BEGINNINGS.

The start of a Robert Irwin review (intriguingly titled “Arabian Antwerp”) in the June 28, 2002 Times Literary Supplement:

“In his Origines Antwerpianae (1569), Goropius Becanus argued that not only was language divine in origin, but that its original form was Dutch. More specifically, he identified the Primal Language as a dialect of Antwerp. The ancestry of the burghers of that city could be traced back to the sons of Japeth, and the latter were folk who had not become linguistically confused by working on the Tower of Babel.”

There you have human egomania and illogic in a nutshell: My language is the best language, and the original language to boot! There are many examples, but I like the obscure specificity of this one.

Irwin continues: “Becanus’s thesis commanded more support in the sixteenth century than it is likely to receive today.” I love the TLS. (Wearing my editor’s hat, however, I must point out that the second “that” in the quoted paragraph would have been better omitted.)

Comments

  1. The sad thing about Goropism is that within it lie the seeds of the evil nexus of nationalism, racism, and linguistic chauvinism. Cf. the current brouhaha in Hinduist circles on the Aryan invasion myth. Also, see my entry on Becanus:
    http://www.bisso.com/ujg_archives/000061.html

  2. Ah, excellent! Anyone interested in these matters should definitely read Jim’s entry, which provides further examples.
    (Note to Jim: See, my comments section allows HTML.)

  3. I’ve been meaning to turn on the HTML tags in comment, but just hadn’t got around to it yet. Now when are you going to turn on trackback?

  4. Ouch — the biter bit! OK, I’ll figure it out… when I get back from California.

  5. John Cowan says:

    The oldest surviving Language Hat message, and very fitly named too! Of course, trackback still doesn’t work….

  6. But now it does!

  7. If you are like me and came here to marvel at antiquity, you will find that the links are 404ish.
    But the way of the WayBackMachine, Grasshopper, leads to joy:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20031214002452/http://www.bisso.com/ujg_archives/000061.html

  8. Jim-links that is—from the first comment

  9. marie-lucie says:

    Thanks, RH-B

  10. David Marjanović says:

    But the way of the WayBackMachine, Grasshopper, leads to joy:

    Nope! “Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt.”

    Why should a page that search engines aren’t allowed to find not be accessible in the archive after its death? This is massively wrong-headed.

  11. Worse yet, if someone else buys the domain they can block access to former pages with their own robots.txt.

  12. That’s silly, they should save the robots.txt when they do the archive. Or trust that the existence of the archive proves that there were no robots.txt restrictions at the time.

  13. I thought about that, but it would prevent people from retracting anything: it would mean that anything once published to the Web would be permanently accessible, however false, libelous, or copyright-violating. The trick is to distinguish between different incarnations of a domain name, something the IA currently doesn’t do.

  14. Well, if Google can handle requests for removal of personal info, then the IA should be able to do it by request as well, instead of relying on an exploitable hack. And the information should be put in a 50 or 100 year archive and become accessible to researchers after that time. (Actually I hope they do that already, keep the archived pages on their long-time storage and just block it from public access).

    That would also solve the converse problem, of wanting to forget something embarrassing you put on a domain you since have lost control over.

  15. SFReader says:

    What robots have against Languagehat?

    Surely we haven’t harmed them, if we did, it was entirely unintentional.

  16. Thanks to this and other discussions, the Internet Archive is changing its policy to ignore robots.txt. They still have manual opt-out for any site by email. I haven’t tested whether this works yet or not, but it is already said to be in place for U.S. government sites (with no complaints from the big baby, who probably hasn’t noticed).

  17. Excellent!

  18. David Marjanović says:

    🙂

  19. John Cowan says:

    And sure enough, Uncle Jazzbeau’s page “Goropism rampant” is once more accessible to all, as well as three tree Goropian papes he links to.

  20. Here‘s the link to Uncle Jazzbeau.

  21. I like it that posts are not forgotten at LH, but followed up with dedication over 17 years! 🙂

  22. Athel Cornish-Bowden says:

    So do I, especially as pretty much all thread revivers at LanguageHat do it knowingly, not just blindly following some link via Google Groups that a search has produced.

  23. Lars (the original one) says:

    I for one am addicted to the “Random Link” at the top of JC’s Recently Commented page. And, well, thread necromancy is an unavoidable consequence.

  24. January First-of-May says:

    I don’t really do thread necromancy as such (…might still have done it once or twice, now that I think of it), but I do like following up on different discussions in a recently bumped thread.
    (Which is to say, if a thread gets a recent comment, no matter on which topic, I’m quite willing to follow up on any topic discusses in that thread that I happen to have an idea of how to follow up on.)

    And if I ever do manage to finish my read-through of Language Hat (currently stalled partway through 2003 on the Recently Commented list – I’m doing it from the bottom up, so this is actually under 10% done), I intend to go through it again and actually comment on some stuff I noticed. Though admittedly it might somewhat break the list…

  25. By all means comment! I love seeing old threads revived. (For one thing, I’ve often forgotten all about them…)

  26. John Cowan says:

    No thread is ever dead here, any more than a book sitting in a library waiting to be read is. While some of our discussions are topical, most of them are quite timeless.

  27. John Cowan says:

    Goropism recrudescent: English is a dialect of Chinese. My Essentialist Explanations do say that English is essentially Chinese spoken entirely in the first tone, but that’s intended to be funny.

    Quotation, for when the article vanishes from the Net:

    Yellow” comes from the Chinese words for “falling leaves,” 叶落 pronounced yelou.

    “Shop” comes from the Chinese word 商铺 pronounced shangpu, meaning the same thing.

    “Heart” comes from the Chinese word 核心 pronounced hexin, meaning “core.”

    While Zhai [Guiyun, leader of the pack] acknowledges that a few similarities like these could be a simple coincidence, he says there are far too many of these examples to be anything but evidence of origin. Zhai notes that while English may not sound like a Chinese dialect, many currently accepted Chinese dialects sound quite different from each other, not to mention Japanese and Korean.

    In fact, Chinese was the source of all Western languages currently spoken — French, Russian, German, etc. — according to Zhai, having been derived from English and Chinese.

Speak Your Mind

*