Nominations please, for the all asshole scale

[Andrew D]

Lord Jim was extremely obviously attempting to make it appear that I had claimed that my IQ is somehow "off the scale" (quotation marks to indicate colloquialism, not attribution). In fact, I made no such claim.

If you wish to believe that the claim which I actually did make is "pure bragging," you are, of course perfectly free to do so. To me, however, it is no more "bragging" than is the statement that I am six feet tall. Or the statement that my hair is brown. Or the statement that I have Morton's toe.

If I were to brag about something, I would brag about my accomplishments. (Graduating from a top-tier law school, ability to improvise impressively on the piano, whatever.)

Those would be subjects of bragging, because they concern what I have done.

I did nothing to attain my IQ. I was simply born with it, the way someone might be born with the ability to curl one's tongue or to perceive a difference in the smell of urine caused by the consumption of asparagus or any other innate feature.

Its existence is nothing to brag about, because I did nothing bragworthy to achieve it. I did not "achieve" it at all. I did not "succeed in [getting it] by effort, skill, or courage." (Compact Oxford.) However impressive (or boring or pompous or annoying or whatever) it may be, it gives me no reason to brag.

I got stuck with it.

Of course there are aspects of it which I like; otherwise, I would have killed myself many years ago.

But along with it -- and this is not especially uncommon -- I got stuck with conditions that require me to take sundry medications (the ones for things happening between my ears, setting aside the ones for things happening from my neck down). And got me sent to my first head-doctor in third grade. And another one in seventh grade. And then in tenth grade. And then in twelfth grade.

Within the past few days, I have seen two different head-doctors (in addition to the one who prescribed my most recent medication), and within the next few days, I will see one of them again, and I will see a third one. The general, although tentative, consensus is that my medications will require adjustment -- probably meaning increased dosages, additional medications, or both -- and that even so, I will require therapy.

Look at my recent posting history. (Just click on my name and follow the link.)

From Sunday through now (Friday morning where I am), there have been three breaks between my postings lasting eight hours or more. That tells you something about how often I get what most people would consider a normal period of sleep. And although I cannot prove it by my posting history, I did not get what most people consider a normal period of sleep during two of those three breaks either.

Care to know when I get eight hours' sleep? When I'm exhausted -- about once a week. Almost all the time, I survive on catnaps, if even that. And that's despite the strong sedative side-effect of one of my medications. (Its purpose is not sedation, but evidently no one has come up with a medication that does what that one is intended to do without a strong sedative side-effect.)

Exhausted sleep is not restful.

I rarely leave my house. And when I do, I rarely go more than five miles, and I'm rarely gone more than an hour.

If I did, I might have to encounter numerous people. And although, difficult as you may find this to believe, I am an exceptionally polite person, not many people want to talk to me for more than a few minutes. (Except the people who want free legal advice.) Not that they find me nasty; on the contrary, they generally find me quite nice.

But I'm also the strangest person most of them have ever spent more than a few minutes with. And most of them evidently find that off-putting. Even when I can see that "this was interesting, but now I think I'll go somewhere else" look on their faces, the words that come out of my mouth continue to be strange, at least partly because the non-strange things which occur to me would bore me to distraction should I bother to utter them.

Of course I have my good qualities; otherwise my wife, who has stuck with me for twenty years, would have dumped me a long time ago. My nephews would not be -- according to them and to my brother and to my sister-in-law -- excited for weeks at the prospect of my visiting them. I would not still be friends with people I've known since before I started grammar school.

Still, most of the time, it would be hard to say that there is a single "I" saying or doing or even thinking anything. Right now, there is the "I" that is deciding what to say, there is the "I" that is watching "me" decide what to say, there is the "I" evaluating the "I" that is watching "me" decide what to say, and on and on and on ....

And then there's the music. Ever get a tune stuck in your head? I can't remember the last time I did not have a tune -- and often multiple tunes -- stuck in my head. I love music, but I could certainly do without fifteen hours of the first two phrases of the theme from Gilligan's Island (a show I haven't even seen in decades), especially with "That's the way, uh huh, uh huh, I like it, uh huh, uh huh" going at the same time.

I get virtually no physical exercise. Most days, going up and down my stairs and maybe to the mailbox -- a whopping fifty feet or so -- is about it. (Except when I can manage to play the piano, which has been distressingly infrequently for some time.) I can't eat much at one time, but I eat every hour or two. All in all, I consume prodigious quantities of food. And I burn it off without appearing to do a damn thing.

Care to know what it feels like to be me? Try this:

Sit in an ordinary position -- knees bent, feet on the floor -- in a chair. Grab a knee with both hands. Squeeze it as hard as you can. Do that for five minutes.

And then do it for twenty minutes.

And then do it for an hour.

And then imagine yourself doing it every waking moment. That's how much energy I expend all the time, and that's without doing diddly-shit with my body.

So.

Do you see something in there for me to brag about?

Do you see some reason in there for anyone to envy me? Or for me to believe that anyone should envy me?

Yeah, I'm really smart. In all the standardized tests I've ever taken -- and there have been many -- only once have I ended up below the ninety-ninth percentile. (That was the LSAT -- ninety-fifth percentile -- and I was elated: It meant that in law school, most of my fellow students would have something interesting to say.)

So the fuck what?

[quaddriver]

Or the statement that I have Morton's toe.

Is that like 'camel toe'?

[Andrew D]

I don't even know what this dispute over language is still about. So let me articulate my understanding of the whole matter:

(1) If "dead language" means a language which no one learns as a first language, then the only "dead language" which, to my knowledge, has ever been resurrected is Hebrew. As far as I know, Hebrew is the only language which, for a time, was not learned by anyone as a first language and now is learned by some people as a first language.

(2) If (a) "dead language" means a language which no one learns as a first language, and (b) there was a time when Cornish was not learned by anyone as a first language, and (c) some people are now learning Cornish as a first language, then I am simply wrong: Hebrew is not the only dead language ever resurrected. But I have not seen a demonstration of those three facts.

(3) If "dead language" does not mean a language which no one learns as a first language -- if it means the language of one's ancestors or society or ethnic group or territory, even if there was a time when no one learned it as a first language -- then that language did not die and, therefore, could not have been resurrected.

What am I missing?

[Rick]

Do you ever search for the antithesis of yer evil genius?

In others that is...

[Gob]

I don't even know what this dispute over language is still about. So let me articulate my understanding of the whole matter:

(1) If "dead language" means a language which no one learns as a first language, then the only "dead language" which, to my knowledge, has ever been resurrected is Hebrew. As far as I know, Hebrew is the only language which, for a time, was not learned by anyone as a first language and now is learned by some people as a first language.

Cornish was a a first language until the 17 th century, it then died out until first there were no monoglot speakers, then no speakers at all, it effectively died. It was then resurrected by Henry Jenner and the like.,

Cornish is a resurrected language.

resurrected

verb (used with object)
1.
to raise from the dead; bring to life again.
2.
to bring back into use, practice, etc.: to resurrect an ancient custom.

Changing the goal posts to try and make "native" the criteria is just a strawman.

[Andrew D]

Changing the goal posts to try and make "native" the criteria is just a strawman.

But "native" has been a criterion from the beginning, Gob. I have been saying all along:

dead language
n.
A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

(Emphasis added.)

If you don't like that definition of "dead language," well, you don't.

But saying that I have somehow "chang[ed] the goal posts" by saying exactly what I have been saying the whole time is just absurd.

[Rick]

From here

Cornish language extinct, says UN

The Cornish language has been branded "extinct" by linguistic experts, sparking protests from speakers.

Thirty linguists worked on Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger, compiled by United Nations group Unesco. They also said Manx Gaelic was extinct.

Cornish is believed to have died out as a first language in 1777.

But the Cornish Language Partnership says the number of speakers has risen in the past 20 years and there should be a section for revitalised languages.

The Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger, published by Unesco, the cultural section of the United Nations, features about 2,500 dialects.

There are thought to be about 300 fluent speakers of Cornish.

But Jenefer Lowe, development manager of the Cornish Language Partnership, said there were thousands who had a "smattering" of the language.

"Saying Cornish is extinct implies there are no speakers and the language is dead, which it isn't," she said.

"Unesco's study doesn't take into account languages which have growing numbers of speakers and in the past 20 years the revival of Cornish has really gathered momentum."

Last year the partnership agreed a single written form of Cornish which brought together several different forms of the language.

“ It is among a group of languages that turned out not to be extinct but merely sleeping ”
Christopher Moseley Editor-in-chief of the atlas

Mrs Lowe said: "There's no category for a language that is revitalised and revived.

"What they need to do is add a category.

"It should be recognised that languages do revive and it's a fluid state."

Christopher Moseley, an Australian linguist and editor-in-chief of the atlas, told BBC News he would consider a new classification.

He said: "I have always been optimistic about Cornish and Manx.

"There is a groundswell of interest in them, although the number of speakers is small.

"Perhaps in the next edition we shall have a 'being revived' category.

"[Cornish] is among a group of languages that turned out not to be extinct but merely sleeping."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/u ... 900972.stm

Published: 2009/02/20 09:27:36 GMT

© BBC 2011

[Andrew D]

Cornish is believed to have died out as a first language in 1777.

But the Cornish Language Partnership says the number of speakers has risen in the past 20 years and there should be a section for revitalised languages.

(Emphasis added.)

Has Cornish recovered as a first language?

[Rick]

Evidently for some yes.

Minority status has been granted to those that are fluent and it is now on the upswing. As Stoat has pointed out there is a school and many parents are raising their children with Cornish as their native tongue

[Andrew D]

Where is that, keld feldspar?

thestoat posted:

I am not familiar with the history of Cornish. It could be that it died out by your definition (i.e. no longer learned as a native language) and then rose to prominence in the area more recently - the UK is trying to preserve its languages and there could well have been some push to do that. But I am not familiar enough with Cornish to say, and judging by your responses, you are not either.

I see no demonstration, or even any indication, that people somewhere (Cornwall, I imagine) are learning Cornish as a first language.

The article which you quoted does not contain such a demonstration either. According to one person:

But Jenefer Lowe, development manager of the Cornish Language Partnership, said there were thousands who had a "smattering" of the language.

"Saying Cornish is extinct implies there are no speakers and the language is dead, which it isn't," she said.

But I have not claimed that there are no speakers of Cornish.

So what?

There are people -- quite many people -- fluent in Latin. Does that mean that Latin is not dead?

Another person (at least, I think that it is another person) says:

“ It is among a group of languages that turned out not to be extinct but merely sleeping ”
Christopher Moseley Editor-in-chief of the atlas

Okay. If it was merely sleeping, then it was not dead.

As you may recall, my trivia question was about a "dead" language, not a "merely sleeping" language.

It is clear that Cornish is enjoying a renewed popularity. Which, as far as I am concerned, is a fine thing. I just don't see any demonstration that Cornish is being learned as a first language.

Maybe it is. Maybe there is someone somewhere learning Etruscan as a first language.

But there is only one language which meets what I consider -- and the reputable linguistic authorities appear to agree with me -- to be the criteria of a resurrected language:

(1) At one time, it was learned by people as a first language;

(2) At a later time, it was no longer learned by people as a first language; and

(3) At an even later time, it was once again learned by people as a first language

is Hebrew.

[Gob]

But there is only one language which meets what I consider -- and the reputable linguistic authorities appear to agree with me -- to be the criteria of a resurrected language:

(1) At one time, it was learned by people as a first language;

(2) At a later time, it was no longer learned by people as a first language; and

(3) At an even later time, it was once again learned by people as a first language

Who are these "reputable linguistic authorities", cites please?

resurrected

verb (used with object)
1.to raise from the dead; bring to life again.
2. to bring back into use, practice, etc.: to resurrect an ancient custom.

Cornish was dead, and has now been resurrected, there should be no debate about this.

About 500 years ago it was widely spoken across the southwest of England: accounts vary as to who was the last speaker, but popular legend seems to have it as a Dolly Pentreath, of Mousehole, who died 1777. (Supposed famous last words: "Me ne vidn cewsel Sawznek!" – "I don't want to speak English!").

Thus, and unlike the Welsh it is related to, in the 20th century, Cornish was a language that had to be resurrected rather than revived, and an impressive job they seem to be doing on it. It is officially recognised as a minority British tongue, and the number of speakers seems to have grown rapidly. There is even an online Cornish-Japanese phrasebook, a sure sign of a language and people with horizons far beyond the Tamar.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 32133.html

There are 6,912 living languages according to the Ethnologue. Of these there are 516 nearly extinct languages. Once language death occurs it’s very hard to resurrect a language because you need real live native speakers. Hebrew and perhaps Cornish are two successful examples of languages resurected\

A language is considered living if there are native speakers who can transform and reinvent the language to modern life or let it evolve. This is different then a dead language which is spoken by scholars who do not modify it according to their environment and usage.

There are native speakers of Cornish.

na·tive

adjective
1.being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one's native land.
2. belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.
3. belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, especially a preliterate people: Native guides accompanied the expedition through the rain forest.
4. of indigenous origin, growth, or production: native pottery.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the indigenous inhabitants of a place or country: native customs; native dress.

The Cornish language fits all these definition.

[loCAtek]

ThX AndrewD, and I say this with all due respect and regard, for verifying that the reasons behind social ostracism have nothing to do with the level of one's intellect.

Namaste

[Rick]

Sorry it was Gob that mentioned it and it was a preschool, page 8 of this thread...

[Andrew D]

The word-bending is becoming endlessly and pointlessly circular.

Is anyone contending that Cornish (1) at one time, was learned by people as a first language; (2) at a later time, was no longer learned by people as a first language; and (3) at an even later time, it was once again learned by people as a first language?

If people are contending that Cornish is no longer dead merely because it is now being learned by people whose first language was something other than Cornish, then the ineluctable conclusion is that Latin is also no longer dead. Sanskrit is also no longer dead. Etruscan is also no longer dead. The language of Egyptian of hieroglyphics is also no longer dead. The language of Ugaritic cuneiform is also no longer dead. Etc.

If that is the position which you wish to take, you are welcome to it.

On the other hand, it is interesting to learn that my native language is Costanoan ....

[Gob]

The only person "word bending" is you Andrew. First you changed the definition of a "resurrected language" to only be that which is spoken as a "first language". Then you defined it as having to be a native language.

You are wrong, and making things up.

Apart from you, who laid down this "first language" criteria Andrew? Making up laws to suit your own definitions is not acceptable.

Cornish was once the language of Cornwall, it died out, it was resurrected, Cornish is now spoken fluently in Cornwall and other places, it has been resurrected.

As it originated in Cornwall and is seems as belonging to the people of that place, it was, is, and remains the native language of Cornwall.

[BoSoxGal]

Wampanoag

[dales]

מדינת ישראל/دولة إسرائيل

[Sean]

My ancestors spoke bollocks.

I'm doing my best not to let it die out...

[Lord Jim]

My ancestors spoke bollocks.

I'm doing my best not to let it die out...

And let me say Sean, you do a marvelous job of it....

[Andrew D]

Cornish is still a dead language. It has not been resurrected. I hope that it someday will be resurrected, and I applaud the efforts of those who are trying to make that happen. But that day has not yet arrived.

I Have Not Made Up Anything:
Dead Language Is Defined By A Leading Dictionary,
And According To Wikipedia's Own Source,
"Native Language" And "First Language" Are Synonymous

As we have seen:

dead language
n.
A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.)

I did not make that up. Some people just don't like it.

Earlier, thestoat quoted a Wikipedia article on "first language". People should be careful about checking Wikipedia's citations. What the source cited by Wikipedia on the definition of "first language" actually says is:

The FIRST language a human being learns to speak is [her or] his native language; he [or she] is a native speaker of that language.

(Leonard Bloomfield, Language, page 43 (italics in original, boldface and capitalization added).)

I did not make that up either. That is Wikipedia's own cited source.

Claims That I Have Been Changing Definitions Or Making Things Up Are Baseless

Thus, both of these:

First you changed the definition of a "resurrected language" to only be that which is spoken as a "first language". Then you defined it as having to be a native language.

Apart from you, who laid down this "first language" criteria Andrew? Making up laws to suit your own definitions is not acceptable.

are rubbish.

American Heritage Dictionary defines a dead language as one no longer learned as a native language, and Wikipedia's own cited source explains that one's native language is the first language which one learns. I neither changed anything nor made anything up.

The Relevant Logic Is Straightforward

(1) A dead language is one which is no longer learned as a native language.

(2) A native language is a first language.

(3) Therefore, a dead language is one which is no longer learned as a first language.

Am I the only one who has no difficulty grasping that?

Is There Any Evidence That Anyone Is Learning Cornish As A First Language?

I have seen no such evidence. It has been suggested that a Cornish pre-school is teaching Cornish as a first language. But the person who actually runs that pre-school (Skol dy'Sadorn Kernewek – Cornish Saturday School) says otherwise:

The project is run by Rhisiart Tal-e-bot, who cut his teeth in pre-school bilingual education while teaching English in the Basque country.

He said that several studies had proved there were considerable benefits to learning an additional language before the age of five.

"All research shows that children who learn a second language at an early age not only have a greater capacity for learning other languages in later life but find it easier to learn other subjects in general.

"This is the first time it has been tried with such young children in Cornwall and we are hopeful it will be a success.

"We begin by building routines in a homely atmosphere, with the aim of making Cornish part of their everyday lives."

(Emphases added.)

The person actually running the project says that the project is teaching Cornish as "a second language". Who am I -- and who is anyone else here -- to contradict him?

The Fact That Some People Speak Cornish Does Not Mean That Cornish Is Not Dead:
If Cornish Is Not Dead, Then Neither Is Sanskrit

Wikipedia's own source, Bloomfield, uses (as I did) the example of Sanskrit, which "became, in time, the official and literary language of all of Brahmin India. Long after it ceased to be spoken as anyone's native language," it was still used "for all writing on learned and religious topics." Indeed, "from that time to the present ... an enormous body of artistic and scholarly literature" has been written in Sanskrit. (Page 11 (first and second quotations) and page 63 (third quotation).)

So the fact that some people still speak a language fluently does not mean that that language is not dead. Or, if it does mean that, then Sanskrit is not dead. Nor is Latin. Etc.

I have made that point previously, and no one has bothered to address it. It stands unrefuted.

The Wikipedia "First Language" Article Is A Garbled Mess

That article cites Bloomfield for this proposition:

A first language (also native language, mother tongue, arterial language, or L1) is the language(s) a person has learned from birth ....

(Boldface omitted.)

But as just quoted, Bloomfield does not equate first language or native language with mother tongue or with arterial language or with L1. He equates first language with native language. Period.

Wikipedia continues its already botched sentence:

... or within the critical period, or that a person speaks the best and so is often the basis for sociolinguistic identity.

[/quote]

But for that proposition, Wikipedia cites exactly nothing. Not Bloomfield. Not anyone else. Zero. Zip. Nada.

But People Who Take Wikipedia As Reliable Should Consider What Else Wikipedia Says

The Wikipedia article on "Language death" says that "a language is no longer a native language ... if no children are being socialised into it as their primary language". As far as we have seen, the only children being socialized into Cornish are being taught Cornish as "a second language".

The same Wikipedia article says:

The revival of the Hebrew language is the only example of a language which has become a language with new first language speakers after it became extinct in everyday use for an extended period, being used only as a liturgical language.

(Emphasis added; citing Luanne Hinton and Ken Hale, eds., The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice.)

The Resurrection Of Cornish Would Be Fine With Me

It seems to me that the resurrection of dead languages by those for whose ancestors those languages were living languages is a good thing. And I see nothing about Cornish which inspires me to make an exception to that general principle.

But "would be" and "is," however, are not synonymous. Maybe someday -- and the way things are going, it might well be someday soon -- Cornish will no longer be dead; it will have been resurrected.

It just hasn't happened yet.