Language desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 24

Writing systems and language type?

Hello all. I've been studying linguistics and I've noticed a trend, that writing systems seem to make languages more analytic over time. For example, more analytic languages such as Mandarin Chinese or Latin have long written traditions, whereas polysynthetic languages such as Ainu, Chukchi, and many New World languages have not until recently had a writing system. My explanation is that extremely long words are hard to read (with phonographic writing systems) so those people who were educated enough to read and write started breaking up words in text, which led to breaking up words in speech, and this just trickled from the educated people down to the vulgar people. Is there any linguistic research or support on this supposed trend? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree? (to put it politely) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you observe that "Mandarin and Latin have had writing for a long time, whereas Ainu and Chukchi have not", you should be mindful that correlation does not imply causation. The polysynthetic Mayan languages, for example, had the Maya script for some time. Latin was, during its prime, written without word dividers (see scriptio continua), and the introduction of spaces into written Latin didn't alter spoken Latin in any meaningful way. Gabbe (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are several problems with your suggestion. First, I would not put Chinese and Latin close together on the scale of analyticity (supposing there is one). Second, Chinese does not separate words in its script: it separates morphemes, some of which are words. Thirdly, since essentially every human that has ever learnt to write has comprehensively learnt their language (apart perhaps from some vocabulary) before they started learning to write, the possibilities of changes in writing being reflected in changes in speaking are rather limited. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that (Han) Chinese has been written for a long time but the development of Mandarin is a comparatively recent thing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, see spelling pronunciation for changes of speech due to writing. But no, the trend in Indo-European languages toward analyticity is a general one not related to how long the language has had writing, and explanations from genetic and areal linguistics are more relevant than lexicographical ones. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Finnish is highly synthetic, depite Finland having one of the most literate populaces on earth. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double negative

"I wouldn't keep driving if I thought I couldn't keep winning."

Is this correct grammar? A double negative? If incorrect, how could this have been stated correctly in a single sentence? Are there exceptions to the double negative rule? Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not "no double negatives in a single sentence", it's "no double negatives in a single clause." A new clause usually starts with a conjunction (such as "if"). There are three clauses in this sentence: I wouldn't keep driving / if I thought / (that) I couldn't keep winning. - filelake shoe 20:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2) It's fine. Not a double negative, but single negatives used in adjacent clauses/phrases.

A double negative would be something like "I wouldn't not take out travel insurance when flying overseas" instead of "I would always take out travel insurance ...". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes sense. (In the South we have to be careful with our double negatives. They are an unfortunate aspect of the dialect.) This sentence just gave me pause when I heard it. Kind of like when people say they "could care less" instead of "could not care less." Anyway glad to know it's correct. Thanks! Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 20:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There ain't no such rule. --ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some contrived sentences that use a double negative in a way that would be acceptable to proscriptive grammarians. One is "'When all those around me did nothing to help, I can be proud that I didn't do nothing" -- Q Chris (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that be rewritten as "I will keep driving as long as I think I can keep winning" or "I'll drive as long as I can still win" ? StuRat (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, really, on whether these are dichotomies, and the taken meaning of "if". In the OP's, it seems to me that if I do think I can win, I can choose whether to drive or not; in yours, I am obliged to keep driving. It's quite difficult to discern exactly what differences there are, but I do think there are some. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also depends on context. If someone said to him "You've done OK so far but you're not going to be able to keep winning", it would be more natural to respond with "I wouldn't keep driving if I thought I couldn't keep winning", rather than "I will keep driving as long as I think I can keep winning". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see someone diagram a sentence connected with Dizzy Dean, commenting on a batter swinging at a pitch that he was unlikely to hit well: "He shouldn't hadn't oughta swang!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]