Language – the Art of Human Communication (so, is it OK to use a double negative?)
By Sheila Orysiek
SAN DIEGO — From the moment the Pilgrims set sail across the Atlantic Ocean to establish “Plimouth Plantation” on the North American continent, the language they spoke began to change. New words were needed to describe new situations, land shapes, places, flora and fauna, as well as differing hopes, goals and expectations.
In the England they left behind, accent, dialect and word choice marked an individual’s place of birth and social station as clearly as if it were branded upon one’s forehead. This, of course, was the point that George Bernard Shaw made in his play Pygmalion. It was rare that an individual could escape such an obvious marker. However, that was not true for those who crossed the sea to begin new lives in a new land.
An immigrant could arrive as an indentured servant but the possibility for advancement through hard work, study, and some luck, existed. Self improvement, which included changing the way one spoke, became an important aspect of education. Thus people were very much interested in helpful books on grammar, pronunciation and usage of the language. They were looking for rules – standards – such as never to use a double negative. But are there rules? Are they immutable? Do they exist for spoken language as well as written language?
Rosemarie Ostler, in Founding Grammars; How Early America’s War Over Words Shaped Today’s Language, St. Martin’s Press, 2015, explores the resources available to the teachers, scholars and the general population as they sought to improve the way the language was used and therefore their station in life.
As the years progressed the authors of dictionaries, grammars and other resources divided into two major camps: those who thought that the language should be guided by these texts and those who thought the texts should be guided by the language as actually spoken. Many were scandalized by new words and usages as opposed to those who welcomed these additions and changes.
Slowly a scholarship developed around the history of words and then broadened into a history of language. As the science and art of this research developed, instead of comparing words – word by word – from one language to another to discover similarities, scholars began to compare larger swaths of usage and construction. That method began to reveal that many languages shared certain similarities and seemed to indicate a family relationship descending from a common source. This became known as the family of Indo-European languages and includes: Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, most of the languages of Asia and Europe with a sub-group of Germanic languages. Measuring out from this common source (a proto-language) gave a timeline of over one hundred thousand years and located this source as occurring in the area of the Russian steppes.
In comparing languages for both similarities as well as differences, Ostler discussed the slippage between P/F such as “pater” in Latin and “father” in English. It recalled to me that same P/F connection in Hebrew – which is not in the Indo-European family. I was interested in what the author might think of this. Below is an exchange of letters (with the author’s permission):
Message: Dear Ms. Ostler:
I have been reading your book “Founding Grammars” with the intent to review it for the online publication for which I write a weekly column: www.sdjewishworld.com.
On page 189, I particularly enjoyed your discussion of the P/F connection which occurs within the Indo-European family of languages. This P/F relationship is also seen in Hebrew. I am by no means a linguist, grammarian, or scholar – however, as I recall, Hebrew is not a Indo-European language but is in the family of Semitic languages. I don’t know if other Semitic languages also have this P/F connection.
Is Hebrew the only Semitic language in which this occurs? Did it originate in the Semitic family and then drift into the Indo-European family – or did it travel the other way?
I would be most interested in any insight you might share with me.
Thank you very much,
Sheila Orysiek
Response from the author: Rosemarie Ostler:
Dear Ms. Orysiek,
I’m glad you enjoyed the discussion of Indo-European in my book. Unfortunately, I don’t know much about Hebrew, but after doing a little research I gather that certain “hard” consonants in Hebrew soften their sound after a vowel, so b becomes v, etc. I read that something similar happens in Aramaic and also Berber, but again, I’m not familiar with the languages myself.
That’s not exactly what happened in Indo-European. The p/f alternation that I talk about is actually part of a larger pattern of historical change that came about after the Germanic languages split off from Indo-European. What had been a p in Indo-European became an f in the Germanic languages, t became th, and several other consonants also changed between Indo-E. and Germanic. If you’re curious to read more about it, here’s a link to a Wikipedia article.
You’re right in thinking that Hebrew is a Semitic language and not related to Indo-European. I would guess that the consonant changes happened independently in both languages, rather than one influencing the other. They’re the kind of pronunciation changes that happen pretty often in languages, so not really so surprising.
I hope I’ve been able to answer some of your questions.
Best regards,
Rosemarie
The story of language and how it is used is a fascinating and important facet of human history and is well presented in Ostler’s book.
*
Orysiek is a freelance writer who specializes in arts and literature. You may comment to sheila.orysiek@sdjewishworld.com