Editor for this issue: <>
Shortly after the October Revolution, Lenin proposed that all Soviet citizens address each other with the formal "vy," on the rationalization that all of the people had become the owners and controllers of the society. He reported that he, personally, had found it awkward to shift from "ty" to "vy" in addressing old friends. I don't know how long this reform was advocated, but it clearly did not catch on. (It is interesting that a similar effort was made after the French Revolution, but in the opposite direction. There it was directed that all citizens address each other as "tu," since the aristocracy had been established. That reform didn't take hold either.) Another direction of Soviet language reform was directed towards the Turkic languages of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Here the concern was with "perfecting" those languages by bringing their syntax in line with Russian. For example, special efforts were made to introduce relative pronouns and postnominal relative clauses, in place of the indigenous (and typologically consistent) preposed participial clauses. It was argued--especially for journalism--that such "perfection" of the languages would make for clearer writing. There were also efforts to introduce gender distinctions for occupational terms into these genderless languages. (And, of course, after briefly replacing their Arabic script with Latin, all of these languages were given Cyrillic writing systems--with intentional incompatibilities between the versions of Cyrillic used in each language.) Dan Slobin (slobinMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecogsci.berkeley.edu)
With respect to "mouses" (computer) vs. "mice" (rodent). Note that the plural of "walkman" is "walkmans", not "walkmen". On the other hand, the plural of "workman" is "workmen". The irregular plurals seems more closely tied to the original, literal meaning, whereas the newer, more metaphorical meaning allows the more productive plural. -Ellen Contini-MoravaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
I always use _kilometer_ along with _controversy_ and _comparable_ as examples of what can happen when two tendencies for linguistic change clash. Tendency 1 says put the stress on the antepenultimate syllable: 'anchovy for earlier an'chovy. Tendency 2 says keep the morphology transparent: irre'vocable for earlier ir'revocable. Laurie BauerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Perhaps I take too strong a Hallidayan / Whorfian view of things but if one doesn't start with the premise that differences are cultural do we just suppose that languages differ by chance? Of curse it takes more than a couple of signs to be convincing but with a larger corpus I wuld have thought that cultural differenence was the first hypothesis worth testing? John WheatleyMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1991 14:38:55 -0500 > From: Mimi Klaiman <klaimanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueux.acs.umn.edu> > Subject: WARNING > > I agree with Christine Kamprath that it's dangerous to > ascribe the differing content of German, French and other > warning messages to cultural differences. Last time I > rode the Calcutta subway--earlier this year--there were > Hindi and Bengali language versions of a warning about > leaning on the sliding exit/entrance doors. The Hindi > one merely said leaning on the doors is forbidden, while > the Bengali one more solicitously said that leaning on > the doors is dangerous. I didn't ask anyone but I doubt ******************************* > it would have been unnatural had the Bengali one like the > Hindi one simply forbidden people to lean on the doors. I don't think Klaiman is the first one in the ongoing discussion to make statements in favor of or against (in her case against) the possibility of cultural differences reflected in everyday warning signs without checking them out. I therefore repeat my earlier > WARNING: :-) > It is AS DANGEROUS to ignore the possibility of cultural differences > as it is to underwrite their existence unreservedly. Dr Bert Peeters Tel: +61 02 202344 Department of Modern Languages 002 202344 University of Tasmania at Hobart Fax: 002 207813 GPO Box 252C Bert.Peeters
modlang.utas.edu.au Hobart TAS 7001 Australia