conversations.from: human
conversations.value: a title for a book about Language with the genre: Humor & Entertainment, Humor
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: A title for this book could be 'Language Myths'
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the first four paragraphs for this book.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Language Myths
  Perhaps not surprisingly, we take a different line. We believe that if you want to know about human respiratory physiology you should ask a medic or a physiologist, not an athlete who has been breathing successfully for a number of years. If you want to know how an underground train works you should ask an engineer and not a commuter. And if you want to know how language works you should ask a linguist and not someone who has used language successfully in the past. In all of these cases, the reasoning is the same: users do not need to have a conscious knowledge of how a system works in order to exploit it. Explanations of the system require the type of knowledge that only the specialist can provide.
  A number of people seem to think that the fact that languages change the meanings of their words in this way is unfortunate. They believe that change in language is inherently undesirable and that we should do everything we can to stop it because change can be dangerous and confusing. In particular, any tendency for words to start to mean something which they have not always meant should be resisted.
  The second and later, but now much more common, meaning is 'demonstrating or experiencing curiosity in, enthusiasm for, concern for', as in ****
  In any case, it is clear that even if the worriers regard this change as undesirable, there is nothing they can do about it. Words do not mean what we as individuals might wish them to mean, but what speakers of the language in general want them to mean. These meanings can and do change as they are modified and negotiated in millions of everyday exchanges over the years between one speaker and another. Language change cannot be halted. Nor should the worriers feel obliged to try to halt it. Languages are self-regulating systems which can be left to take care of themselves. They are self-regulating because their speakers want to understand each other and be understood. If there is any danger of misunderstanding, speakers and writers will appreciate this possibility and guard against it by avoiding synonyms, or by giving extra context, as in the well-known
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me five more paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The title of this essay reflects the commonly held view, at least among many English-speakers, that certain languages are more aesthetically pleasing than others. Italian – even for those who cannot speak the language – sounds elegant, sophisticated and lively. French is similarly viewed as romantic, cultured and sonorous. These languages conjure up positive emotions in hearers – and perhaps, generally more pleasing moods in their speakers. In contrast, German, Arabic and some East-Asian tongues accomplish the opposite: they are considered harsh, dour and unpleasant-sounding.
  The English language is probably somewhere in the middle, evoking few accolades of aesthetic merit but few comments of utter disdain. It undoubtedly triggers feelings of linguistic and cultural pride when, for instance, evocative poetry in the language is being read or when national institutions (e.g. the language used on national TV news) are purportedly being threatened from outside by other language groups. Here, then, we have the first hints that judgments about a language variety's beauty are dependent on the nature of the context in which the views are being expressed and tied to the fabric of our national and social identities, which we take up later.
  If we dig further, we find that different varieties of English are accorded different degrees of pleasantness. The sounds of British English are coveted in certain North American communities, and speakers of it will be constantly greeted with exclamations to the effect, 'My, your accent is so delightful... do speak more.' This is often followed by the caution: 'Never lose that delightful way of talking,' and in essence, therefore, talk like 'us'. In Britain, studies we have performed have shown that various accents are considered quite vulgar (e.g. Birmingham, London Cockney). Indeed, the stronger the accent, the more contempt will abound. In one famous sociolinguistic survey, a Glaswegian commented: 'It's the slovenly speech in the industrial areas that I don't care for – these industrialized cities – I don't like the accent they have.'
  On the other hand, British accents from some rural areas are considered 'charming', 'lilting' and 'quaint', such as some of the South-Welsh dialects (of course there are many South Welsh accents too, such as Carmarthen, which recent studies have shown to be less folksy).
  Despite another myth to the contrary, rigidly held views of accent pleasantness–unpleasantness are hardly a 'British disease'! In Australia, a broad accent is considered 'vulgar'. In France, a Parisian brogue is considered more cultivated than a French Canadian accent or the nearer-to-home Breton accent. In the USA, Appalachian, Texan, certain Southern and New York accents are an affront to the ear (at least outside those areas) whereas a New England variety is considered consensually more standard and comely. Black Vernacular English (or the more recent, controversial notion of 'Ebonics') incurs the same fate as the former varieties for many of those who are not African-American (as well as a number who are). We could continue on to Spain and most other cultures and the story would mostly be the same with their varieties.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the last five paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The last of the above types is more characteristic of British than of American use, but the next two are distinctively British and are relatively recent contributions of British English to the rhetorical inventory of impoliteness:
  Both Americans and the British innovate in English pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. British people, however, tend to be more aware of American innovations than Americans are of British ones. The cause of that greater awareness may be a keener linguistic sensitivity on the part of the British, or a more insular anxiety and hence irritation about influences from abroad, or the larger number of American speakers and their higher prominence in fields that require innovation, or perhaps the fact that present-day Americans have cultural rootlets all over the world and so are less aware of the British Isles.
  Perhaps Americans do innovate more; after all, there are four to five times as many English speakers in the United States as in the United Kingdom. So one might expect, on the basis of population size alone, four to five times as much innovation in American English. Moreover, Americans have been disproportionately active in certain technological fields, such as computer systems, that are hotbeds of lexical innovation.
  It is curious and remarkable that the present state of affairs was foreseen with great accuracy by John Adams, who in 1780, even before it was obvious that the American Revolution would succeed, wrote:
  So is America ruining the English language? Certainly, if you believe that extending the language to new uses and new speakers ruins it. Certainly, if you believe that change is ruin. Certainly, if what John Adams foresaw was ruination.