Tuesday, 14 April 2015
PEE: Language change
http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/texts/cooks/large1435.html
The Art of Cooking shows how old cooking books would use language, allowing a reader to see how it has changed. This is seen with instead of being step by step guides with recipe lists, we have a paragraph, representing that people would have known the recipes so it was only for reference
In 'The Art of Cooking', the instruction of the imperative "drudge it with a little Flour to make a fine froth." The use of the verb "drudge" is used, which seems to be an archaic word that is not used in common speech. It seems to suggest cooking the meat with flour instead of using the word "braise". This is seen as we have borrowed the word from French as our language has become more similar. This could suggest through Chomsky's theory that we have a Universal Grammar between different French as the word has been coined her for the same meaning and shows that we have the same sort of meanings.
http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/texts/dict/transcript1402.html
In the Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, we see the dictionary changes and how words have adapted due to the use of the word being changed. It is evident that the
The use of the word "smug" has broadened and changed in its meaning since it was written in the dictionary in 1785. With it originally being "a nick name for a blacksmith, also neat and spruce" being borrowed and originating from German "Smuk". However, it seems to have pejorated and now has more negative connotations meaning that someone is cunning and evil and self satisfied with themselves. It seems to show how the adjectives meaning has changed due to Blacksmith's not being a common occupation anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good para on 'smug' particularly. Be careful with a couple of things: connotations are different to meaning (denotation) - they are associated ideas, so smug means self-satisfied (whichis its denotation) but the connotations might be evil, selfish, cunning, rich etc - not what the word means but what it conjures up in your mind. Connotations can change as the context the word is used in changes. If I heard it related to a banker, I mightthink of those associated meanings, but if I heard it applied to a little child I might connote it with cheekiness, getting away with something, naughtiness etc. The denotation never changes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it was a good try to attempt to stretch the theory but it doesn't convince me - although not all the words in every language have equivalents in other languages, if we share those things in common, we probably have an equivalent word or we might have borrowed one from another language but this doesn't have anything to do with grammar. If you had used the example of a word that we anglicised by adding a suffix common in our language that the original language doesn't have, that might be justifiably linked to universal grammar as we are making the new word fit our understanding of grammatical rules e.g. turn smug into a superlative and you get smuggest, but there won't be a german equivalent that soundls like it as they don't have the same suffixes as we do - we adapt the word according to our grammar. Even then, I think it's a bit of a stretch.
Just incidentally, i saw something this morning that brought me up short: I read on the Shreddies packet that there are four layers of goodness in each shreddie. They can, of course, call their own product whatever they like. But shreddy (if I had ever thought about it at all, which I haven't) would be the more logical spelling? Perhaps it is part of a sensible movement towards a more logical spelling ssytem. Why should y+suffix change to ie? Maybe, on balance, I applaud their choice.