Not possible. Sign language works very differently from spoken (written) language; it has a small vocabulary as it is, but is incredibly nuanced, context-dependent and complex in how it is used (use of scene setting, sign space, role switching, narrative vs. declarative sign, productive lexicon, multi-channel and implicit gesture etc.). Remove any of these elements however and the whole thing doesn't work. I think your first version is not really that much different from the original; you still use the same grammar and syntax. Your "logical code" (almost like a programming language?) version is pretty clever, actually, but some important meanings are lost. Since the Declaration concerns the US government, let's use that as an example. "To make sure it all works" is rather more vague than: "to secure these rights". The current Bush administration undeniably "works": the US is moving along in a regulated, governed manner, no chaos or civil war, business as usual. Yet there are plenty of concerned voices pointing out that civil rights are being eroded. In that respect, the current government may be "working", but it is not "securing these rights". Quite the opposite. Under the new text, everything is OK; under the original text, the government should be the focus of some serious scrutiny by the people... You also miss out: "Governments are instituted among men" (important point here: not just picked by the people, but also from the people), and "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed". So your "code" should be: "People shud pic the government from the people". Ah. But which "people"? "The people" has a different meaning than just "people". In the new text, such important semantic nuances are lost. "If goverment is bad" could mean a lot of things. "Bad" in what way? In ideology? For the economy? For civil rights? I think the Bush government is bad, but not everyone shares that view. Plenty of people think it is good. "That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends" is much more specific about just in what way it has to be bad. Then there is: "people shud stop it and make a new 1". Stop it, how? Overthrow it? Kill the president? "alter or abolish" is much more specific on how it should be "stopped"; that there should be formal procedures for doing this. It is not about the spelling. The spelling is the thin end of the wedge. Because if we change the spelling of certain words because it is "too difficult", then why not do away with those pesky multi-syllable words which are "too difficult" to spell in any way, altogether? And when you get rid of words, you get rid of ways of thinking. This is why governments like simple words: "War on Terror", instead of "Political conflict with people with opposing ideologies, whose military actions are not officially sanctioned by a governmental body". That would kinda suggest that governments could endorse such actions, and that this would somehow make them OK. Closer to daily life, we all know the subtleties of meaning involved in using the terms "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter" vs. "rebel"...
I don't want us to lose anything, I think its about layers of reading and writing, if you're writing for the people then you have to use the language of the people and if a large chunk of them use sub par language then we need to accommodate that in order to write for them. We have to use the lowest common denominator if we want to spread our message, you look at your target audience and then decide what the lowest level of literacy to expect in that group and then write to that, its not a bad thing. We do the same with computer game system requirements and its why The Sun has a reading age of 9, its a sad reflection on peoples willingness to better themselves but its also reality.
If you use simple language to accomodate to the lowest common denominator, you are inevitably simplifying the ideas being conveyed. You simplify reasoning and thinking. As a result the target audience never learns to think at a more sophisticated level. You can't dumb life down to make it more accessible to people. Life is complex. People need to learn to meet its challenges and become smarter and wiser in the process. It is how things like growing up and developing and evolution work. It is how we get our big brains (and language) in the first place. Otherwise we are reversing the process of evolution and end up with a large bunch of morons ruled over by a small class of people who are actually smart enough to do people's thinking for them. We get Brave New World.
I agree with you I don't want to see an end to languages diversity or to rewrite all historic text in a more modern simpler style. My point was that you write for your audience, I suspect that many of the people whose independence was declared in the deceleration of independence didn't understand it! It wasn't written for them, it was written by leaders for other leaders to see. If they were writing today and aiming for the whole of the population to understand it I don't think it would be too far from the first edited version I wrote, not the joke simple spelling version, and although it leaves out many of the "bigger" words I think it conveys the same message.
You'd be surprised. Although in those days fewer people could read and write, those who could had an amazing level of literacy by today's standards. In those days, reading and writing was still considered a big deal, a valued skill, a craft, an art. In medieval times, being a "Scribe" was a profession that demanded serious awe and respect --close to being a wizard or priest.
There's always been an elite though, a group of people above the intellectual level of the average person. I would hazard a guess that at the moment the gap in many western countries is smaller than it was in previous centuries. To ensure people keep up do the elite raise the bar by always writing in the finest of styles but also risk alienating those who see this as way beyond their reach. Or do they dumb the message down and try and include them? Its another of these things that will be a balance I imagine, you can't ignore the peoples abilities but you can't pander to them either.
If the people who cannot write look to people who can as a wizard is that not the same as the morons and rulers example. If the gap is going to be small between the top and the bottom then the top have to "dumb down" and the bottom have to stretch themselves. If we drag the bottom to the top then the top will just go higher! *curses the out of sync posting we have going on!*
It is exactly the same. Scribes had a lot of cred because reading and writing simply was not something that the general public had lots of access to. However, reading/writing (like any form of knowledge/education) is power, and one of the best things done to equalise the classes was to make it an obligatory part of everyone's education. Since the 1900's, most people can read and write (even if not necessarily very well), and that was the beginning of the end of the massive class differences we saw in Victorian times. Unfortunately, nowadays the luxury of education is taken for granted, and people are losing their basic three skills of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. The more we accomodate for the lack of those skills, the less people will be motivated to develop them. Regardless of how high the top goes, you have to be able to write a letter and manage your shopping budget.
Definite proof the human race is going downhill, when an audience 400 years ago could appreciate the language of Shakespeare and an audience of today watch Big Brother.
I wouldn't say Shakespeare and Big Brother was like for like, the audience for Shakespeare in Shakespeare's time was not a huge percentage of the population, where as Big Brothers audience is supposedly everyone under 35 (who are these people?)
400 years ago most people could not read at all, today the majority of the people can read. Although we still see illiteracy, it's not as bad due to improved (though still needing much improvement) in education. And I bet you that due to modern communication, there are more people familiar with Shakespeare per capita then there were when he was alive. And I think that most people who watch Big Brother are watching it not because they think it is good, but because it's like looking at a train wreck, no matter how horrible it is, they just can't turn away. Could it be considered modern day Shakespeare? It is a tragedy, is it not? LOL
It's not just a case of being able to read and write; language developed as an oral communication skill - choice of words matters. If the protesters had sung, "We will overcome" instead of the more shilly-shally "We shall overcome" they might have had more impact on society.
400 years ago the language of Shakespeare was the common tongue. Sometimes I wonder if people today hold his language in such high esteem because it's old and exotic. People may not have been able to write, but they could speak the language, and they understood what was being said on stage. In 400 years I'm sure people will still be complaining about how they just don't use the high language of Broadway. That's not to suggest Shakespeare couldn't write well. He used the common language, but he chose his words carefully and used them to great effect. There were, of course, subtleties that the commoner may not have caught, but I'm not sure that understanding the subtleties is a result of simply being able to read them. So, how far do we go back? It seems we all agree that the authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote well, but they did not use Shakespeare's English. People have been complaining about the decline in language since we first began forming words. I think the opposite is true. Over the centuries, language has grown; it has evolved. New spellings have replaced old ones, and we have new words with new meanings that we can use to explain greater emotions. If he was alive today, I think Shakespeare would be delighted to use such an expansive vocabulary as we have now. -monkey
Actually Shakespeare was inventing words - "one critic credited William Shakespeare with having coined nearly 10,000 words" - and using existing ones in ways that were brand-new - "with bated breath"; "a foregone conclusion". That's why Shakespeare is full of cliches; he invented them. It certainly wasn't the 'common tongue'. Far more like listening to a new type of music - the Beatles of 1607. He didn't dumb down the English language, he orchestrated it.
I'm not suggesting that Shakespeare dumbed down the English language, and I agree to some extent that he mastered the art of writing. When I say that he wrote in the common tongue, I mean to say that he was speaking the same language as everyone else. He may have invented new words, and he may have arranged words to create phrases that had never been heard before. Nevertheless, the peasants standing in the front row understood what was going on, because they spoke the same language. I think part of the reason his plays seem so high now is because the language has changed; but, I don't think it has changed for the worse. I do agree that sudden, forced change such as the example in the original article is not good. I do not, however, agree that we need to hold on so tightly to old dialects or forgotten modes of writing. If, in 100 years, we all walk around saying "LOL" instead of "Oh, that's funny," then I won't be bothered by it (actually, I'll be dead by then, but you get my point). Words can be powerful, and as you and Nexxo state good writing - indeed, good communication - has nuance and subtlety. On the other hand, words are human inventions, and only carry the definitions we give them. In 100 years, "LOL" might have some new, subtle meaning that isn't there today. Shakespeare had his characters thumbing their noses at one another. That phrase, and that action, has lost much (if not all) of its meaning today. Flip someone the bird, however, and then the message becomes clear. -monkey
Actually, Shakespeare was very much a jobbing actor and playwright. His target audience was the common people; if they did not come to see his plays, he did not earn any money. Theatre, in those days, was basic. There were no clever and impressive stage sets, and costumes were basic. The whole play depended for its ability to capture the audience's imagination on acting ability and evocative prose, hence the elaborate language. Amon mentioned sign language; that is actually a useful analogy. When I worked in Deaf mental health services, I was struck by something psychologists have known since researchers like Luria and Vigotsky: the enormous impact that language makes on cognitive development. It enables us to understand the world and people's thoughts, feelings and behaviour in it, conceptualise, and organise, reflect and self-regulate and plan and communicate. Without language (either spoken or signed, the modality does not matter), people cannot develop: they actually remain learning disabled. The more sophisticated the language, the better people are able to think. Language drives the development of thinking, and conversely, thinking drives the development of language. Deaf sign language is massively complex and culture specific (as is, for instance, Japanese). Unless you grow up with it, you will never learn to really master it like a native speaker/signer --this gives you an idea of how sophisticated it is. Most interestingly however: it evolved that way. Nobody "invented" sign language. It is something that evolved amongst Deaf people over the last centuries (unhelpful interference of hearing people notwithstanding). Nicaraguan Sign Language appeared as late as 1979. And today we have an incredibly sophisticated, nuanced, even beautiful language, that continues to evolve. No simplification there... signs may become compressed and simplified, but elegantly so, with each subtle nuance in gesture acquiring a slightly different meaning. Language does indeed evolve. But this is driven by its usefulness, not by its difficulty or simplicity. If anything, language tends to become more sophisticated as it evolves, as it mirrors the increasing sophistication of thinking. Current English (spelling included) is not some obscure dialect or forgotten mode of writing --it serves a function right now, being the way it is. Those who campaign to simplify English may strive to make it easier, but that is not the same as making it more useful or meaningful.
True, current English is not obscure or forgotten. I don't think I implied that (apologies if it came across that way). Current English is, well, current. As was Shakespeare's language in his time; it was current, but now seems antiquated and even confusing to some. We can still communicate effectively, even intelligently, but I don't recall the last time I heard prithy or wherefore in real conversation. I do agree with you that we shouldn't campaign to make these kinds of sweeping changes in the language (especially when they consist of nothing more than basic spelling changes). I'm more of a middle-of-the-road kind of person. While I appreciate well thought out prose, I don't necessarily object to natural changes because I know that it's part of the evolution of the thing. How exactly did sign language develop? Did signing develop by deaf people observing the way some of us talk with our hands, or was it an independent mode of communication? When I observe people in conversation, I notice that while we communicate verbally, it is more through body language and intonation that the message is transferred. When I worked for the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, we used to teach the importance of how you speak, rather than what you say (if I recall, it was something like 70% body language, 20% voice inflection, 10% words). As subtle as the written word can be, I think many of the nuances in communication come from the way in which we speak those words. I know that when I read something, I don't just read it; I 'verbally' act it out in my head in the way I perceive the author is speaking. This conversation reminds me of an episode of Futurama (why is it always Futurama?) in which Fry writes an opera: Robot Devil: You can't just have you're characters say how they feel! That makes me angry! -monkey
Some new language sticks, some doesn't, OK? Not this side of the Atlantic. Besides, it's used under very different circumstances; 'flipping the bird' is a gesture with crude sexual connotations, not something little kids might do.
I couldn't agree more. Yeah, I had thought about that when I was typing my reply. I suppose the middle finger is somewhat uniqe to America, though I don't think it has sexual connotations. At least, it doesn't any more. Nowadays it's just a gesture of extreme frustration; it's our special way of saying piss off, without actually saying it. Somebody cuts you off in traffic? Give 'em the bird. -monkey
