::the discourse on language::
   To begin I'd like to quote my favorite thinker of the twentieth century, Michel Foucault: "Of course, a linguistic system can be established (unless it is artificially constructed) only by using a corpus of statements, or a collection of discursive facts; but we must then define, on the basis of this grouping, which has value as a sample, rules that may make it possible to construct other statements than these: even if it has long since disappeared, even if it is no longer spoken, and can be reconstructed only on the basis of rare fragments, a language is still a system for possible statements, a finite body of rules that authorizes an infinite number of performances." ¹ Out of the pages and pages written about ordinary language philosophy, Foucault manages to sum up the entire school of thought in this one sentence. Language is an human-constructed entitity which has evolved alongside us since our emergence as a species. Language is not planned and therefore it grows according to subconscious, not conscious, design. For this reason, language has no rules. Language, though, must be taught and in order to teach a subject, the subject must have clearly defined rules so that the student may make generalizations and comparisons with other subjects. Linguistics must thusly recognize the patterns in individual languages and in between languages and invent rules, standards, and paradigms based upon naturally-occurring patterns. No semantic rule which says that one word must be spelt one way does indeed exist (cf. favorite and favourite, skepticism and scepticism, center and centre, et alii), but yet dictionaries abound. A common interface is such a fundamental necessity that linguistics has called for world-wide agreement in the spelling of all languages, and the science has even provided transcriptions and transliterations for those languages which don't have orthographies. This process is a fantastic example of the need to assign rules where there are no rules. Consider also the fact that according to MLA (Modern Language Association), to split an infinitive is acceptible in spoken English but not in written. The truth is that no one can prove the speaker split his infinitive if he didn't commit his utterance to paper. This is a subtle little loophole which goes to show that the linguistic rules by which we learn languages are indeed contrived.
   I've set up this page to describe languages as they should be described: not as individual entities, each with its one set of set rules, but as interconnected, though unique, links in a complex network. The problem with foreign language education is that too often the teacher relies entirely on the "set" rules linguistics has invented and does not look at how the language came to be the way it was, or even something as logical as how the language is distinct. These pages are not only intended to be language-learning aides, but also guides to idiom, argot, and vernacular which give the languages their individual feel. As I continue to learn new languages, I'll continue to write them primers and other learning materials, but for the time being I can only offer material on English (my mother tongue), German (my first acquired language), Old English, Old Norse, Proto-Germanic, Latin, Russian, and Gaelic. All of these languages, I'm sorry to say, represent the Indo-European family and half of them are Germanic, but I do plan to post pages on languages from all the major IE linguistic families, and as time progresses, information on Uralic and Altaic languages. Enjoy.
 
       +  English
       +  Old English
       +  German
       +  Old Norse
       +  Proto-Germanic
       +  Latin
       +  Russian
       +  Gaelic
 
 
 
¹ Archaeology, p. 27. (view the entire bibliography)