Skip to main content

Home/ Words R Us/ Group items tagged Sanskrit

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Lara Cowell

English and Dravidian - Unlikely parallels | Johnson | The Economist - 0 views

  •  
    Languages a world apart have a similar habit of borrowing elevated vocabulary from other languages. In 1066, because the ruling class spoke Old French, that set of vocabulary became synonymous with the elite. Everyone else used Old English. During this period, England's society was diglossic: one community, two language sets with distinct social spheres. Today, English-speakers pick and choose from the different word sets-Latinate (largely Old French borrowings) and Germanic (mostly Old English-derived words)-depending on the occasion. Although English is no longer in a diglossic relationship with another language, the Norman-era diglossia remains reflected in the way we choose and mix vocabulary. In informal chat, for example, we might go on to ask something, but in formal speech we'd proceed to inquire. There are hundreds of such pairs: match/correspond, mean/intend, see/perceive, speak/converse. Most of us choose one or the other without even thinking about the history behind the split. Germanic words are often described as earthier, simpler, and friendlier. Latinate vocabulary, on the other hand, is lofty and elite. It's amazing that nine hundred years later, the social and political structure of 12th-century England still affects how we think about and use English. The article also discusses a similar historical phenomenon in India, where much of southern India, just like Norman England, was diglossic between Sanskrit (an Indo-European language used ritually and formally by Hindu elites) and vernacular Dravidian languages. Today, that diglossia is gone, but Sanskrit-derived vocabulary still forms an upper crust, mostly pulled out for formal speech or writing.
Lisa Stewart

Why We Should Remember Aaron Swartz - Businessweek - 0 views

  • When he was barely a teenager, Aaron Swartz began playing with XML, an Internet language like Sanskrit or classical Greek–flexible, elegant and capable of great complexity. XML is most often used to move large amounts of information, entire databases, among computers. You open XML by introducing new terms and defining what they’ll do, nesting new definitions inside of the ones you’ve already created. Of this, Swartz created a kind of pidgin, a simple set of definitions called RSS.
  • When he was barely a teenager, Aaron Swartz began playing with XML, an Internet language like Sanskrit or classical Greek–flexible, elegant and capable of great complexity. XML is most often used to move large amounts of information, entire databases, among computers. You open XML by introducing new terms and defining what they’ll do, nesting new definitions inside of the ones you’ve already created. Of this, Swartz created a kind of pidgin, a simple set of definitions called RSS.
  • This is the tension at the heart of the Internet: whether to own or to make. You can own a site or a program–iTunes, Microsoft (MSFT) Word, Facebook (FB), Twitter–but you cannot own a language. Yet the languages, written for beauty and utility, make sites and programs useful and possible. You make the Internet work by making languages universal and free; you make money from the Internet by closing off bits of it and charging to get in. There’s certainly nothing wrong with making money, but without the innovations of complicated, brilliant people like Swartz, no one would be making any money at all.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • It is hard to find fault with his logic, and there is much to admire in a man who, rather than become a small god of the valley, was willing to court punishment to prove a point.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20 items per page