Versatility?

[A. Katz]

Dan,

One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as 
need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon.

English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point in 
its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive borrowing as a 
result of an extreme language contact situation.

But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one that has 
a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do as a jingoist 
Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a bigger lexicon makes 
you more versatile, as a proponent of English would, I would like to 
submit that it all comes out even in the end: because we can all say what 
we need to say in our own language.

Best,


     --Aya




On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:

> Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare.
>
> The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms.
>
> Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so.
>
> Dan
>
> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote:
>
>> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises.
>>
>> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now.
>>
>> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers.
>>
>>   --Aya
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:
>>
>>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer.
>>>
>>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dan,
>>>>
>>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all.
>>>>
>>>> --Aya
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English.
>>>>>
>>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Aya
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the  differences that have been overlooked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tahir,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Aya
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile?
>>>>>>>>> Tahir
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>