The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.
Ask-A-Linguist Message Details
|Subject:||Written Language as a Cultural Artefact|
|Question:||In The History of Britain Revealed, M J Harper states ''There are good reasons to believe that possession of a written language (and more especially the development of artificial languages for purposes of writing) is the key to understanding the whole of Ancient History. Hebrew and Latin will in time be recognised alongside Old Norse, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, Punic, Sumerian Cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs and other 'non-demotic' languages as being essentially cultural artefacts adopted for a purpose, and not, as linguists insist, merely the surviving record of what ordinary people spoke''. To what extent would the panel members agree/disagree with this statement?|
|Reply:||In brief, this is a crazy and non-scientific book by someone with a real down on linguists (and on other scientists). I bet Harper doesn't actually quote a linguist who thinks (let alone insists) that written languages are 'merely the surviving record of what ordinary people spoke'. The earliest writing seems to be been trading manifests, which is about as far from speech as it is possible to get, though people soon got the idea that they could also write in ways that were closer to speech. And what is this strange idea that Old Norse and Sanskrit (etc.) are 'non-demotic' while Hebrew and Latin are not? Whatever would does 'non-demotic' mean here? For a fuller review try reading Mark Liberman's, which I imagine all of the panellists would endorse: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005396.html Anthea|
|Reply From:||Anthea Fraser Gupta click here to access email|