NPR released a fascinating article today (decidedly written from an American English perspective), that I daresay all native English speakers (including us overly pedantic authors) should read every few weeks, specifying that our tendency to correct everyone's grammar does more to confuse than it does to clarify.
The article's site can be found at: NPR: Tower of Babel: Nonnative Speakers Navigate the World of 'Good' and 'Bad" English.
Good article, but as I discovered on the forum of a US site with international coverage, following the guidelines (as I did when giving advice to a non-English speaker) can result in you (as a native English speaker) being perceived as having English as a second language.
Good article, but as I discovered on the forum of a US site with international coverage, following the guidelines (as I did when giving advice to a non-English speaker) can result in you (as a native English speaker) being perceived as having English as a second language.
That was the whole point, as the article accuses authors who chide uses of non-native English usage as being an act of class warfare (and we've seen enough of those same arguments here, a fair amount by myself).
The difference between formal English and colloquial English is what they're talking about, and the core of that difference is due to three things:
1. Human nature to use short cuts where they can. This is why we have contractions, nicknames, slang, and colloquial expressions, etc.
2. English is the most active and living language in use in the world today. Where most foreign languages (but not all) have all or most of their words ans usage locked into a straight jacket, or very close to doing so, English is a huge loose hoody jacket.
3. English is a polyglot language. What we call English today is actually made up from bits and pieces of many languages due to the many conquerors of Britain over the course of its history. The locals survived and communicated with their new lords by absorbing enough of the invader's language into what they spoke to be understood by them and to understand them while also retaining enough of their older language to be understood by the other locals. What we use in English today has components from the original Pict language, Celtic cultural influences, Roman invasions, two Germanic invasions, French invasions, and Norse invasions - just to name the major ones. Thus English never had a chance to set itself into stone.
This is why we have contractions, nicknames, slang, and colloquial expressions, etc.
And "etc." is an example of Latin encroaching into English. It is an abbreviation for "et cetera".
"Et cetera, abbreviated to etc., etc, et cet., &c. or &c is a Latin expression that is used in English to mean "and other similar things", or "and so forth". Translated literally from Latin, et means 'and', while cētera means 'the rest'; thus the expression means 'and the rest'."
English is a polyglot language.
Poly means many from Greek. (Poly Ticks means many blood sucking insects.) Glot is Greek for tongue.
"-glot,
a combining form with the meanings "having a tongue,'' "speaking, writing, or written in a language'' of the kind or number specified by the initial element:
polyglot.
Greek (Attic) -glottos -tongued, adjective, adjectival derivative of glôtta tongue; see glotto-"
Once again English contains some pretty foreign words.
2. English is the most active and living language in use in the world today. Where most foreign languages (but not all) have all or most of their words ans usage locked into a straight jacket, or very close to doing so, English is a huge loose hoody jacket.
3. English is a polyglot language. What we call English today is actually made up from bits and pieces of many languages due to the many conquerors of Britain over the course of its history.
And it even goes beyond that. Both UK and US English have brought in a lot of words from other languages, even today.
a cappella, al dente, and other from Italian. Pyjama from Hindustani. Gung Ho from Chinese. Honcho from Japanese. US English is littered with words from both Spanish and Indian languages, from rodeo and arroyo to the names of many of our cities and states.
You do not even have to go back to ancient England to see how we readily bring in new words into our language.
You do not even have to go back to ancient England to see how we readily bring in new words into our language.
Why invent a word for something when we can steal one form someone else?
Why invent a word for something when we can steal one form someone else?
Another example of elitism in literary cliques (by authors, rather than literature experts)?
Why invent a word for something when we can steal one form someone else?
Talk to the Académie Française in France.
It is actually an official French council, intent on keeping the language "pure French", and stomping out the use of foreign words that may enter the language.
For example, in news broadcasts and official Government publications, you can not use walkman, computer, software and e-mail. Instead you have to use (baladeur (Walker), ordinateur (organizer), logiciel (feminine variant of "logic"), and courriel (created word for "electric courier).
Yes, there is actually an official government board in France to keep their language "Pure French".
Thank heavens we in the US and UK are not that anal. Or we would miss out on hentai, anime, and paizuri.
It is actually an official French council, intent on keeping the language "pure French", and stomping out the use of foreign words that may enter the language.
And from what I've read on it, failing miserably when it comes to common usage.
And from what I've read on it, failing miserably when it comes to common usage.
Not only are their decrees not well received by the French people, their French versions of foreign (i.e. Americanized) words are so convoluted and complicated, they're virtually useless in either open dialogue or email missives, not to mention imponderable in printed books.
But being both French language chauvinists and government employees you should not expect them to do the sensible thing and give it up as a bad job.
Gung Ho from Chinese.
Courtesy of "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children", while completely revising the meaning ...
Courtesy of "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children", while completely revising the meaning ...
Not really. The phrase actually means "pull together".
The phrase entered the Marine's language from Evan Carlson, who was at one time one of the Marines that was trying to protect them from the attacks by the Japanese. And when he formed the "Raiders" in WWII he brought a lot of words like that into use. Which does mean among many things to work as part of a team.
Even more interesting I thought was a 1980's movie about a Japanese car company that used that as the title.
The phrase entered the Marine's language from Evan Carlson
True, it came from Evan Carlson, and he did tell his Raiders what it meant when he introduced into 'Raider' lexicon. However, most early Raiders didn't last long as Raiders because their primary operations were against Japanese-occupied, malaria-infested, tropical Pacific Islands. The primary treatment - quinine - was in short supply as Japan had invaded both the American Philippine territories and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and cut off the supplies. The malarial-ridden Raiders were treated to long recoveries in cooler climates (Southern AUS or NZ) as well as being banned from returning to tropical operation areas, and were sent back to Camp Pendleton or other stateside bases. The former Raiders carried their unique lexicon with them and it was soon picked up by other, 'mainstream' marines with some translations occurring. That, and the 1943 Randolph Scott/Robert Mitchum Gung Ho movie about the Makin Island raid, gave Gung Ho its current "overly enthusiastic or energetic" meaning.
Carlson was an interesting character - Navy Cross w/two stars (additional awardings) and medically retired as a BG after WWII. Probably should have received the MoH but was not fondly remembered but most senior Corps staff.
Ironically, both the 1980 Michael Keaton movie and '86-'87 Scott Bacula TV show went back to the original Chinese definition - probably because of the heavy Japanese influence in both productions.
You do not even have to go back to ancient England to see how we readily bring in new words into our language.
True, but it established the precedent for borrowing words.
Actually, the article doesn't argue against any of those specific points, it instead attacks the very things that authors focus on 'speaking like a native', references to common events and colloquialisms. Those are the things that make fiction come alive and feel 'real' for most readers, rather than simply a piece of dry text.
it instead attacks the very things that authors focus on 'speaking like a native', references to common events and colloquialisms.
Which is something I think is a retarded thing for somebody to do. And it is not even original.
Simply looking up the "Mid-Atlantic Accent" will see how such was attempted with the spoken word. If any wonder why some like some like the Roosevelt Presidents, Jackie Kennedy, the entire Kennedy clan, John Kerry, Bette Davis, Tyrone Powers, Cary Grant, and Vincent Price got their accent, that is where it came from.
Literally a fictional and created accent, intended to imply "upper class", an artificial blending of both New England and England accents. And until WWII, most broadcasters and a great many "serious" actors and actresses used it. Especially if they were trying to hide more "rural" roots.
Myself, I love when I can write a story, and with how things are said help show where the characters are from or where they are. I can even pick out most people from California and Idaho by accent and words used. And differentiate people from East and West Texas apart, as well as North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama.
And yes, I have even sent "corrections" to people in here in such things. Most recently, a gal in LA offering a guy a "pop". Well, that is not an "LA word", they say "soda". Or another one last year where the guy was given directions to get on "Interstate 5". Once again, not in LA. They would say "The 5", or "the Golden State". NOBODY there for more than a few months says "Interstate" or "I" when listing a freeway.
And by the same token, a writer from California has to be careful in the opposite way. Do not have your Floridian say they are "Getting on the 10 to go to New Orleans", they are getting on the "I-10".
To me, this is just adding a deeper level of immersion. And having moved many times in my life, I have become very attuned to these differences. As I described in one of my stories, when I moved to California from Idaho I did indeed still use "I-number" when listing freeways, but only for a month or so. And when I live California after a month or so of saying "The 10", I start saying "The I-10" because it is what everybody else in the area does.
But I know another Californian in seconds, because we still slip sometimes and use things like that. As well as our vowel slurring.
And this is tricky for writers. I'm writing a story set in high school in Houston in 1980. At that time, probably 3/4 of the kids would've been born somewhere else to parents from somewhere else. That tends to make them bland and 'middle-American'.
However, many of them will say 'y'all', and 'howdy', at least on occasion. Characters from East Texas will say 'well, bless his heart' - which (for non-Southern-speakers) is a put-down. Using 'Monday week' as a time reference would be common.
Yet the first two are grating for some people, and the second two are almost impenetrable for readers not familiar with the colloquialisms and constructions.
And we're not even getting into the 'pop', 'soda', etc debate. 'Coke' was often the generic word, with 'Sprite', 'Pepsi', etc being a type of 'Coke'. PepsiCo did NOT care for that, mind you, but that's how things were.
Then there's 'barbecue' vs 'barbeque' vs 'BBQ'. There are strong arguments for any of those.
'Coke' was often the generic word, with 'Sprite', 'Pepsi', etc being a type of 'Coke'. PepsiCo did NOT care for that, mind you, but that's how things were.
I'm reasonably certain the the Coca-Cola Company was even less happy about it than PepsiCo.
They were never in any danger of losing their trademark and probably sold more Coke than they would have otherwise.
PepsiCo had a firm policy (still does, I think) that any business that serves only Pepsi has to make it clear they don't serve Coke, only Pepsi, and would you like Pepsi? I remember when they started pushing that policy and it was mostly around the ubiquity of 'Coke' as synonymous with 'soft drink'. They really didn't want the business just substituting Pepsi and not making it clear (which is what most places that were Pepsi-only did, prior to the policy change).
They were never in any danger of losing their trademark and probably sold more Coke than they would have otherwise.
Yes, they would have been. You can lose a trademark if people start using it as a generic term. That's not just something the courts have said, it's explicitly spelled out in US Trademark law.
Now it's not automatic, but if they were to sue someone for violating their trademark, it's something the defendant can raise as a defense.
I agree, and perhaps they were more worried than I'm thinking they were. However, the push was entirely from PepsiCo; there was never any corresponding push from Coke to tell Coke-selling businesses to correct customers who said 'I want a Coke.' 'What kind?' 'Pepsi' that Pepsi was not 'a Coke'.
It would be a potential trademark defense, I agree.
there was never any corresponding push from Coke to tell Coke-selling businesses to correct customers who said 'I want a Coke.' 'What kind?' 'Pepsi' that Pepsi was not 'a Coke'.
They wouldn't need to tell the coke selling businesses since they arguably aren't using it generically. They would have to tell the other businesses that.
However, Coca-Cola probably just complained to PepsiCo.
Nearly all the fast food brands and a good number of the full service restaurant chains that serve Pepsi are owned by a restaurant holding company that is itself partly owned by PepsiCo.
there was never any corresponding push from Coke to tell Coke-selling businesses to correct customers who said 'I want a Coke.' 'What kind?' 'Pepsi' that Pepsi was not 'a Coke'.
Actually, I just sifted through a score of trademark lawsuits that Coca-Cola has been involved in. And none seem to be around the use of the word "Coke".
I think this is because all other beverage makes tend to use "Cola", which by itself is not trademarked. And things such as "common usage" can be hard to pin down unless some other company decided to push the issue into court.
"Kleenex" for example is another, or "Q-Tip". Both trademarked and also in common usage. But seeing that all others tend to use "facial tissue" and "cotton swab", this shows that those manufacturers are aware of the lawsuit risk and deep pockets of taking on those companies (and knowing they would likely lose).
Myself, I use the word "soda" when ordering such a beverage, not wanting to get into the entire "waiter correction" which I see happen far to often. But it is also not as big of an issue as it once was, since Coke managed to push Pepsi out of a lot of restaurants in the 1980's.
there was never any corresponding push from Coke to tell Coke-selling businesses to correct customers who said 'I want a Coke.
I seem to remember a push by Coca Cola in the UK. If a customer asked for a coke, they had to be served Coca Cola or, if they didn't stock Coca Cola, they had to ask whether eg Pepsi was acceptable.
I'm not sure how successful it was or whether it still continues today.
AJ
I seem to remember a push by Coca Cola in the UK. If a customer asked for a coke, they had to be served Coca Cola or, if they didn't stock Coca Cola, they had to ask whether eg Pepsi was acceptable.
That is the norm in the US also. Probably because some would probably sue if they asked for "Coke", and were served Pepsi instead without being informed.
IMO Pepsi and Coca-Cola have different tastes. When I ask for one and get the other, I am displeased.
One of the companies (Pepsi?) ran a comparison taste challenge, presumably to demonstrate most people couldn't differentiate between the two. Easy peasy for me. And no, I'm not a fizzy drink addict. (Actually my favourite version was a supermarket own-brand 'American-style cola'. But I reckon I was in a small minority because they dropped the line.)
AJ
They definitely taste differently. And 'New Coke' tasted different from either (though closer to Pepsi).
I haven't found a supermarket version that I really like. On the other hand, I prefer (Diet) Dr. Pepper to either, and there are at least two knockoffs that are very good. But then I prefer Diet Mt. Dew to any of the brown-colored options.
I'm a fizzy-drink addict, but the great majority of that is SodaStream (built into our fridge) and either SodaStream flavorings (which are good, but in scarce supply due to pandemic-related supply chain issues) or various brands of liquid flavorings.
I'm a heavy coffee addict
Does that mean you're overweight, or do you like your coffee made with heavy water ;-)
AJ
I'm a heavy coffee addict, does that count?
There are various 'bubbly' coffee drinks, as well as coffee flavored beers (and yes, they're as bad as they sound).
There are various 'bubbly' coffee drinks, as well as coffee flavored beers (and yes, they're as bad as they sound).
Which was a running joke on the Drew Carey Show. Drew and his friends invented such and brewed and sold it out of his garage.
It had the slogan "Stay up and get drunk".
There are various 'bubbly' coffee drinks, as well as coffee flavored beers (and yes, they're as bad as they sound).
Ugh, no thanks. I like my real coffee black, strong, and hot :D
Roman invasions, two Germanic invasions, French invasions, and Norse invasions - just to name the major ones. Thus English never had a chance to set itself into stone.
It's not only the people who came to England who changed the language; it's where the English went. The language absorbed much from North America and India. Even Yanks sleep in pajamas and live in bungalows.
It's not only the people who came to England who changed the language; it's where the English went. The language absorbed much from North America and India. Even Yanks sleep in pajamas and live in bungalows.
It might to be interesting to determine whether there are any nations who haven't stolen terms/phrases from.
On the other hand, if the intention is to study at a university, including writing essays in English and comprehending subject matter written in English, being unable to pass even an English as a second language exam means a candidate will struggle compared to their peers.
Is university a middle class privilege? Some people might say so.
AJ
On the other hand, if the intention is to study at a university, including writing essays in English and comprehending subject matter written in English, being unable to pass even an English as a second language exam means a candidate will struggle compared to their peers.
Except the critique wasn't leveled at those applying for university positions, but at the many immigrants applying for positions like medical physicians, who struggle at the unusual English usage in common American and British dialogue. They can easily converse with most natives, but struggle with the common references like baseball, football and cricket, or any common references other than those found in American blockbuster films.
You'll never get a job and an American or British author, literary critique ore even and editor is you can't quote common regional usages, but for those working in the technical fields, so cares whether they can or not?
It's an interesting premise, and I'm not sure it even should apply to literature, except it does apply to our being able to communicate for English speaking non-natives (such as Australians, English speaking Indians or any English using computer user) who might frequent SOL.
It's not that we shouldn't give our stories an authentic feel, but we should stop attacking those asking questions or posting stories who don't grasp the many nuances that native English authors regularly pose.
Except the critique wasn't leveled at those applying for university positions,but at the many immigrants applying for positions like medical physicians, who struggle at the unusual English usage in common American and British dialogue. They can easily converse with most natives, but struggle with the common references like baseball, football and cricket, or any common references other than those found in American blockbuster films.
Strange, the article specifically mentions someone applying to study at a university in Israel.
The inability to converse with natives is one of the biggest issues with non-native medical staff entering the UK to work (and the anti-functional EU made it illegal to test the language skills of migrant EU medical staff). Patients have died because of miscomprehension. I think it's not reasonable for patients to adopt a different dialect of English because their doctor is foreign.
I believe you claimed that you don't write for seventh graders, and you like to write complex sentences. Are you planning to simplify your writing style to appeal to English-as-a-second-language readers?
AJ
I believe you claimed that you don't write for seventh graders, and you like to write complex sentences. Are you planning to simplify your writing style to appeal to English-as-a-second-language readers?
At the moment, no, though I am open to new insights, as our understanding of issues evolves over time. Though this reinforces what I've been reading lately about using cliche's in stories (most sources now insist on inventing your own metaphors, rather than trotting out tired, overused pet phrases).
On the other hand, if the intention is to study at a university, including writing essays in English and comprehending subject matter written in English, being unable to pass even an English as a second language exam means a candidate will struggle compared to their peers.
That will be depending on the writing.
If I am writing technical text, it is clean and without regional influences.
If I am writing a "story", it is full of such insertions.
Imagine trying to read Damon Runyon or Dashiell Hammer without their distinctive ways of writing. Or watching Sam Spade if Bogart had tried to use his wife's Mid-Atlantic Accent.
If I am writing a "story", it is full of such insertions.
The danger is that you'll alienate readers who are not familiar with those regionalisms.
AJ
Regionalisms often elevate a story far enough above the mediocre to make it interesting. After all, pretty much every conceivable plot line has already been used repeatedly. Keep it interesting, and we're willing to forget that we already have a good idea what's going to happen.
Granted there are a number of (mostly young) people who expect to be protected from ever having to think or exert themselves in any way. If they want to be spoon-fed literary pablum, they shouldn't be reading SOL.
For people who are mentally mature, varied regionalisms, dialects, and locales are the "spice" which makes reading enjoyable. We can figure it out.
Granted there are a number of (mostly young) people who expect to be protected from ever having to think or exert themselves in any way. If they want to be spoon-fed literary pablum, they shouldn't be reading SOL.
What has that got to do with making a story accessible to a wide audience?
If you look at the stories that top SOL's all-time ratings, the authors didn't fill their stories with language that only a small minority are able to understand, and the scores prove that readers find them interesting.
AJ
What has that got to do with making a story accessible to a wide audience?
Why does every story have to be accessible to a wide audience?
There are many niche markets out there, why can't they be served too?
McDonald's is extremely accessible to a "wide audience" (wide in more ways than one, usually).
If your main goal in life is to serve "billions and billions", no matter what people think of your product, have at it.
There are also people who prefer a good steak, and cooks who know how to prepare one.
Anyone who claims that Ruth's Chris Steakhouse should serve only Big Macs has a problem.
If you look at the stories that top SOL's all-time ratings, the authors didn't fill their stories with language that only a small minority are able to understand, and the scores prove that readers find them interesting.
It's not the accents that make a story more interesting, it's the personal details, whether they're rich descriptions of the surroundings, details about the local weather, or particular phrases that help place the characters in time and place.
If you look at the stories that top SOL's all-time ratings, the authors didn't fill their stories with language that only a small minority are able to understand, and the scores prove that readers find them interesting.
I think that most of us have far more respect for our readers, and know that they will be familiar with such things.
And such use is not only regional, it can also be temporal. Imagine a story set in 1968 with hippies or flower children that did not have inserted such things as "far out", "Cool", and "outta sight!". Would loose a lot of what gives that era it's very distinctive character.
Most readers would assume that the author knew nothing about the era, and was "60's in name only". Whenever I write a period piece, I always make use of the lingo common in the era, as appropriate. It is as much of the flavor of the era as when John Wayne spoke in a Western.
However, I make the assumption that the reader will be able to figure this out, either by knowledge, or by how it is used.
And nothing so far that anybody has really listed is some obscure and unknown word or phrase. If you line up 100 people and ask them what a "pop", "soda", and "Coke" all have in common, all 100 will likely know that all are different words for a carbonated soft drink.
And in one story that I set in the 1930's, I did include a dictionary at the end. I knew that in the 90 years since the setting of the story, a lot of words and phrases used had fallen well out of use and many would need to be explained.
Otherwise, the following sentence would be nonsensical to most readers. But it is correct wordage to the era.
"Put your cheaters on, that Nance can't be on the nut. He's driving a new fliver."
"Put your glasses on, that queer can't be broke. He's driving a new car."
It's not just the language but expecting people to know the locales - place names, routes between them, principal stores etc.
If I encounter stuff that I find incomprehensible without resorting to reference works, I mark the story down because I'm not the author's target readership and they didn't bother to warn me. I certainly wouldn't mark the story up for being 'spicy'.
It's not hard for an author to add an explanatory clause the first time they use a regionalism that doesn't carry, or spell out eg International House of Pancakes in full the first time it's referenced.
AJ
The danger is that you'll alienate readers who are not familiar with those regionalisms.
For people who are mentally mature, varied regionalisms, dialects, and locales are the "spice" which makes reading enjoyable. We can figure it out.
As always, the key is knowing how to employ the technique. If every single sentence is heavily accented, the entire story will be unreadable, but just sprinkle in enough to properly flavor the story, and it will bring the story to life and make it seem authentic.
The danger is that you'll alienate readers who are not familiar with those regionalisms.
But discovering and learning new and unfamiliar regionalisms is half the fun.
The danger is that you'll totally screw up the "regionalisms", and people who are familiar with the area will laugh at you. There are a few stories on SOL that do that, using what the author thinks is a hillbilly or Appalachian accent.
Trust me, it ain't.
Those become unreadable quite quickly.
The danger is that you'll totally screw up the "regionalisms", and people who are familiar with the area will laugh at you.
And that's putting for the polar opposite of what the comment I was replying to said the danger was.
And France has a specific organization to prevent foreign words move into French.
"In 1635 the French created the Académie Française which functions as the official custodian of the French language. The institution was formed at that time to protect the French language from Italian influences."
France has a specific organization to prevent foreign words move into French.
"In 1635 the French created the Académie Française which functions as the official custodian of the French language. The institution was formed at that time to protect the French language from Italian influences."
Still exists, though now their focus is mostly protecting the purity of French from English words.
France has changed governments several times, but that agency is still on the job.
Nor is France unique in having institution like that. Several other nationality states do.
Even though I can't give any comprehensive list currently, I'm surely aware of at least two: both Latvia and Lithuania do have official language commissions, ostensibly keeping guard of language purity. At least in case of Latvia the obligation to protect the language is even written into the constitution. It literally is the reason for the country to exist, to guarantee preservation and freedom of expression of the titular nationality, (with, as we sometimes joke, is as much a religious identity as nationality). (We proudly demanded right to display our nationality in your European passports. It was reluctantly allowed, as optional, voluntary note.)
Lithuanians are however much better and far more proactive on inventing native terminology for upcoming phenomena, Latvian institution is more reactive in nature, at least currently, suing people for their own name spelling in documents, chasing fines from store owners for incorrect translations and similar (then, Lithuania have less than 10% Russian speakers, Latvia have 35%+ (and yes, just about anyone of any value speak English too, and that's growing and far more serious threat than Russian ever was, actually)) and far to often come up with absolutely ridiculous suggestions to replace established professional slang without even consulting said professionals and then wonder why that fails.
both Latvia and Lithuania do have official language commissions, ostensibly keeping guard of language purity
And those are actually languages that many linguists study because they are still spoken almost exactly as they were thousands of years ago.
Unlike say English. Throw any of us back 1,000 years in London, and we would not understand them (and they would not understand us). We are all speaking "English", but the language has changed so radically that they are incomprehensible to each other.
Probably the only languages similar are Latin and Hebrew. One was adopted as a religious language, and only lives on in that usage. The other was only revived as a "living language" in the last century, so has thousands of years of stagnation in it. But in the last 80 years it has again started to change, if slowly compared to other languages.
And those are actually languages that many linguists study because they are still spoken almost exactly as they were thousands of years ago.
Well, true that Lithuanian and Latvian are studied as living fossils believed to be close to the very stem of Indoeuropean language tree, but I too wouldn't be understood thousand years ago, and while there's fair possibility I might have a headstart on picking up one or two of the small regional languages used here then, I would need some serious adjustment. Neither Latvian nor Lithuanian existed then as such, both being fusion products of prior fragmentation (and in Latvian case, throwing a now extinct finno-ugric language into the mix too).
While so often mentioned together, and probably sounding quite alike for foreigners, Lithuanian and Latvian aren't mutually intelligible at all although it is possible to morph the (archaic) core lexicon words between them with simple algorithmic application of phonetic transformations. Quite some of those words have further meaning and usage drifts though, so even that won't necessarily help all that much. And then of course there's those centuries Lithuanians were in union with Poland while Latvian was "kitchen" language under German (and after Russians beat Sweden peasants in Latvia would speak (proto-) Latvian between themselves, German to their landlords and Russian to the state administration).
Modern standard "middle" Latvian has some traits of artificial language (such as quite extreme regularity) because it is in a sense -- it's a late nineteenth century work by a small team of truly genius national linguists, systematized and half reinvented combination of prior dialects (of with only Latgalian survives, differing from standard Latvian more than some east-slavic languages between themselves; barely partially intelligible for a standard Latvian speaker and uses additional letters). The number of new words they introduced is mind blowing.
Soviet authorities extinguished the palatalized R with a decree (together with distinction between hard "ch" and soft "h" with was a good thing as it was the only case of silent "c" artificial and irregular and any "h" sound in standard Latvian is only encountered in loanwords anyway) and while it's true almost no one can pronounce that abomination correctly (I can't either, try to make R and Y from York at the same time) and it was used in just a handful of word roots, it's absence wreck subtle chaos to that system leading to irregularities like the half-joking that the world "dzert" [to drink] now has to be pronounced differently depending whether it's tee or alchohol to be drank.
(Letter "e" denotes both sounds "e" and "æ" with choice governed by strict rules that parse the world backwards, without the palatalized "rj" demanding the "narrow" "e" it becomes wide "æ" especially in first person present "dzeru" where it's encouraged by the wide "u" ending, or plural "dzeram" where "a" pretty much force it without narrowing sound between, but the original and formally correct narrow "e" survive in infinity and curiously even in first person past "dzēru / dzērām" where it's long, but that on itself is no formal reason for it not to be wide either, making the word uniquely irregular -- with may not sound like much for someone speaking something as chaotic as English, but is uncomfortable for a Latvian.)
Now Latvian face quite unique challenges as smallish language with formally dominant status in its native territory but relatively large numbers of non-native users both internally and abroad and managing significant numbers of "overseas" diaspora. North American Latvian, based on conservative derivative under heavy English influence, differs from the current normative both in phonetics and grammar (some of which, like dropping gendered surnames are forced by practicality). Even prior the pandemic we had ongoing program of distance learning aimed at global reintegration of diaspora (and thanks to that we could switch schools locally to distance learning rather easily).
Russian-native Latvian speakers are blind deaf and mute to the three intonation system and struggle mightily with even distinction between short and long vowels (curiously they try to find system in that, there's for a change none, inflections yes, but as used in word roots they're simply different letters, unrelated to accent or anything).
Meanwhile Latvia-Russian had become quite established dialect gathering research interest as abnormality (large language forming dialect under influence of much smaller), allegedly they form sounds differently from standard Russian and use Latvian sentence structures. And they're stuck here. Russia encourage "repatriation" but many who tried that believing the propaganda report open hostility from locals over there exactly because of the distinct accent immediately placing them. And it doesn't matter they're born native Russian speakers refused to learn Latvian and test for citizenship on ideological grounds, they sound like those hated "fascists" for the locals, and worse, act like Europeans and thus are enemy.
There were periods in the evolution of English where the English spoken in London was nearly incomprehensible to anyone living more than 20-30 miles of London and vice versa, not just in accent but in grammar and vocabulary.
Nor is France unique in having institution like that. Several other nationality states do.
I'll add one, Iceland. Supposedly (not from an Icelandic) the idea is to keep the language "pure" enough that if Lief Erickson came back he could understand them.
Actually, on reflection, I reject the author's basic premise. The claim is for 'decades of research' yet there's no cite and it contradicts my everyday experiences. My neighbourhood has a broad racial mix and many of the non-natives struggle to say much more than the basic niceties when conversing with non-natives of other nationalities. But put a native English speaker into the mix and the conversation can become much broader as there's someone who can translate from one version of pidgin to another.
AJ
My neighbourhood has a broad racial mix and many of the non-natives struggle to say much more than the basic niceties when conversing with non-natives of other nationalities. But put a native English speaker into the mix and the conversation can become much broader as there's someone who can translate from one version of pidgin to another.
I don't think the author was discussing variations in English usage, but rather those who've mostly learned English from a variety of Hollywood movies and conversing over the internet, which it itself a small but rapidly growing distinction. It's those speakers, who have little 'at home' training in English usage (certainly not enough to develop any regional usages), though they're more likely to use simple English sentence structures than the more esoteric English phrasing.