Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
"English is very dynamic" seems like a questionable truism to me.
The fact that various blobs of speakers adopt more words from other languages than usual doesn't make the language itself dynamic... particularly since most of those words never make it into broad/general use.
Furthermore talking about "the English language" is becoming increasingly a misnomer. It's really "the English languages". Mutual intelligibility between British and American, Australian and American, Indian and American dialects can increasingly depend on the subject matter and the willingness of both speakers to try to accommodate the other one.
....
|
I would tend to - more or less - agree. All languages that are in use, can be said to be dynamic as they will adapt to changes, and include new words or concepts.
I'm not sure how to distinguish between more or less dynamic? How can one pin down, or define, speed of language change? If it is words used by a minority and is a recent change, can it then be said to be truly a part of the 'English language' or is it just a dialect or even a fad?
Another example; the official approach to spelling and langage here is rather conservative - but that doesn't mean that spoken language is nearly as conservative. It changes as lot and there are fads - they just don't make it into dictionaries. Is Danish dynamic?
I would agree that a special "dynamic" of English is the development of branches, such as American, British, Australian, Indian, South African (and probably a few more).