[WikiEN-l] disputing block: 69.108.172.162, lysdexia

[Rowan Collins]

On 10/11/05, Autymn D. C. <lysdexia at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2005, at 11.59, Rowan Collins wrote:

> Since "erroneous" means nothing more than "straysome" or "strayish",
> you are trivially riht.  Original languages do not overwrite
> themselves: They are /forgotten/.  They are not changed because
> speakers are making conscious choices that their words are better, but
> because they are too lazy or ignorant to learn or use the older words
> which are more diverse, full, and accurate than theirs.

So do you see language change as a constant decline away from some
historical perfection? I admit that there are changes which leave
languages "poorer", but there are plenty which - however accidental -
make them far more powerful and useful at their purpose of
communication and expression. And I am very firmly of the conviction
that there is not some historical point at which language in general,
or any "separate" language in particular, attained some state of
"completeness" deserving of preservation.

> The rules should if the changes should, not if the changes do.  And
> only if there is something /wrong/ with the earlier rules.  Otherwise,
> the language should grow like any person or nation would and not, like
> a cancer, grow everywhich way so that it eats and poops itself and eats
> that.

I would argue that the above is, in a subtle way, contradictory:
people, nations (and, the underlying metaphor, plants) do not grow
"only if there is something wrong". They grow dynamically, complexly,
by trial and error, and with natural checks and balances. Essentially,
the process is one of evolution, as currently understood by mainstream
science: random changes occur, and may or may not die out; those which
are harmful are *more likely* to die out, and those which are
beneficial *more likely* to spread, but it all comes down to chance,
not certainty. What's more, there's no outside definition of "better"
or "beneficial" which governs these chances, because that depends on
the circumstances. Still, *in general*, life evolves to be better at
passing on its genes, and language evolves to be better at allowing
communication.

> Anglo-Saxon?  No, it's English.  What people speak today is a mutt of
> English, Latin-French-English, and Greek-Latin-English.  And I'd write
> "pure" as "sheer".

So, like I say, the argument comes down to different definitions of
"English": what I call "English", you would call
"Greek-Latin-French-English" or somesuch; what you call "English", I
would call something like "artificial Anglo-Saxon". However, when the
average person who considers themselves an "English speaker" says
"English", their meaning will be a lot closer to mine than to yours.
And, crucially, when en.wikipedia.org calls itself "the English
Wikipedia", it is using "English" in this popular sense, which is why
your edits are being rejected as inappropriate.

> A lone language has only one word for the same
> meaning.

Well, I've never heard of a "lone language" before, but I can't
imagine this claim has ever been true for any natural language.

> But none of writing this is making me feel better
> for being wrongfully kicked off Wikipedia by a liar for doing what I
> hold is riht.

Just because you hold it to be "riht" doesn't mean that it is in the
interests of the Wikipedia project, or that other contributors to that
project are somehow compelled to agree with you. Your input is
welcome, but only if you are willing to co-operate, compromise, and
welcome the input of others.

> I didn't say that it /wasn't/ others' article.  I said it was my
> article.  Logic goes over most people's head.

Well, "my" certainly implies some sort of ownership or possession; I
suppose you could argue that there is a sense in which all Wikipedia
articles "belong to" everybody, but that would seem to render the "my"
logically true, but somewhat redundant. The problem is not that logic
goes over our heads, but that it is not logic we use to communicate in
every day situations, it is expressive, sometimes ambiguous, language.

> Were we talking about English?  I was using a Greek word.

Yes, we were talking about content on the English Wikipedia, which is
(except when specifically discussing foreign languages) in English.
Specifically, the English word "kinetic", which is based on a Greek
word only ever spelled in a different alphabet, is *not* generally
spelled "cinetic". Once again, I'm using "English" to mean the
language spoken by millions of people the world over, which is
inherently *not* logical, and does *not* conform to historical or
logic rules. You can argue that it *should* (though I would disagree),
and demonstrate how it might look if it did, but the English Wikipedia
is not the place to do so; maybe you should join the community around
artificial languages like "Lojban"?

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]