SMBC Comics Forum

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2550

Yeah, that was all right, I guess. Punchline left something to be desired, but that may just be the nature of punchlines in our society.

More interesting topic! Will language in the year 3000 be comprehensible to modern humans? Obviously, vocabulary is constantly evolving, but it seems possible that with the likely preservation of a whole bunch of audio recordings from the past century or so forward, all spoken human language will enter a prolonged period of relative stability. Or maybe not! What say you, Cerealites?

I say that you should not call us that.

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:I say that you should not call us that.

Breakfastarians?

I thought it was a really good comic. Intriguing and funny at the same time makes for the best SMBC.

Seems much of a stretch... I've never eaten more than half a pie on a good masturbatory day.

In 3001, we discover FTL travel and find that the aliens were just outside our light-cone all along.

Crunchy Pete thinks if language were kept static simply because we had the means to record it, we'd all still be speaking like they did in the 30s, and if you think otherwise you're behind the grind and just bumping gums.

Crunchy Pete wrote:and if you think otherwise you're behind the grind and just bumping gums.

You're making a good point, Crunchy Pete, but I think you're coming from the wrong place. The two examples you've given there are slang, which are always periphery to language and mutable several times per generation. The main body of the language has remained very much the same since the 30s.

Also, the OP was positing the question of whether the effect of changing language would be slowed by the increased proliferation of recorded media, especially those mimicking actual speech. So, it's more a question of degrees than absolutes.

I also think that the last time the issue of evolving language was brought up, somebody got banned for a very long time.

Anon21 wrote:http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2550

Yeah, that was all right, I guess. Punchline left something to be desired, but that may just be the nature of punchlines in our society.

More interesting topic! Will language in the year 3000 be comprehensible to modern humans? Obviously, vocabulary is constantly evolving, but it seems possible that with the likely preservation of a whole bunch of audio recordings from the past century or so forward, all spoken human language will enter a prolonged period of relative stability. Or maybe not! What say you, Cerealites?

"Mr President"..."Joint Chiefs"...

"We" and "Ourselves" denote the US government, right?

A better question is: why do the future people become a shade grey and ultimately blue?

Dane Raider wrote:

Crunchy Pete wrote:and if you think otherwise you're behind the grind and just bumping gums.

You're making a good point, Crunchy Pete, but I think you're coming from the wrong place. The two examples you've given there are slang, which are always periphery to language and mutable several times per generation. The main body of the language has remained very much the same since the 30s.

Also, the OP was positing the question of whether the effect of changing language would be slowed by the increased proliferation of recorded media, especially those mimicking actual speech. So, it's more a question of degrees than absolutes.

I also think that the last time the issue of evolving language was brought up, somebody got banned for a very long time.

Slang isn't exactly periphery to language, it's quite crucial to language change in fact. But anyway: while "the main body of language" hasn't changed much since the 30s, that's to be expected; people in the 30s probably would've understood people in the 1850s. In fact, I can still read Herman Melville with no difficulty whatsoever. This makes basic sense; people from the 30s are still alive, and it'd be absurd for people only two or three generations apart to not be able to communicate. Language change is quite gradual, and while I cannot point to any sort of record to say if it is moving faster or slower than normal, I can say definitively that I've seen evidence of language change. For instance, Canadians are now using yod-dropping, which is a characteristically American sound change, and Americans are using unrounded vowels before rhotics, resulting in words like "tomorrow" sounding something like "tomarrow". So, if you're looking for widespread changes like an entirely unrecognizable language emerging spontaneously in 80 years, of course you won't find anything, but little changes like this are going on constantly.

EDIT: If you want a more substantial example, consider this: American and Canadian English split up roughly during the 18th century sometime. Many of the changes that exist today between the two (continuums of) dialects date to around this period or later. This was, of course, before the advent of the radio and recorded speech. So, in that time, English has remained pretty recognizable between dialects. For that matter it's pretty easy for us to understand British English too. All things considered though I do not expect language change to slow, rather the way that it perpetuates will change.

I always enjoy your linguist posts. It is nice to seem someone on the internet claim to know a lot about a subject and then actually demonstrate their knowledge.

Yeah, it would seem rude to pretend I knew more than the resident linguaphile.

So people in say 300 years will need subtitles to watch Braveheart, just as I need the dictionary to read Utopia (Thomas More). BTW, don't reed that. It's the most boring book.

Klip wrote:Seems much of a stretch... I've never eaten more than half a pie on a good masturbatory day.

How do you keep your strength up, then?