The Linguist

An interesting article by Jim O'Driscoll on the making of English de jure official in the USA as opposed to being 'just' de facto (TL64,3). However, I cannot agree with his assertion that English is not legally official in places like Britain or Australia (and previously the USA), because of "the Anglo-American tendency to view languages as 'natural' things, interference in which could be regarded as an infringement of liberty". The history of the formation of the United Kingdom, at the very least, acts as a counterpoint to this. Upon the expansion of England (with the annexation of Wales and subsequent unions with Scotland and Ireland), the native languages of these countries – Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Irish – were downgraded in favour of English, which became the sole de jure official language of these islands. Not having a command of English meant being barred from legal and administrative jobs; the 'other' language being pushed aside through the anglicisation of education and leaders of society. While it is true to say the overarching state entity of Britain does not have any de jure official language, nor a one-document written constitution, it is England alone which has no legal official language. Although a residuary pocket remains in some aspects of the law and in the House of Commons, where English retains official status with Norman French. All other parts of the realm accord official status to the native language(s) within its territory – Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Scots and Welsh – alongside English. O'Driscoll concludes his article with the fear of the persecution of others for being 'un-American' if they have little or no English by self-appointed 'guardians' of that language. The fear, as British history shows, is not unfounded. Those lacking English or not assimilating to the society that uses/used it have long histories of being considered 'un-British'. It may well be the case that in the near future, these ideas will be exported from the USA (back) to these islands. History would then repeat itself. Siôn Rees Williams MCIL The British Isles' official language 32 The Linguist Vol/64 No/4 ciol.org.uk/thelinguist OPINION & COMMENT Email linguist.editor@ciol.org.uk with your views 'What the Papers Say?' (TL64,3) quotes The Guardian article 'Could the English Language Die?' I doubt it very much. If a language is going to disappear, it would be very unlikely for one of the most advanced, widely used and developed languages like English to be the one. If we assume that English can disappear then all languages can potentially disappear as well. However, even if English were to vanish, it would likely be revived, as the writings of Jane Austen, Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson, Charles Dickens, Christopher Marlowe and many more are unlikely to disappear. We have approximately 7,000 languages worldwide. According to some reports, 40% have never been written, 40% are spoken by fewer than 1,000 people, and one disappears every fortnight. Languages with small vocabularies may be more vulnerable. Toki Pona, for example, has just 130 words; the average vocabulary of an educated English speaker, meanwhile, is around 28,000 words and it has thousands of phrasal verbs, adages, proverbs, expressions, slangs and aphorisms. Latin and Egyptian were spoken for more than 2,000 years. However, those were different times, when many languages were vulnerable due to geopolitics, military powers and conquests. The article's claim that we cannot predict how English will change may be true, but it will certainly adapt and expand in response to the rapid historic transitions we are witnessing. Reading the piece, I was reminded of the Semitic-Aramaic languages historically spoken in Lebanon: Phoenician/Canaanite, closely related to Hebrew; and Moabite, originating in Levant. Aramaic was also widely spoken in Syria, while the main language of Egypt was Coptic. Following the Arab conquest, Arabic began to dominate instead. Iran was also subject to conquest by the Arabs, but the Persian language survived. Why? Some scholars argue that the main reason Persian resisted the influence of Arabic was the Persian epic poet Ferdowsi, who wrote The Shahnameh. This monumental work took him 30 years to complete, and later Julius Mohl spent 40 years translating it into French. The Shahnameh can be compared to the works of Homer, the Mahabharata, Ramayana (both written in Sanskrit) and Nibelungenlied from the Middle Ages. But was it really because of The Shahnameh that Persian survived? I believe the answer, to a large extent, is yes. Languages like English and Persian will constantly expand, change and never truly die. Nader Sepehr FCIL Could English be immortal? A LITERARY SHIELD: (Above l-r) Paintings of Ferdowsi; Jane Austen; and William Shakespeare

• Cover