A language issue?

[Simon]

Here's an example of one of my pet hates:



  COULD OF, SHOULD OF, WOULD OF


 COULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE


This is one of those errors typically made by a person more familiar with the spoken than the written form of English. A sentence like

[vgonis]

Simon, nice analysis! It is two sides of the same coin. What prevails is called development. But of course apart from the language development we have a civilization, ethics, consciousness, philosophy, way of life etc. It is quite peculiar that although technology   has progressed a long way the last 150 years, everything else seems to fall behind.
Now how does this have to do with the language issue?
The way I see it is that the language is not just a simple vehicle to cover our daily needs. It is not only a bearer of culture or science. It is actually the very thing that separate as from the animals, because with language we have logic. And the more control we have over language, the clearer we see things. Now don't get me wrong, but the two languages I speak were more accurate, lets say 100 years ago, while ancient Greek was such an accurate language, that apart from the terminology of the modern technology, it is beyond me why it has turn into the language we call modern Greek. Of course we all know why these changes happen, and it is not the time or the place to analyze it. I sometimes feel that we give in too easy to such changes, there is no actual resistance, and that affects our languages and eventually our lives.
The fantastic English language, paid dearly the cost for becoming the international language.       

[Simon]

When you say the languages were more 'accurate' Vgonis - I know what you are saying but in my opinion accuracy is only what is dictated i.e. what we are led to believe or rather programmed to believe. There is no accurate way to spell or pronounce a word - the only accuracy is what is accepted by society in general.

In England like all over the world there are many local dialects who spell and pronounce the same words differently. And the key word is 'different' - not wrong, just not the same.

We have a thing called the Queen's English - and there is nothing further from the truth - the Queen may speak it but 59.999999999 million other subjects don't:-)

[vgonis]

Simon, I understand and fully recognize your points. I partially agree with them. By accurate I certainly didn't mean spelling or pronunciation. After all, I wouldn't be able to judge anybody, since my English are not that good. By accurate I meant "saying something with fewer chosen words, that lead to such a focused and condensed meaning, that the speaker can express his thoughts in detail, and the listener understands exactly what the speaker says and means". It is a bit hard to find such a combination (speaker-listener), and that is why we have put in use (in everyday life) poetic technics like metaphors. We let the imagination fill the gaps of the poor knowledge or use of the language. And at the same time, for the same reasons, this is a blessing. Unfortunately the ones that should not play with words(politicians) are the ones that do it  the most.

Of course, there is a basis for the accuracy of the words. I see what you mean when you say that:

 

There is no accurate way to spell or pronounce a word - the only accuracy is what is accepted by society in general.

In England like all over the world there are many local dialects who spell and pronounce the same words differently. And the key word is 'different' - not wrong, just not the same.

We have a thing called the Queen's English - and there is nothing further from the truth - the Queen may speak it but 59.999999999 million other subjects don't:-)

     

But words have an origin. And the closer you get to this place of birth, the closer you are to their meaning. So a misspelled/pronounced word, might lead to a total lack of understanding or even worse a  different interpretation/meaning , to a different-wrong result.  A dictionary, world-widely recognized-such as Oxfords, should be used as a basis for better communication. And yes, any changes that prevail overtime, and are not just part of a fashion (how many of the hip words used in the swinging 60ies , are still in use?), and give new dimensions to the language and/or the mind,  could be included in the official vocabulary of every language.     

But back to the subject. MK's songwriting has changed since the DS days. I could follow his lines then, but lately, I caught myself trying to see if there are any printed lyrics, to see what he is saying. It is not the words he uses, but how they are used.

[twm]

Simon did not mention my contributions and I'd have to look back on my previous posts to check but I'm sure I was referring to written English, not spoken English. The wide range of dialects and regional accents around these islands is one of the glories of the English Language. Yes, I find a few dialects/accents hard on my ear (I have "tune in" to understand them readily) and a very few simply set my teeth on edge (no specifics here, as that might upset some readers). Though a Londoner, I have lived in worked in many different parts of Britain, some with strong regional accidents and I really love hearing different words,phrases, word usage and pronunciation.

I was more concerned about written English - not, I hasten to add, English written deliberately to reflect a local dialect or accent but English written for general, everyday use and for academic and similar use.

To demonstrate: when anyone says "could of", the listener will barely notice it but, when someone writes "could of", it is an indication that the writer does not know the language. As the reader, I have to make a mental adjustment to understand what the writer is trying to say.  It irks me to a slight degree but, more so, it saddens me.

"There is hope in honest error" [usually attributed to Charles Rennie Mackintosh but I believe that this originated with John Dando Sedding - both architects, interestingly]

[twm]

AMIT-ers may be interested in this, part of an interview that French singer Hugues Aufray has given recently to the Montreal Gazette:

Still, the Qu

[tunnel85]

AMIT-ers may be interested in this, part of an interview that French singer Hugues Aufray has given recently to the Montreal Gazette:

Still, the Qu

[twm]

No, since we were talking about a "language issue", I just thought it was an interesting comment from Aufray. 

Aufray was born, I think, in a fairly properous part of Paris and therefore I assume that his normal voice is a fairly standard French

I understand that French has three basic regional forms, based on how the word for "yes" was rendered in years gone by (oui, oc and si - from the Latin "hoc ille", "hoc" and "sic") and that the first of these predominates these days.  I also know that there were other languages in France, as I remember talking to someone in Alsace who was unhappy that the Alsatian lanuage was on the decline, and I have also heard similar comments about the Breton language. I also understand that there are many versions of French spoken across France and around the world, just as there are many versions of English spoken around the country and across the world. And I am aware that, for example, Jaques Brel's songs use a vocabulary from his particular part of Belgium.

I think Aufray is suggesting that French has become more standardised and that the form of the language which has become the standard form is not the most musical. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with him, as I'm just not qualified to say.

And, anyway, Aufray's first recordings were in Spanish, weren't they? Maybe he found Spanish a more musical langauge.

And by all means try his "Aufray Chante Dylan" album which I have on Lp and also tthe expanded version on CD. I also have a double CD set that combines these early recording with some later recordings of Dylan songs by Aufray. I don't have time to check but think it was called "Trans".

[tunnel85]

I think Aufray is suggesting that French has become more standardised and that the form of the language which has become the standard form is not the most musical. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with him, as I'm just not qualified to say.

I see what you mean. True that the music industry, but also television and radios, tend to promote the standard form, let's call it the parisian.

And, anyway, Aufray's first recordings were in Spanish, weren't they? Maybe he found Spanish a more musical langauge.

I only know his two biggest hit songs have spanish titles / chorus. But indeed it sounds great.
I think french is not great for rocking tunes.
Only for love songs

I've listen to a few Hugues Auffray translations. Very surprising and strange. Dylan is a poet and it's not possible to find a good translation that still fits on the music.
But I found them enjoyable because he highlighted the guitar part.

Your comment is not off topic. I could compare the importance of music vs lyrics.
For MK's songs : the most important is the music. I don't care about the meaning of his songs. A better understanding doesn't help : I just need some more guitar.

[twm]

The Aufray double-CD set I mnetioned was "Aufray Trans Dylan" and Aufray's short liner note uses lots of (French) words that start with trans..." to explain the problems of creating French language versions of these songs.

It is worth reading these notes, as they do cast a light on some of the problems of recreating the songs in French. Given my own difficultiues understanding Aufray, Brel, Brassens and others (my French is poor and learned decades ago, when at school), I much admire the contributions made in these threads by those for whom English is not their first language.