en·tro·py Pronunciation Key (ntr-p)
n. pl. en·tro·pies
1:…
2:…
3:…
4:…
(Definitions 1-4 omitted for the sake of argument)
5:Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
Looking to the discussion in the poetry thread, I can’t help but wonder if the breakdown in the fine distinctions between literary forms and the apparently increasing colloquialization of the American/English language is not merely another proof of the theory of entropy.
-I’m not convinced the dynamism of language is a recent development.
-Maybe use of the split infinitive, i.e. “, the apparently
increasing colloquialization..” reflects
entropy, however. 
Brian O.
[ This Message was edited by: brianormond on 2002-10-15 01:35 ]
[ This Message was edited by: brianormond on 2002-10-15 01:37 ]
[ This Message was edited by: brianormond on 2002-10-15 01:38 ]
Hmmm… might go along with you on the erosion of distinctions between literary forms (need to think more about that); but must politely question your assertion that colloquialization is “apparently increasing.” I’d agree that computer jargon, technical terms, etc., are indeed increasing apace; but not sure about the–dare we say American English?–language as a whole…even my hero, James Kilpatrick (may his tribe increase) would, I think, concede that a language is, and must be, analogous to a living, growing, changing entity; and that while many of the changes (such as the beastly “verbing” referenced in Walden’s sig) are distasteful, they are inevitable. But do these changes, in themselves, degrade the overall quality of thought, the ability to reason? Are they destructive in themselves? I’ve been an editor in the past, as well as a lifelong avid lover of books and writing; so I do understand your concern; but I wonder if the problem, if there is one, doesn’t lie more in the general decline of reading, which has begun to really worry me. Just my tuppence…
On 2002-10-15 01:30, brianormond wrote:
-Maybe use of the split infinitive, i.e. “, the apparently
increasing colloquialization..” reflects
entropy, however. >
Oh dear…after just questioning Chuck, I must now defend his syntax… the foregoing is a compound modifier, perhaps, but is not a split infinitive (which many grammar mavens think are sorta okay, anyway); an example of the latter would be, “to boldly go…” The universe is safe from heat death for the next few nanoseconds…
Scottie - right, it isn’t a split infinitive as used in that quote. Besides, a split infinitive is not incorrect English (double negative acceptable in this case) - it’s incorrect Latin and only became “incorrect” English in 17th Century England as a fashion because people were looking at the time at the classics as the ultimate of intellectual achievement. The fact is, English is a far more comprehensive and flexible language than Latin (or Greek) ever was.
On 2002-10-14 22:56, Chuck_Clark wrote:
Is English a sign of the end of days?
Yes . . . yes it is.
Thanks, Walden. This was getting far more serious than I had intended. I always did tend toward overly complicated jests.
re. increasing colloquialization:
The existence of the English language as we know it is a result of the mixing of Norman French with medieval Anglo-Saxon, resulting in a language that is unusually rich in synonyms, compared to other European languages. English is also extremely tolerant of, even welcoming to, foreign words and expressions, perhaps because of its origin as a sort-of “bastard” language.
Mike
I blame entropy for my messy room, but I don’t know about society…
I don’t know that it’s so much of a ‘decay’ of our culture rathern than just ‘change’.
Robert Pirsig (author of “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Lila”) attributes some of this to the Native American’s influence on our culture (specificaly our changes in speach/literary patterns). It’s a fascinating read.
On 2002-10-15 09:36, TelegramSam wrote:
I blame entropy for my messy room, but I don’t know about society…
Hehehehe.
Plato, btw, believed in the steady and inevitable decay and decline of the World and Civilization. It’s been a staple of Western culture ever since and it is strangely compatible with our more upbeat hopes for progress.
Whenever I hear people talk about how much worse crime, the young, the language, or the food is, I try to ask for their frame of reference. Usually it’s their sixth-grade world view, perhaps the forties and fifties and if I am lucky the 19th century (“all morality and decency is lost”). I have yet to hear a good argument of how the decline of the language is worse than what we saw in the fourteenth century…
On 2002-10-15 05:01, nickt wrote:
Scottie - right, it isn’t a split infinitive as used in that quote. Besides, a split infinitive is not incorrect English (double negative acceptable in this case) - it’s incorrect Latin and only became “incorrect” English in 17th Century England as a fashion because people were looking at the time at the classics as the ultimate of intellectual achievement. The fact is, English is a far more comprehensive and flexible language than Latin (or Greek) ever was.
Infinitives in Latin are one word; so I don’t think it is even possible to split an infinitive unless one adds an infix construction to Latin. Also I am not sure that anyone would look to Latin for the basis of word order in English since word order in Latin was strictly optional.
"Infinitives in Latin are one word; so I don’t think it is even possible to split an infinitive unless one adds an infix construction to Latin. Also I am not sure that anyone would look to Latin for the basis of word order in English since word order in Latin was strictly optional. "
What I know is strictly hearsay, but me sis who studied linguistics once told me that the feeling that one could not split an infinitive in the English language was influenced by the rules for the German language.
[post-edit] She also studied basic German.
[ This Message was edited by: tuaz on 2002-10-15 10:59 ]
Just a final thought on this whole enthropy in language thing. Languages were, are and always will be extremely changable. The English we speak is not quite the same as our parents nor is theirs quite the same as their parents before them. Modern media has several effects; on the one hand it brings common spelling and pronunciation into general use, it also limits the development and persistence of regional dialects; on the other hand, it makes sure that slang that does enter the language spreads incredibly fast, so fast that a slang term might reach the entirety of the English speaking world in just a year or two.
Personally, since the old forms of English rarely completely fall out of use (even if the only people who still use the old forms historians and lovers of older literature) the continued evolution of English has added complexity to the language which is generally considered to be the reverse of entropy.
Bloomfield,
if I wasn’t too busy this morning I’d be tempted to take up your challenge. The argument could certainly be made. J.R.R. Tolkien, for instance, seems often to have the opinion that English literature started around Beowulf and ended in Chaucer; everything afterwards is mush. Certainly his love-hate relationship with Shakespeare is very much more often on the hate side, and by the time you get to the nineteenth century romantics it’s nothing but simpering sappy drivel.
My own views are not quite as adamant . . . and yet if one wanted to argue that civilization reached its all-time high in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries I would be sympathetic. Whether you pick art, music, literature, philosophy, or architecture you can show illuminated books, polyphony of incredible complexity and spledor, Dante, Aquinas and Scotus, the great cathedrals, etc. THOSE, my imaginary extremist friend would say, were the good old days (ignore the political and sociological problems which after all are still current in more places than not). All of modernity and especially the Renaissance was overrated.
Again I’m not espousing this onesided view but I don’t think it can be laughed off either.
On 2002-10-15 10:49, Liam wrote:
Also I am not sure that anyone would look to Latin for the basis of word order in English since word order in Latin was strictly optional.
They used to, however. Some Reverend so-and-so schoolmaster wrote a grammar, I believe in the 19th century, and invented the rule against split infinitives, exactly because you can’t split infinitives in Latin. (Martin Luther, btw, superimposed much Latin grammar on the German of his time in his Bible translation, so it’s not an unusual phenomenon).
But it’s a myth that you are not allowed to split infinitives. You wouldn’t want to rephrase this one, I am sure: To boldly go where no man* has gone before
Everyone who hasn’t should consult H. W. Fowler, Modern English Usage (1926), on this and other issues. Fowler distinguishes five classes of English-speakers: (1) Those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condem; (4) those who know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish.
You’d want to be either in category 1 or 5, as I see it.
*) I scorn the rephrasing in TNG. Just in case you wondered.
/bloomfield
[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-10-15 11:04 ]
-I laughingly stand corrected re. split infinitives.
Brian O.
[ This Message was edited by: brianormond on 2002-10-15 11:15 ]
I come into categary 1)… well they say ignorance is bliss!!
Whenever I hear people talk about how much worse crime, the young, the language, or the food is, I try to ask for their frame of reference. Usually it’s their sixth-grade world view, perhaps the forties and fifties and if I am lucky the 19th century (“all morality and decency is lost”). I have yet to hear a good argument of how the decline of the language is worse than what we saw in the fourteenth century… >
In large part, you’re right. But the food IS worse - for those who have ANY, of course.
On 2002-10-15 10:58, Michael Sullivan wrote:
if I wasn’t too busy this morning I’d be tempted to take up your challenge. The argument could certainly be made. J.R.R. Tolkien, for instance, seems often to have the opinion that English literature started around Beowulf and ended in Chaucer; everything afterwards is mush. Certainly his love-hate relationship with Shakespeare is very much more often on the hate side, and by the time you get to the nineteenth century romantics it’s nothing but simpering sappy drivel.
Kind of interesting that Tolkien thought that English Literature ended with Chaucer since of course modern English did not yet exist.
My own views are not quite as adamant . . . and yet if one wanted to argue that civilization reached its all-time high in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries I would be sympathetic. Whether you pick art, music, literature, philosophy, or architecture you can show illuminated books, polyphony of incredible complexity and spledor, Dante, Aquinas and Scotus, the great cathedrals, etc. THOSE, my imaginary extremist friend would say, were the good old days (ignore the political and sociological problems which after all are still current in more places than not). All of modernity and especially the Renaissance was overrated.
Again I’m not espousing this onesided view but I don’t think it can be laughed off either.
Well as a former student on the Middle Ages, I think it is pretty safe to say that while the 12th-14th century were hardly a dark age, indeed an age in which much progress was made, it is pretty safe to say that in no way could it be considered the high point of any civilization (in Europe that is, other areas of the world may differ). You forget that it was an age where illiteracy was even more prevelant than the norm in
pre-printing press cultures, where science did not exist and where medicine might actually have been regressing. Philosophy was enthralled with Scholasticism which while impressive, relied far to much on authority as the source of truth. As for music and art… well I think few could argue that the Renissance was a bad thing.