History of English

I’ve just finished reading Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English by John McWhorter. It’s a very interesting, although slightly confusing, book about the history of English. That’s English as in the language “what I speak”.

Interesting because in it McWhorter tries to demonstrate that the early (as in mostly pre-Medieval Old English) history of the English language is far more complex but understandable than most scholars are prepared to admit.

Confusing in that as a non-linguist and someone who was never hot on the technicalities of grammar (the one probably because of the other) I don’t easily appreciate the niceties of some of his argument and examples. I would undoubtedly benefit from re-reading it.

It’s a short book but it covers an immense amount of ground. McWhorter starts with the argument that English was moulded by interaction with the Welsh and Cornish languages (all display features found nowhere else in the world). He ends with the suggestion that Proto-Germanic (the root of all modern Germanic languages including English) is a bastard off shoot of Proto-Indo-European made that way by interaction with Phoenician language(s). His concluding paragraphs give you a flavour:

English … [a]n offshoot of Proto-Indo-European borrowed a third of its vocabulary from another language. That language may have been Phoenician … Its speakers submitted the Proto-Indo-European offshoot to a grammatical overhaul … they could not help shaving off a lot of its complications, and rendering parts of the grammar in ways familiar to them from their native language. This left Proto-Germanic a language both mixed and abbreviated before it even gave birth to new languages – and meant that it passed this mixed, abbreviated nature on to those new languages.

One of them was Old English, which morphed merrily along carrying the odd sound patterns, vowel-switching past marking, and mystery vocabulary from Proto-Germanic … Old English was taken up by speakers of yet another language … Celtic ones. As Celts started using English more and more over the decades, English gradually took an infusion of grammatical features from Welsh and Cornish, including a usage of do known in no other languages on earth.

Not long afterward … Vikings speaking Old Norse picked up the language fast, and gave it a second shave … English’s grammar became the least “fussy” of all of the Germanic languages …

The result: a tongue oddly genderless and telegraphic for a European one, clotted with peculiar ways of using do and progressive -ing – with … a great big bunch of words from other languages. Not only Norse, French, Latin, and Greek, but possibly Phoenician …

The vanilla version of The History of English will live on. But its proponents have not had occasion to engage with the underground stories I have attempted to share with you, or, having done so briefly, have opted to sweep them under the rug …

… English is … Interesting.

Interesting indeed!

Reasons to be Grateful: 16

Experiment, week 16. This week’s five things which have made me happy or for which I’m grateful.

This week has been full of food and family history!

  1. Fish Display. I just love the displays of fish at our local Waitrose. These are just a couple of photos I took earlier in the week.

    SpratsFrosty Fish

  2. Joan’s Cherry Cake. Our neighbour across the road is in her late 80s and is beginning to lose her sight. So several of the neighbours keep half an eye on her, help her with errands and do bits of shopping for her — as much as she’ll let us because like all “old ‘uns” she’s fiercely independent. Every so often she insists on making us a cake. It’s very sweet of her and entirely unnecessary, but she enjoys doing it. This week she made a very nice cherry cake which was much appreciated for afternoon tea.
  3. Trout. At the same time as taking the fishy photos above we bought a couple of gorgeous large trout for dinner yesterday. Very simply baked in foil parcels in the oven with a bulb of fennel and lemon juice; served with plain steamed new potatoes and mushroom sauce. Yummy!
  4. Naval Family History. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve continued to investigate the naval connections of my family (for the start of the story see here). It’s proving immensely interesting to see what ships the guys served on and where they went. I’ll probably write more details about it when I’ve done more research and (hopefully) tied up some of the loose ends.
  5. Prawns & Pasta. Another simple but satisfying meal tonight which took minutes to prepare and cook. Here’s how (you can do the quantities!). While preparing everything else, cook the pasta; when done drain it and keep it warm. Sauté some finely chopped onion and garlic in olive oil until going translucent. Add a quantity of thawed, uncooked king prawns; sauté for a minute then add some sliced mushrooms, tomato paste, half a glass of white wine and the juice of a lemon; plus a dash of chilli and/or chopped herbs if you wish. Mix together and cook for 5-6 minutes with the lid on to ensure the prawns are done. Near the end season to taste and add a bit more tomato paste if desired: the sauce should be thick and almost non-existent. Add the pasta and toss together for a minute or two. Serve with Parmesan (optional) and devour greedily!

Listography : My Week

This week Kate’s Listography asks us to document, in five photos, what we get up to in a typical week.

So here goes with some of the things I might get up to.
Click the photos for bigger images and/or more details.

1. Food Shopping
Sprats
This lovely display of sprats was on the fish counter of our local Waitrose.

2. Cooking
Thing-a-Day #5 : Cheese & Onion Muffins
Noreen and I share cooking duties and I try to do my fair share.
Mostly we’re cooking just main meals; we don’t tend to do fancy stuff
although we do each have our specialities.
These are cheese and onion muffins, which were a special I did some time back.

3. Watching Birds in the Garden
Starling Drinking
I was brought up to take an interest in Natural History, and I still do.
This starling is drinking from our bird bath; snapped from my study window.

4. Researching My Family History
Wedding ca 1905?
This is a scan of a ca. 1905 wedding photo;
my maternal grandmother was a bridesmaid to one of her friends.
Her mother is also in the photo.

5. People Watching
Sandwich
This Hyacinth Bucket lady really let the side down by slumping
on a station bench and devouring a sandwich in public.
Taken at Harrow on the Hill station.

Buggered Britain 2

Number 2 in my occasional series documenting some of the underbelly of Britain. Britain which we wouldn’t like visitors to see and which we wish wasn’t there. The trash, abused, decaying, destitute and otherwise buggered parts of our environment. Those parts which symbolise the current economic malaise; parts which, were the country flourishing, wouldn’t be there, would be better cared for, or made less inconvenient.

Buggered Britain 2

This derelict factory/warehouse is in Park Royal by the A40. It’s been in this state for over 5 years, has been half demolished and then just abandoned again.

A Dance to the Music of Time

[Warning: this is a long post. It’s so long I can’t find its tail to pin a donkey on it.]

My friend Katy has finally finished reading Anthony Powell’s A Dance to the Music of Time. She’s written a blog post about her thoughts of it. Despite being a deeply dyed literarist she isn’t very enthusiastic, so more power to her for having stuck the course. She’s also worried about what I mights say!

Well there’s no need to worry. I may be one of the progenitors of the Anthony Powell Society (and its Hon. Secretary) but I am also a realist. Dance, indeed any of Powell’s work, isn’t for everyone. Dance, especially, you have to “get”. And either you do or you don’t; many people don’t get it. No shame in that; I don’t get Tolkein.

So, no, I’m not going to try to change Katy’s mind, or tell her she’s wrong. There are no right and wrong answers. Katy’s (anyone’s) reaction to the work is as valid as mine. Yes because of Katy’s Eng. Lit. academic background she should be able to read anything more easily than I can — and appreciate it for its style, or lack thereof — but she is still allowed to know what she does/doesn’t like; as are you.

What I am going to do is to try to pick up on a number of Katy’s observations about Dance and try to put them into some sort of context to help others better understand the work.

At this point I should say that anyone who wants a potted summary of the 12 novels can find one on the AP Society website; and anyone who wants to buy them can find the current paperbacks on Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com.


Nicolas Poussin’s, A Dance to the Music of Time which inspired Powll’s novel sequence
of the same title. The painting hangs in the Wallace Collection, London.

OK, so what points does Katy make and which appear to have hindered her enjoyment?

  1. The book is hard to read because of the historical background.
  2. It is slow going.
  3. There isn’t any plot and the books go nowhere.
  4. It covers a lengthy timespan.
  5. Why does Powell persist with a horrible character like Widmerpool?
  6. We learn nothing about the narrator Jenkins and his family.
  7. The women are poorly drawn.
  8. Evelyn Waugh is a better read.
  9. The last book, Hearing Secret Harmonies, is the weakest of the series.

Any comments one makes to these questions are, naturally, inextricably intertwined, so I’m going to write some narrative rather than try to answer each question in a standalone fashion. So here goes.

Interestingly women do seem to have more of a problem with Powell than men do. And there’s a good reason for this. Powell was born in 1905 into an upper middle-class family. He had an Edwardian, all male, public school (Eton and Oxford) upbringing in a world where men’s relationships with women were very different from the way they are today. Indeed the whole of society was different. This is one of the things which, as Katy perceives, makes the work hard for modern audiences. It is also one of the reasons why, I think, women predominantly find the female characters poorly drawn. This isn’t “wrong”, it is just Powell’s very different perspective on women and the world; a world which was different from the one we have been brought up in.

But there’s something about Powell’s very different view of this very different world which is one of the books’ great strengths. It covers a huge timespan: from the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 (a flashback at the start of book 6, The Kindly Ones) to around 1971. It is detailed in places; detail which is inexorably accurate. It covers times and echelons of society many of us will never have truly encountered but which Powell did — much of the work is based on and drawn around his own experiences although it is decidedly not autobiographical, nor only about toffs, as often supposed. All of this makes Dance a tremendous piece of social history — something which scholars are now beginning to appreciate.

That doesn’t make for an easy or fast-moving read for one does need to have some understanding of that history, and to concentrate, to be able to make best sense of the book. And the better one understands the history, the more one gets from the book and the more one appreciates its humour. This detail; this lack of understanding of English society and 20th century social history; is why one of my dreams is to be able to create a complete annotation of Dance, in the way that Martin Gardner created The Annotated Alice. Without such a resource much of the detail, interest and subtlety of Dance is almost bound to get lost. A lot of this detail one can read over without fully understanding it if one has the background in English society. As an example how many of us really know what is a “regiment of the line”? But we have a rough idea what it is about and that’s enough at a first level. But if one gets the nuances of the detail the whole work becomes so much more interesting. However it confuses the non-English reader and the less educationally mature reader. And that’s a great shame as there is much to enjoy in Dance.

For yes, Dance is at times comic: in an understated English way. Powell doesn’t do stand-up, laugh-out-loud farce set pieces in the way that his friend and contemporary Evelyn Waugh does. Think of Waugh’s war trilogy and Apthorpe’s “thunder-box” or the whole of Black Mischief. Powell is more subtle and takes a drier, more askance look at what’s happening, making humour from everyday situations and his characters turns of phrase.

Being contemporaries, Powell is so often compared with Waugh, which is something misleading and unfair to both writers. They are birds of completely different plumage. It’s a bit like comparing apples and smoked haddock. Waugh writes books with stories and plots and is good at farce. Powell is more discursive and descriptive; more in the style of Dickens or Walter Scott, or as often stated, Proust. This is in part what makes Dance slow going for some people. But in my view Powell is a much superior writer, technically. Powell and Waugh are trying to do very different things; nevertheless they were genuine admirers of each others’ work. Which you prefer to read depends how one is constituted.

All of this is why there is a perception that Dance doesn’t have a plot and goes nowhere. I see the logic here. There is no well defined story line or giant denouement with an “everyone lives happily ever after” ending. And that is the whole point. Why? Because that’s the way life is. And what is Powell doing? He’s writing about life. The way life twists and turns. About how people weave in and out of one’s life at unexpected times and in unexpected ways, like the dancers in Poussin’s pa
inting. About how people connect to each other also at unexpected times and in unexpected ways. Life isn’t tidy and for the vast majority it doesn’t have a pre-defined plot or story line.

This too answers the question of “Why Widmerpool?”. The answer, again, is because that’s how life is. We all have people who weave in and out of our lives, who we maybe dislike or who are horrible characters. That’s how people are and how life is. Powell uses this for great comic effect. Widmerpool is a sort of heroic anti-hero. Or is he an anti-heroic hero? Whichever. The novels wouldn’t work with a nice, well-behaved, “every-girl-would-like-to-take-him-to-bed” style hero. Try substituting Waugh’s Charles Ryder or Sebastian Flyte for Widmerpool. It just wouldn’t work!

Another reason there isn’t a well defined plot is that, as Powell himself says somewhere, the novels are written as being like a series of stories told over the dinner table. If you like, Jenkins the narrator is telling stories about his life and about the way in which Widmerpool has wandered in and out of this life. The stories are set off by this image (at the very beginning) of the men with a brazier mending the road and culminate 12 books later with a reprise of that same scene. (We’ll ignore for now the debate over whether the start and end really are the same scene or not.) But again that’s why there is no well defined plot in the conventional sense: it is a set of meandering stories which, as we all know from having talked over dinner, often do indeed go nowhere.

But there are plots, or at least story lines. Widmerpool himself is the main plot. There is an army/war story line. There’s another around the interaction of the literary/arts world with the business world. And overarching even the Widmerpool leitmotif there is one about power: men of thought vs men of the will.

This is also why we learn little about Jenkins himself and his family. It isn’t relevant to the stories being told which are largely observational about other people. Just as Powell is often criticised for not dealing more with the Katyn Massacre or the Holocaust. It isn’t that Powell denies them or belittles them. It is merely that they aren’t relevant to the stories he’s telling.

Which brings me to the final point, about the final novel: that Hearing Secret Harmonies is the weakest book. I have to be honest and say I agree; I too think it is the weakest book. But many do not agree. Indeed I have had exactly this debate with Eng. Lit. academics and other deep thinking persons such as Lord Gowrie. HSH doesn’t work for me; it isn’t the life I lived through. But, again, there is a good reason for this. I was a student at the time HSH is set; I was there; I lived through the “swinging sixties” and early ’70s as a student. Powell was not there; he was already in his 60s and looking at what was happening with the eyes of an uncomprehending older generation. We should not expect him to see and understand those times in the same way I do. That doesn’t mean I’m right and he’s wrong. We have different views of the world. It’s like me, now in my 60s, trying to understand the culture of the present generation of students: I don’t understand it (and arguably nor should I) in the way those living the life do; I’m looking at it through totally the other end of a telescope from them. This is a part of what makes HSH feel a somewhat contrived ending. But then again I know many who would not agree with that either. That’s why, I think, HSH doesn’t work well for me. Against that the war trilogy does work well and they are my favourite three of the 12 books, as they are for many readers.

I’ll finish by saying what I often say to people asking about whether to read Dance. First of all don’t be off-put by the fact it is 12 novels. Each novel is essentially standalone, although some are better at it than others. Read one, or two, and see if you like it. If you are a person who must read a sequence of novels in sequence then you have to start at the beginning with A Question of Upbringing; but be prepared to persevere as I find QU the slowest of the books. If you are someone who needs to be captivated then start by reading one of the books from the second trilogy or from the war (third) trilogy depending on whether you’re more interested in the swinging thirties or the war.

But most importantly if you’re a serious reader and you haven’t tried Powell, do so. There’s so much more in Dance than a mere 12 novels. I believe Powell is one of (if not the) best writers of the 20th century, and greatly under-rated. And he was a lot more than “just a
novelist”!

Today's Word : Exuviae

Exuviæ

Cast skins, shells, or coverings of animals; any parts of animals which are shed or cast off, whether recent or fossil.

[Generally used only in the plural form, although according to the OED the singular form exuvium is sometimes used.]

Hic, Haec, Fruit Fly

Following up on my links from the other day which included the one on fungi farming animals I realised belatedly this was the fifth in a series of six Scientific American posts about civilisation, fungus and alcohol by Rob Dunn.

And being by Rob Dunn, author of The Wild Life of Our Bodies: Predators, Parasites, and Partners That Shape Our Evolution, they are interesting, well written, highly readable and perfectly accessible for the non-scientist. They also offer an interesting window into the way in which mad biologists think of and undertake research projects.

The six posts are:

  1. A Sip for the Ancestors: The True Story of Civilization’s Stumbling Debt to Beer and Fungus
  2. Fruit Flies Use Alcohol to Self-Medicate, but Feel Bad about it Afterwards
  3. Strong Medicine: Drinking Wine and Beer Can Help Save You from Cholera, Montezuma’s Revenge, E. Coli and Ulcers
  4. By Looking Carefully, Japanese Scientist Discovers the Secrets of Termite Balls
  5. 5 Kinds of Fungus Discovered to Be Capable of Farming Animals!
  6. Exhausted Writer Discovers First Cave Painting of Yeast

Or you can find them all linked together here.

Friends

This week’s assignment over at The Gallery is Friends.

So I decided to dig one out of the archives which I’ve not uploaded before.

At Dungeness
Click the image for a large version from Flickr

This is our friend Katy (left) with her three children and Noreen. It was taken close to the late Derek Jarman’s Prospect Cottage at Dungeness (with the hills of the Weald of Kent in the background) during our break in Rye in September 2010. We had a fun week sharing a cottage and doing a bit of exploring.

29 February

Today, 29 February, is a unique day. So unique it happens, to a first approximation, only every four years.

But that, of course, depends upon what value unique has in your philosophy.

Scientifically today is indeed unique, in the formally correct sense. There is no other like it, for it will never occur again, at least as far as we currently understand the laws of physics which govern our universe.

Why? Because time, that ethereal quantity we measure in todays and years, is unidirectional and ever progressing. This time, this very instant, can never occur again. Hence it must be that this, and every other, today must be unique.

Enjoy your once in a lifetime experience!

Not Even Wrong

Various newsfeeds (eg. here) this morning are reporting that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said he believes the law has no right to legalise same-sex marriage.

While the reverend Archbishop has every right to believe whatever the hell idiotic notions he likes — well he believes in God, Hell and the Resurrection, so why stop there — he is factually wrong about the law.

“The law” is a civil process, enacted by the government of the day on our behalf. It is not an adjunct of the Church. Therefore the government of the day has every right to legislate for whatever it likes — save only for the approval of parliament, international law and a major peoples’ revolution.

Who taught the reverend gentleman politics and constitutional history?

(By the way, look at the photo, he’s even already growing Devil’s horns from his eyebrows!)