style and content, all the way back to the 1123 Peterborough Chronicle, if not before, but this would be on exactly the same footing as studying English of any other time, place, register...

The discontinuity between English and "Old English" shows that the latter is not the progenitor of the former.

berniegreen

In response to Dan's last:
In overall principle I agree absolutely but I do think you are being a bit too glib when you say

What appears to be a significant (and miraculous) period of turmoil is nothing other than a period of pre-standardised spelling.

And when it comes to

it's a piece of piss to peer through the spelling and see the plain English lying there.

although I agree largely with the sentiment I would state it differently - e.g. "despite the spelling differences the commonality between Chaucer's English and our own contemporary English is quite obvious"

Lastly and please forgive me if this seems to you very pernickety, but had you and Mick said this in the first place we would not have had the earlier argument. If you look back at the postings that were made at the time I think you will find that you and Mick and Ish were all trying to convince me that Chaucer's English was not merely one part of the common thread of English but that it was in fact exactly the same as 21st century English. Which, of course, it is not as we can all now agree.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London



My patience is at an end. Bernie, if you split one more hair your membership will be terminated.

Ishmael

In: Toronto

berniegreen wrote:

...I think you will find that you and Mick and Ish were all trying to convince me that Chaucer's English was not merely one part of the common thread of English but that it was in fact exactly the same as 21st century English. Which, of course, it is not as we can all now agree.

We do not agree.

No difference attributed to time is larger than any we know today to be attributable to dialect. Therefore, it is impossible to say whether Chaucer's English differs from yours due to time or if it merely differs from yours as yours differs from mine. Moreover, because of the differences known to exist between written and spoken forms of English, we can infer little from Chaucer's written form concerning the spoken language of his day.

berniegreen

Ishmael wrote:

No difference attributed to time is larger than any we know today to be attributable to dialect.

I cannot understand on what basis you can assert this. I am very willing to consider this viewpoint but you do need to explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

Display posts from previous:

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28 ... 73, 74, 75 Next

Page 27 of 75

The Library Index

FAQ

Profile