Lost in Translation
Lost in Translation
“The single most notable characteristic of English,” writes Bill Bryson, “is its deceptive complexity.”
As native speakers, we might not feel this rings true. But consider for a moment just a few of its incalculable peculiarities and minutiae. The fact that the phrase “I could care less” means the same thing as “I couldn’t care less.” That words like sanction, cleave and betray can indicate both a thing and its opposite. That its grammar is a mash-up of incompatible conventions, spawning a trove of syntactical anomalies such as the adjective-noun reversals in “attorney general” and “heir apparent.” That its spelling seemingly has as many exceptions to the rules as there are rules.
Indeed, English is a veritable cabinet of wonders, a palimpsest of criss-crossing lexical histories, no less than a modern linguistic juggernaut. So how is it that in the age of globalization, where information is everywhere being condensed into ever-slimmer, more efficient packages, accommodating shorter and shorter attention spans, such a strange, rootless, lumbering, Frankenstein of a language could manage to “go viral”?
Read the rest on Obit-Mag.com.
Tags: English, books, language, linguistic anthropology, linguistics
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by NoSacredCow on -
The fact that the phrase “I could care less” means the same thing as “I couldn’t care less.”
Is the author impying that the first has been given the same meaning by people too dumb to realize they aren't the same thing at all or are too lazy to add "n't" to form the latter?
Otherwise they do not at all mean the same thing. "I couldn't care less" means that the speaker has no more depth to not caring.
While "I could care less" denotes there is some wiggle room.
Both are superfluous when compared to "I don't care" which is finite. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on -
I noticed that sentence, too. Some other linguistics would take exception with that, I think. Clearly the first one is a misusage of the prhase. However, we know what the mean when they say it, even if they say it wrong. So in that sense, they do both mean the same thing.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on
-
That is so true. There seems to be no end to new words and meanings we can create -- and all with just 26 letters. Amazing.
-
-
Permalink Reply by T A A on -
I've lived solely in the English world for the past 15 yrs and I find the lack of structure and order in the English language is a constant source of so many miscommunications it is unbelievable. I was raised in an English family in a French community so I was always exposed to both cultures.
I find that people are constantly misinterpreting each other, insinuating meanings that were never intended.
Of course there are anglophones who CARE about the proper use of English, but they are very rare in my experience. -
-
Permalink Reply by NoSacredCow on
-
The English lagnuage requires body and facial interpretation coupled with voice inflection and stress analysis...
Otherwise it's all sarcasm in print without emoticons. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on
-
I find that people are constantly misinterpreting each other, insinuating meanings that were never intended.
Some of that has nothing to do with language, and more to do with distrust and suspicion. -
-
Permalink Reply by T A A on
-
are you implying that anglophone cultures are more distrustful and suspicious, interesting, I had never looked at it from that angle...
Being from a French Roman Catholic social environment background, I can say that indeed distrust and suspicion were NOT a regular component of my conversations.
French catholics were reknowned for charity and generosity and meekness, I guess that creates a very different context for conversation... -
-
Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on
-
are you implying that anglophone cultures are more distrustful and suspicious
Well, American culture is very much that way. Espeically popular / political culture.
French catholics were reknowned for charity and generosity and meekness
Surely that is a myth or an illusion. All religions paint themselves as meek and good and charitable, though we rarely see that. Perhaps in some individuals, but not in the instituions as a whole. I suspect this is little more than the stories people tell themselves, about themselves. -
-
Permalink Reply by NoSacredCow on
-
"The terrible immoralities are the cunning ones hiding behind masks of morality, such as exploiting people while pretending to help them." Vernon Howard
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on
-
Great quote. Thanks.
-
-
Permalink Reply by T A A on
-
I should have specified Quebecois culture :)
Until the mid 60s, the Quebecois people were entirely under the thumb of English ruled Canada. Our meekness back then (today quite different) may have been repression induced... :)
My experience with French Quebecois culture is that it is VERY honest and blunt. Where all topics are up for conversation, in most any context.
But you have shed light on a long standing difficulty I have had with English communications :) thx -
What's new today
Discussion Forum
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 7 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
