Originality Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Blink your eyes, one for yes, two for no... |
| Newspeak rules |
|
71% |
[ 5 ] |
| Newspeak doesn't |
|
28% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Voted : 7 |
| Total Votes : 7 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Sindark Nave
Filthy Animal
Post #55309
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
    
|
Posted: Sun 2008-05-11 16:26
|
 |
| Politics: Marxism |
Country: Hong Kong |
|
| Is it possible to create a static language? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Fuck. I've never thought of this before. All languages have always evolved, to one degree or another; the process has only been slow close to none in isolated societies such as Iceland, but they are certainly exceptions.
The question begs to be asked: Is it possible to create a static language even in such a rigid society as Oceania? I think this is a major question that deserves to be addressed in a separate thread. |
Newspeak is supposed to be static. There is a rigidly defined number of words and vocab, and any straying from the dictionary is supposed to be thoughtcrime.
But as you know, no living language is stationary - at least for now. I'm not exactly good at linguistics, but the web is a lolling good exmple off thees lololol rotflol*
*deliberate 4chan attempt
Let's say Comrade A finds Goldstein agent (assuming this is lexicon) very tiresome when he has to write six thousand reports a week. Let's say this timid-natured comrade uses "GSagent", and this catches on as it means less work.
Now, this isn't really thoughtcrime, is it? No one's changing "free" into "free from government" or that kind of thing. But doesn't this itself defeat the purpose of newspeak? And wouldn't thinkpol have a good job to do when everyone is popping up loads of new "words" at a time and has trouble figuring who is an GSagent and who is not?
Also, we've got loads of different countries in Oceania as IO pointed out. Will their slang language get into their speech, giving a different nature than of "English" Oceanians? Perhaps they will invent their own lexicon?
In other words, language is chaos - which is what Newspeak is avoiding to be.
Or are they killing off the nature of language entirely? Will they eventually destroy the inventing nature of man, and allow language to become mostly static? They seem to be omnipotent, ubitiquous...they killed off most of sex, at least...
Will those urges be stamped out by the boot?
_________________
capitalists of the world unite
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Roderic
Outer Party
Post #55331
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 192
Total Words: 34,029
Average words per post: 177.23
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2008-05-12 00:08
|
|
| Politics: Technocratism |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
We would need to be perfect in order to keep a static language. However, we are not, and as generations begat to generations, idioms and other terms will evolve continuously, to the point where newspeak is no longer newspeak. Not even the harshest governments have completely subverted the evolution of language over time. A country as strict and surveiled as Oceania never existed as well.
I believe a situation similar to the one in China will develop in Oceania, where the written language is mutually intelligible, but the spoken languages have drifted apart to the point where some dialects are strange or unintelligible to speakers of other dialects. It wouldn't be in the best interest of the Oceanian government to completely micromanage language, simply because it's an absolute waste of time. Money could be poured into severing certain higher brain functions instead to make a happy, subservient slave subspecies of human. In this manner there is no possibility of thoughtcrime, because nobody is sentient enough to comprehend they're being used, rather than being unable to express their hate. Newspeak would actually make thoughtcrime even more difficult to detect simply because language would not only evolve on the level of a group, but in the level of the individual, and a thoughtcriminal who knows a language that cannot let him express what he wants to say will probably invent neologisms or a cockney rhyming slang that will allow him to express what he wants to say.
_________________
| Edward Bernays wrote: |
| The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rix
Prole
Post #58525
Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 12
Total Words: 958
Average words per post: 79.83
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2009-01-12 20:12
|
|
| Politics: Doublethinker |
Country: Airstrip One |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Some languages have been able to be kept somewhat static through the centuries. Latin for example, now being the sole reserve of classicists and Catholic clergymen and thus dead, has remained pretty much the same in its written form.
However even here there has been a changing in grammatical style, pronunciation and even the addition of new words as new concepts came into being.
Therefore I believe that no language can ever be truly static, even in oceania.
_________________
I know what I believe at this point in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Panday
Ignorant Prole
Post #59743
Joined: 02 Nov 2010
Posts: 3
Total Words: 26
Average words per post: 8.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2010-11-02 15:17
|
|
| Politics: Conservative |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| As long as there are developments in technology, language can't remain static. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Solitary Poet
Committee Member
Post #59791
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 464
Total Words: 63,475
Average words per post: 136.8
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2011-06-19 03:21
|
|
| Politics: Zionist |
Country: Zion |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Even supposed dead languages like Latin are changing along with the languages of those who translate them. The meaning of a Latin word will change when it's original meaning no longer exists in the language of the person translating it; the translator will find new words to express what he believes the Latin word means.
_________________
Why I don’t believe in “world peace”, by S. Poet
World peace would inevitably lead to lethargy of the human race and it’s eventual extinction. It’s adversity that fuels change; chaos is what moves things forward. It is not religion that fuels war, but opinion and individuality that drive people into conflict.
As long as humans are free to think and disagree there will be conflict and war. The individuality and uniqueness of free thought, that form the mote of the soul, are the causes of war. To end war you must destroy the human soul, you must cease to be human.
If there is nothing left to fight for, there is nothing left to live for. World peace is suicide.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
