The Purest Still-Used Language

[scameter]

I'm trying to discover: what is the language still used in modern times by normal people (i.e. not only academics, like the use of Latin by scientists, or by official religious people, like Latin by Catholic bishops)? My guess would be one of the religious languages, like Hewbrew or Sanskrit (if the latter is still used popularly), though that is really more of a guess.

[Trevor]

I'm trying to discover: what is the language still used in modern times by normal people (i.e. not only academics, like the use of Latin by scientists, or by official religious people, like Latin by Catholic bishops)? My guess would be one of the religious languages, like Hewbrew or Sanskrit (if the latter is still used popularly), though that is really more of a guess.

Do you mean Aramaic? Or body? I think music.

[scameter]

Like, a spoken or written language.

[sonrisa]

Scam, what do you mean by pure? Language is not a static thing, it changes & evolves with time. So the languages spoken thousands- or even hundreds- of years ago are different from their modern day counterparts. Same goes for Latin, btw, the Church has messed it up over the centuries.

otoh Scam, it occurs to me that you may just be 1 state away from linguistic purity: some linguists think that the people during Shakespeare's time sounded alot like TN hillbillies. How these linguists know this I have no clue, since I very much doubt any of them actually heard anybody from Shakespeare's time talk, but apparantly, what the hillbillies are speaking is pure. The linguists' word, not mine.

[Michael]

Language is a fluid thing, it inevitably changes over time, like everything else. As Sonrisa pointed out, the English spoken today is not the English that was spoken in Shakespeare's time.

A simple example: A New York adult of the 194os would have grave difficulty understanding a New York teen of today.

This inevitable change is actually built-in to Sanskrit, where the meaning of certain key words are assigned a declension of meaning until they end up meaning the opposite of the original word. Not exactly the same as protean change, but certainly a recognition of the entropy of language.

No language that is in common usage will remain the same over any substantial length of time. Language is constantly being reshaped by social, cultural, environmental and economic forces.

The only exceptions to this will be where it is used ritualistically, religion being the primary and academe the secondary, as you already suspected, scam.

[sonrisa]

Language is a fluid thing, it inevitably changes over time, like everything else. As Sonrisa pointed out, the English spoken today is not the English that was spoken in Shakespeare's time.

--unless you're a hillbilly in TN :P

Michael-- A simple example: A New York adult of the 1940s would have grave difficulty understanding a New York teen of today.

-- not necesarily. My Mom was around in the 1940's & she dosen't seem to have much of a comprehension problem. Occasionally she doesn't understand modern word here & there but for the most part she does ok. Course she's from Cincinnati, not NY :D

perhaps a better example would be a New Yorker from the 1840's would have trouble understanding a teen (or even an adult) from today.

to elaborate on what Michael said about English, if you mean pure in the standard sense of the word, then English is probably the most impure language that has ever existed. It absorbs words wholecloth from other languages, including a few that we like to bandy around on this site, such as karma & dharma. There's zeitgeist & schadenfreude from German, idea, aura, podium, forum, & a whole slaugh (from the Celtic, btw) of other words from Latin, schmuck, kitsch, & a bunch of other Yiddish words, possum comes from the Algonquin. Those are just what I can think of off the top of my head. There are many others.

I suppose that as people travelled, & came in contact with those who spoke other languages, there was a similar give & take (but not as blatant as with English) of words between languages. I really can't think of any language that would be pure, but then I'm not a linguist. You may have to consult with one on this.

[Michael]

--unless you're a hillbilly in TN :P

Michael--

-- not necesarily. My Mom was around in the 1940's & she dosen't seem to have much of a comprehension problem. Occasionally she doesn't understand modern word here & there but for the most part she does ok. Course she's from Cincinnati, not NY :D

perhaps a better example would be a New Yorker from the 1840's would have trouble understanding a teen (or even an adult) from today.

.

I'd lay money on the fact that while there may be correspondences between Elizabethan English and your hillbilly English there will also have been considerable drift - makes a good thesis though. The charm of most cases are the exceptions.


Sonrisa, what I said, to underline the protean nature of language, was:

"A New York adult of the 194os would have grave difficulty understanding a New York teen of today." Perhaps I was not clear in my meaning. If your mother, back in the 1940s, met a teenager of today she would have had difficulty understanding. Of course she would have had a general idea, but many of the nuances would have been beyond her, and much incomprehensible - as indeed some of them still are. Its a Back to the Future kind of thing.

Because language is protean, her understanding of language has changed - hence she doesn't have much difficulty understanding teen language of today. I deliberately chose a short time scale to show how rapidly language does change.

English is a bastard language. No word has 'English' roots. Its primary roots are Saxon, Angle, French, Latin, Celtic and Norse. Old English was actually called Anglo-Saxon Thus it is a highly adaptable and robust language, well suited to evolution and survival - not that we'll understand the English of 2500 with any great ease.

[Thomas Knierim]

I am not a linguist, but in addition to Sanskrit, Pali might be a candidate. Pali was once a literary Indic language that originated in the first few centuries BCE. It is said to be close the Magadhi, the language of the Buddha. It is not as old as classical Sanskrit, but it's more "vernacular" than Sanskrit and it became liturgical later. I think Pali hasn't changed much since the Pali canon was first written down in the first century BCE and it is still in use today in Theravada countries (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Laos and Cambodia).

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Sonrisa:some linguists think that the people during Shakespeare's time sounded alot like TN hillbillies.

Surely. In fact, if you read Middle English aloud properly, it sounds almost identical to the southern English dialect: very simple, drawn, as if they were going through a period of articulation but still fluent in the language and vocabulary itself.

[sonrisa]

well then Scam, it looks like you found your linguistic purity, even if it is from an impure language. And to think, it's only a roadtrip away..... :)

I'm not sure, however, if I'll ever be ready to hear Shakespeare read aloud "properly":

"uh-layass, pore yore-rick, ah knowedim whale...."

git me to uh nunnery, no better yet, the theater doors! :knockout:


Thanx, Michael for further explaining your 1940's example. I did have it bass-ackwards. If her grandkids were somehow able to travel back to the 1940's & visit my Mom then, then yeah, I'd agree with you that at that point in her life she would have trouble understanding 21st century English. Just as we would have trouble understanding 25th century English, hell it'll probably have completely morphed into Spanglish by then.