Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <dizdar
tam2000.tamu.edu>
Brief notes on Benji Wald's most recent long posting.... First, I know he is not elitist -- certainly not. However, to tout "the durability of a written message" in opposition to "the wild changes associated with mouth-to-mouth dissemination" in the context of a letter about inequality of languages *is*, in my opinion, elitist. I suggest a good long look at the number of typographical errors in scholarly books these days, and a good long thought about the extraordinary pains many oral cultures take to get orally "disseminated" information absolutely right. It is the print medium that is guilty of "wild changes," and of not giving a faint damn. Second, the fact that written language, at least for English, leaves out most of the emotional information, is indeed obvious; it is also a terrible impoverishment. Whether it is efficient depends on what part of the message you are most interested in getting across to the reader. Third, whether you learn more from an hour lecture or from an hour reading depends on sensory preferences and learning styles, not solely on the format of the language. Finally, there is the comment about literate societies being the ones that move to "complex syntax, squashing sentences together into clauses" and the like. My Navajo consultant, in teaching me about the proper format for telling stories, insisted that with each new sequence it was obligatory to condense all of the previous ones into the new one by multiple embeddings. This made "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" extraordinarily complex syntactically. Suzette Haden Elgin PS: I am someone who reads his postings all the way through. How else can you find out what's in them?Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue