‘Ōlelo Hawai’i ‘oe?

Many Hawai’ians resent, to some extent, their inclusion in the United States. (There are some places in Hawai’i where people from the mainland are told that it’s too dangerous to travel - at least on the non-commercialized islands). Hawai’i was actually an independent monarchy recognized by European countries, and showing trends towards democracy before America essentially invaded and took over to establish a Pacific base and to use the sugar plantations.

Afterwards, the Hawai’ian language was made illegal, and remained so for about 75 years or so. It was only recently that it was made legal and immersion schools started popping up.

So I think it’s a sensitive issue in Hawai’i. Since adopting foreign words basically means adopting English words at this point, they probably want to keep the language pure and separate from that of the people who dominated their country (and still do).

Just food for thought.

That said, let me be clear that I am not suggesting a voice of protest cannot be directed to those in charge of the organs of media. Their power to set a standard of usage and style is formidable, and that standard of language affects the standard of and capacity for thinking in society. Muddled language can only result in muddled thinking. But I hasten to add that the introduction of a foreign word does not corrupt the host language. It is the misuse of language and the intentional use of clichés and hackneyed speech that corrupt language. Words, foreign or otherwise, can be used to bring clarity to meaning or to obfuscate. Indeed I would make the argument that far from corrupting a language, the infusion of other languages, in the main, enriches the host language. The history of English is a case in point. What makes English a rich language—and one with a vocabulary significantly greater than other European languages—is its indebtedness to both its Germanic roots and the infusion of the Latinate after the Norman Invasion.

It’s inevitable when speakers of different languages interact that their respective tongues will co-mingle. This has been true of human beings since our hominid ancestors uttered the first primordial grunts. As such I fail to understand the alarm expressed by those who apparently feel threatened or uneasy about the introduction of a word that is not born of their native tongue, though I understand BnB‘s objection to the needless and gratuitous invention of words when an altogether adequate one exists. Indeed it seems to me that for some this alarm has its roots in xenophobia. [c.f. Dostoevsky: “…men are most afraid of…A new departure, and especially a new word…”]

What has not been discussed here is the role politics has played and continues to play in regard of how language is used. I have often been struck by how different the French attitude to the use of English is from their fellow Europeans. But their historical position is also unique in this regard. Prior to the ascendancy of the English—both the people and the language—as a dominant power in Europe, the French were preeminent. French was both the language of diplomacy and commerce. Indeed this is still reflected in the custom among nations to have passports in both the native tongue and in French. The slowly creeping influence of the Anglophone (and Protestant) world must have played a part in Cardinal Richelieu’s decision to found “L’Académie Française.” The preeminence of France and the French language were under attack. The French language may have enriched English starting in the 11th century, but the French were not looking for any reciprocal “enrichment” from across the channel.

Today we also see the sad and dangerous spectacle of politics not only influencing language, but attempting to actually prescribe (hence proscribe) speech in the form of what is known as “political correctness.” No citizen in the US is immune to its influence. A friend of mine who teaches at a State University in the Eastern US told me that faculty members were all given a manual that was nearly as thick as a phone book. The manual was, among other things, a near exhaustive list of things or names of things that could not be said. These lists also prescribed new names for these verboten appellations. In short, this manual was nothing less than an attempt to restrict speech. That it was unabashedly proscriptive and prescriptive—yet seemingly banal—was positively Orwellian! After perusing the official tome, my friend consigned it to its rightful place: the trashcan.

The language of political propaganda presents a far greater threat than the introduction of foreign words or unnecessary neologisms. Political propaganda is the real Trojan Horse. While the guards keep vigilant watch for foreign words, the mass media (who largely serve as the mouthpiece for the current political ideology) are busy manufacturing the opinions that the unsuspecting will adopt and insist—as “free” people—they have arrived at of their own accord.

Which is kinda nice, because then those of us curious enough to peek into the history of a word can get nice surprises when we find out where they came from and what they used to mean.

And in case anyone is keeping score, I’ll be English has absorbed far more foreign words than it’s given out…

“I wiki’d it for you” and quoted something from wikipedia..

Hawaiian is very interesting. I had a guest blogger from there and she blogged about Hawaiian Pidgin for my blog. If you are interested in, you can see it here; http://www.lingulangu.org/?p=21

The Japanese language having most of its “newer” vocabulary being imported from English may seem “cool” to you but not everyone shares your views. The same is happening, to a certain extend, to Koreans. I personally am glad that Chinese is not affected nearly as much.

Bottom line is, languages are tools. If “fernseher” makes more sense to a German than “television” or “ordinateur” more to French than “computer”, then why force them to adopt the latter?