Talk:The Mother Tongue

I've started a list of factual errors in the book. They still need page numbers and links to proof. There are many more than the ones I've listed.

Errors proved or disproved...
The trouble with Horatio's argument is that Bryson is guilty of the same. He obviously heard some anecdotal evidence about a certain language, asked another casual acquaintance, and proceeded to put it in his book. Case in point the errors about Chinese. I noticed that he doesn't mention "The Mother Tongue" on his website any more, I wonder why? I enjoyed reading the book, until I started to spot the errors myself in horror and now I'm wondering what parts of it is true and verified?

An idea
While you're all shaking your heads in disagreement with what's in the book, why don't you write an article on the book itself and not just the errors? He probably has some valid points in the book. It might help out some people to understand what the book is about and not just what it has wrong. As the article reads right now, it's more like a list of errors than information about the book.


 * No kidding. Furthermore, some of his "errors," such as those about Indo-European languages, reflect the state of knowledge at the time he wrote the book, 15 years ago. And, as has been pointed out, some nitpickers just don't get his sense of humor. It's a very good book. ProhibitOnions 14:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, not entirely. More of the problem is that most of Bryson's sources were already several decades old (he cites Mencken and Jesperson a lot), and he used few truly contemporary sources. So he wasn't using sources that are now 15 years old, but sources that are now seventy or eighty years old. 15 years ago, people already knew that most of his errors were false. --Whimemsz 20:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This book is teeming with errors. I still like this book (e.g. for the wealth of factual information that you can verify independently, and for an odd witticism here and there), but right from the beginning I was frustrated with the number of erroneous claims. Two that I can remember (apart from the ludicrous claim about thesauri and the Eskimo Hoax) were most of the passage on prehistory early in the book (e.g. 'prehistoric people in separated parts of the world suddenly and spontaneously developed the capacity for language at roughly the same time'), and 'voiceless labio-velar fricative is the sound at the end of Scottish '). I'm sure there are many more I wasn't able to detect. This isn't bryson's speaking tongue-in-cheek, this is the difference between sound academic work and plain (if interesting) journalism.


 * Although I thoroughly enjoyed the book, I was, like the other reader, horrified when I came reached the chapter with the references to Chinese. I'm amazed that he (and his editor) would have just left the errors into the book unchecked.  His erroneous assertions were as blatant as saying "all words in English contains the letter 'e'," or something on that scale.  It caused me to doubt the accuracy of the entire book, especially the comments regarding languages that I do not know, which is very unnerving.  I guess if you are not conversant in other languages and are content to be an "English-only" reader/speaker, then you would, like the other writers such as ProhibitOnions, be willing to sweep them under the rug and pretend everything is OK.  Otherwise you really have to think, was he in such dire need of humor that he took some dinner conversations he might have had (perhaps after embibing in a few favored pints) and threw them into the book?  I think it's only if you really talk to a few knowledgeable people fluent in those languages, that you will really appreciate our concerns.  Also, isn't the chief tenet of journalism fact-checking?Seneschal 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps fact-checking is a main tenet. I believe what ProhibitOnions meant was that Bryson used outdated sources that do not reflect the knowledge of the world today, NOT to sweep those inaccuracies away. Hurrah 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The anonymous comments above (written by User:Seneschal) certainly sound like a personal attack. "Not conversant in other languages and content to be an 'English-only' reader/speaker" indeed. Sheesh.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh indeed, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack. I think you're reading more into what I wrote than is there. Let's just stick to the factual content.Seneschal 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I accept that it was an insouciant bit of generalizing rather than anything personal. Just be careful where you swing that cat next time. Regards,  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I greatly expanded the summary of the book
I came to this page and found an all-too-brief description of the book, followed by a lengthy discussion of the book's factual errors. I added the following sentences to the summary:

''It discusses the Indo-European origins of English, the growing status of English as a global language, the complex etymology of English words, the dialects of English, spelling reform, prescriptive grammar, and more minor topics including swearing. Bryson's account is a popularization of the subject, designed to entertain as well as to inform, and the book is sprinkled with trivia and language lore.''

If anyone wants to modify this, we can discuss it, but I definitely think it is an improvement over the previous version of the page. I actually think it should be expanded even further, which I may do; it seems bad form that the majority of the page is a discussion of errors. marbeh raglaim

My changes
Since some are likely to quarrel with the changes I made, here is an explanation.

I eliminated the sentence "he often uses the truth as a guide rather than a straitjacket," because it unfairly implies that Bryson deliberately distorts the truth. I added that he relies on some outdated or questionable sources, which I believe is a large part of the reason for the errors.

I also eliminated some so-called "errors" which seemed like petty quibbling, such as the argument that "I am driving" is a present tense as opposed to the present tense.

I also took out the part criticizing Bryson for invoking the proto-world hypothesis which few linguists accept. That's not a factual error; the minority of linguists who hold this view includes some prestigious scholars like Joseph Greenberg. And Bryson never claimed that the theory was definitely true (in fact, he hinted that there were a lot of problems accepting it) or that it was the majority view of linguists. He simply mentioned the theory in passing as a possibility.

I haven't checked the book yet, but I don't think Bryson ever claimed that there is a rule in Chinese stating that every word must end in "n" or "ng." I believe he might have made such a claim for a certain variety of Chinese, and it would be worth checking to clarify this point. (Ironic that those who accuse Bryson of poor fact-checking aren't much interested in accurately quoting Bryson's remarks.)

I do not have a copy of the book in front of me (I reread parts of it recently), but I am probably going to look further into some of the so-called "errors" mentioned in this article. I think a number of people are using the few notable howlers as an excuse to bash the book more than it deserves. marbeh raglaim 12:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Before accusing others of not accurately quoting Bryson, please do your own research first. See page 86: "All Chinese dialects are monosyllabic -- which can itself be almost absurdly limiting -- but the Pekingese [sic] dialect goes a step further and demands that all words end in an "n" or "ng" sound." As a native Chinese (Mandarin) speaker, I can tell you that is patently untrue. And also FYI, Pekingese is the outdated word for the Beijing dialect that is adopted as the official dialect for China and Taiwan.Seneschal 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are telling me to "do [my] research"? My comment--that the original criticism misquoted Bryson--was completely valid, as the above quote demonstrates. marbeh raglaim 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument over whether it was "Pekingnese" or Chinese amounts to nit-picking, since what he was referring to was the Beijing dialect, which is by definition, official Chinese. In fact, no Chinese dialect, whether Shanghainese, Taiwanese, Fujianese, Sichuanese, etc. has this rule. So there was no need to remove this "error" by Bryson in the article.Seneschal 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to be precise when describing what an author said, especially if we're correcting an error. But you did rephrase the original criticism to note that he was talking about Mandarin specifically, so we aren't really in disagreement on this point. marbeh raglaim 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

German lacks the hard j sound
"German lacks the hard j sound". What is the hard j sound? J I P | Talk 08:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At a guess, . I do wish people wouldn't try to describe sounds based on arbitrary selections from English spelling, which leads very quickly to the ghoti problem... &mdash; Haeleth Talk 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "judge" has two . At the beginning and at the end:.


 * Hmm. On rare occasions (in other words, when all means of escape have been blocked off), German will use Dsch for . The only example the comes to mind quickly is Dschungle. Dsch obviously remains a poorly integrated immigrant in the German language, but I think it qualifies to nullify the claim of non existence..
 * --Philopedia (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Title?
I have a copy of a book which I assume is the one described here, but it has a number of differences: the title is simply "Mother Tongue" (no definite article), and the title page gives the subtitle as just "The English Language". The ISBN is 0-140-14305-X. Is this just the paperback edition of the same book, or is it a revised edition, or a separate UK edition, or what? Anyone know offhand? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing this is the UK edition: the version I encountered in the UK also had this title. I don't know how substantial the differences are.  —Blotwell 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Coney-catching
I think this one should be purged from the error list. According to etymonline.com, coney did mean rabbit; however, it eventually became a synonym for cunt. They define "connyfogle" as "to deceive in order to receive a woman's sexual favors." At least it should be researched a bit more before calling it an error. I don't remember the exact context of Bryson's quote, but I think it's quite possible that what he was quoting was in fact sexual/obscene. Things should only be put on the list if there is absolute, documented proof refuting what is in the book.
 * I added this. The OED lists obscene connotations among the many meanings of the word coney:  however, it also lists the combined form coney-catching and makes clear that it refers to rabbits (as a metaphor for dupes) and is not intrinsically obscene. I haven't have the book in front of me, but my recollection is that and Bryson writes"'Whoreson, coney-catching rascal' (coney being a synonym for pudendum)."
 * So technically what he writes is true but it's highly misleading since coney here does not have that meaning. —Blotwell 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked up the original, which is Jonson's Every Man in his Humour, act 2, scene 3, line 168. The relevant notes in Robert S. Miola's edition (Manchester University Press, 2000) read:"168. coney-catching] rabbit-catching; figuratively, cheating, duping, or tricking others. Robert Greene's five pamphlets on coney-catching (1591–2) were popular throughout the decade (ed. Grosart, vols 10, 11)."
 * Happy now? —Blotwell 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Typo?
On p. 114, Bryson claims that eth (ð) is "still used in Ireland". I can only assume that this was a typographical error (for "Iceland"), and so perhaps does not need to be mentioned here at all. But does anyone know if it was corrected in later editions? Mine is 1990.--Dub8lad1 23:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the 1990 edition, and on p. 114 he talks of French and Cajun (referring to Louisiana), I see nothing about Ireland, the only thing close, but still on French/Cajun is where he says, "The pronunciation has a distinctly Gallic air, as in their way of turning long "ā" sounds into "eh" sounds, so that bake and lake become "behk" and "lehk."". Then the rest of the page talks of Gullah, as having a blend of West African and English from slavery times, in Georgia and South Carolina. - Jeeny (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, just found it, but it's on p. 123. - Jeeny (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazon.com reviews
On amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0380715430) many factual errors are discussed. E.g.:

"For instance, Bill Bryson tells us that Japanese "hiragana" is a syllabic alphabet written above the main text as a guide on how to pronounce the "kanji" (Chinese characters) which form the main body of written Japanese. In fact, hiragana is used in conjunction with kanji, and its primary use is to to show conjugations of verbs and adjectives, as well as other aspects of Japanese grammar. The function which Bryson attributes to hiragana is, in fact, called "furigana" in Japanese."

and

"But as a native French speaker, I noticed that almost each time he writes about the French language that's absolute rubbish ! Let's have an overview : p3 : '[...]The French for instance, cannot distinguish between house and home, between mind and brain, between man and gentleman [...]'. Hey Bill, if it's too hard for you to check in a dictionary I can tell you the difference between 'une maison, une residence, un b�timent' and 'un foyer, un chez-soi' or between 'esprit' and 'cerveau' or between 'un homme' and 'monsieur, or even gentleman'." (this continues for a while)

Maybe someone willing could read through this and check this. I unfortunately don't have the time. 82.92.15.150 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC) JAL


 * This page already has too many 'factual errors' listed, some of which are over-simplifications, while some are just jokes. (Did you know that the french have no word for 'sense of humour')? Paul Matthews 09:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who speaks French, albeit of the Canadian variety, I think that the 2nd poster on Amazon was a bit harsh and that the distinctions that French makes do not exactly correspond to the distinctions English makes between the words. The distinction between a "house" and a "home" as understood in English, home referring to a place where someone lives but with a sort of sentimental attachment, is different to "maison", "residence", "foyer" and "chez-soi" in French which lack that sentimental attachment.  "Batiment", and the corresponding "edifice" and "immoblier" just means a "building" with appropriate synonyms like "edifice" and "structure". "Esprit" does not correspond to "mind" and means" spirit", like in the expression "esprit do corps".  I think, though, the reviewer may have a point with "monsieur" although it is more akin to the English "mister" than "gentleman" but could be used to mean gentleman, I concede. 150.203.111.211 (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No original research
I've removed a passage to the effect that 'the author is not an academic; that's why he makes a lot of mistakes'. The list of errors that follows (primarily gathered by Wikipedians, one must presume, rather than by the critics alluded to in the passage) is obviously designed to advance that argument. Accordingly, rather than add a 'citation needed' tag, it seemed appropriate to delete that passage, as being contrary to the No original research policy. That policy covers text that

"... introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"

One might also question whether the list of errors itself amounts to research or not. There are few sources given for the factual assertions, and no sources given for the identification of the errors... --Danward 13:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what is the "particular case favored" that lacks a source? That he's "not an academic"?  That's an objective fact.  That he "makes a lot of mistakes"?  The article didn't say that, you said that.  That he "has attracted criticism for making a lot of false assertions" in his book?  That's an objective fact again.  It wasn't very well sourced, so you're welcome to tag it "citation needed".  —Blotwell 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely the slant is that he makes (i) a lot of mistakes (ie enough to warrant comment on their possible cause) (ii) because he is not an academic. I'm sure he has attracted criticism for making mistakes.  But if the point is going to be included in the article, not only does the identification of mistakes have to be sourced but also the critical spin on those mistakes.  If that were the only problem, I agree that flagging it up for citation would be the answer. But, it seems implausible that every one of those mistakes originates from outside Wikipedia.  Insofar as they were collated by Wikipedians, they amount to an interesting list of trivia, but surely cannot be connected with any criticism (sourced or otherwise) without "building up" a case.

--Danward 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more neutral way would be te following:


 * 1) Bryson states XXXXXXX (ref here), whereas the OED/Bible/other source states ABCDEFG (ref here).


 * Because after all, something may be an error of the dictionary, not of B. Bryson (theoretically). Sir Wolf 10:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mother Tongue
I am not a qualified academic, simply an ex-colonial (South African) who happens to love the English Language. I do not believe Bill Bryson set out to write a text book, merely a general, easily readable, humourous (and understandable) story of our language. I can see and accept the points raised by the erudite writers of previous comments, but really, gentlemen (and ladies?) is this not a form of nit-picking? I don't think (I shall have to read the book again to be sure) that Mr. Bryson stated anywhere that this is a definitive treatise on the origins of our tongue, as in "The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language". Please,as I am sure you will, correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions. Petermill 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A book can be both "general, easily readable, humourous (and understandable)" and without factual errors at the same time. One might argue that it's actually more important for books written for non-specialist readers to be checked for errors. LDHan 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The introduction to the Factual errors section used to make the point that the book annoyed critics specifically because it was liable to interpretation as a textbook, or at least an authoritative source. Why was this deleted?  —Blotwell 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mother Tongue
Thank you both for your input, which I humbly respect. However, I feel that we are looking at this from different angles. For me, as a layman, the "bottom line" is, simply, I enjoyed the book.Petermill 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Brugge pronounciation
Brugge is pronounced as broo-guh in the local dialects. In Dutch it's pronounced differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.12 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Speakers of Catalan
The number of people he says speak Catalan is way out. The figure he quotes isn't even 100,000 I think. Unfortunately I don't have the book anymore, so I can't add it. Can someone add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.145.111 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicks section
I have finally removed the "factual errors" section, as it is entirely unsourced and is broadly disruptive to the article itself. Practically all books contain errors, but the article here should be primarily about the book itself, not a list of nitpicks. If the article itself ever reaches sufficient length, these might seem less incongruous. Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the section that was removed:

Factual errors
The Mother Tongue contains a number of erroneous assertions:
 * That Chinese documents/dictionaries can't be organized, and that typing Chinese into a computer is slow as of 1989. In fact, Chinese documents/dictionary words can be organized by character or by romanizations such as pinyin. Chinese can be typed into computers (see Chinese input methods for computers and Wubi method), and Chinese characters could be stored in the computer by methods invented in the late 1970s. What is true is that mechanical typewriters are cumbersome and slow.
 * That modern Chinese people can easily understand Classical Chinese. (Exaggeration: Classical Chinese can be understood by very few people.)
 * In Mandarin Chinese, as Bryson states on page 86, that "all words end in an 'n' or 'ng' sound." In fact, only some words end with the "n" or "ng" sound.
 * The number of Eskimo words for snow. (a popular myth: see Eskimo words for snow).
 * That Russian has no words for "efficiency", "engagement ring", or "have fun". (effektivnost' (эффективность), obruchal'noe kol'tzo (обручальное кольцо), and veselis'  (веселись) respectively.) (Note that this is obviously a joke.)
 * That Esperanto has no definite article. (Bryson then goes on to use it himself.) In fact, Esperanto has no indefinite article.
 * That Finnish has no swear words. (This can only be supposed to be a joke.)
 * That Petroleum is Latin petro + Greek oleum. (It's Latin petra (rock) and Latin oleum (oil).)
 * That Drive as present tense is found in to drive, would drive, will drive (to drive is an infinitive, and would drive and will drive are auxiliary forms that take the bare infinitive. In the case of to be, a verb for which the infinitive is different from the present tense, the corresponding forms are would be, will be (formed with infinitive), not *would is, *will is (formed with present tense).) (Ambiguity following a statement regarding the lack of elaborate declension of English verbs.)
 * That Frisian so closely resembles Old English that one fluent in Frisian could read Beowulf almost at sight. (Exaggeration, although Frisian retains some archaic features similar to Old English that are not present in Modern English.)
 * That swarthy is from Latin sordere. (It's Germanic, cognate with German schwarz [OED])
 * That bumf is from German bumfodden. (It's plain English bum-fodder, after Latin anitergium [OED])
 * That felix is Latin for cat. (felix means lucky; felis' means cat'') See Felix the Cat, a play on those words.
 * That no other languages have thesauruses. (Again, exaggeration; what might be fair to say that the role the thesaurus plays in English is perhaps greater than in any other language.)
 * That coney-catching was an obscene expression. (In fact the primary meaning of coney is "rabbit" and a coney-catcher is simply one who tricks or swindles innocents. [OED, or Miola's notes])
 * The transliteration of the ancient Greek palindrome "ΝΙΨΟΝ ΑΝΟΜΗΜΑΤΑ ΜΗ ΜΟΝΑΝ ΟΨΙΝ". (In fact this cannot be transliterated into our alphabet and remain a palindrome because the single letter "Ψ" represents "ps". Bryson does so anyway, and replaces the first instance of "Ψ" by "sp" instead, without comment.)
 * Bryson claims that "Estimates of the number of languages in the world usually fix on a figure of about 2,700." In reality, virtually all estimates put the number at between around 5,000 and 7,000 (pg. 37). (see for example Ethnologue, which comes up with the number 6,912).
 * Brugge is not pronounced Broo-guh in Flemish or Dutch.
 * That German-speakers cannot pronounce 'v's. In reality, they often confuse the sounds of 'w' and 'v' while speaking English.
 * That the 'e' in 'abdomen' and the 'i' in 'abdominal' are the result of carelessly inconsistent English spelling. They are due to the fact that 'abdomen' is a direct borrowing from the Latin nominative/accusative cases, while 'abdominal' is a suffixed construction from the stem found in the genitive case 'abdominis' and the other cases.  The same can be said of the first 'e' in 'nomenclature' contrasted to the 'i' in 'nominal' and 'nominate,' and many others, e.g.  the 'us' of 'corpus' and 'genus' vs. the 'or' in corporal, and the 'er' in 'general.'
 * Bryson refers to Welsh as a Gaelic language. It is not. However, Welsh is a Brythonic language which falls under the Celtic languages family which also includes the Gaelic languages.
 * The book states that German has seven pronominal forms for 'you'. This is indeed true, however he then goes on to claim English has only the one, 'you'. Bryson has used the dative and accusative forms of you, counting them as words. Were we to follow then we should record the reflexive forms for the English, respectively 'yourself' and 'yourselves', making at least three for English. We can further go on to even record the archaic forms 'thou', 'thee', 'thyself' and 'ye', bringing the English total to seven also.
 * Bryson says that the word "Domesday", as in the "Domesday Book", comes from the prefix "domes-" as in "domestic" and has nothing to do with the concept of Doomsday or the Last Judgement. According to the Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesday%20book), it actually does mean Doomsday. 150.203.111.211 (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Nitpicks" implies minor quibbles - many of these are major factual errors in a supposedly non-fiction book. I don't know what your agenda for removing it is, but plenty of well-researched properly argued books have a "criticism" section - why not one here? Referenced, of course, but deleting it all isn't really on. Bienfuxia (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is fine to have a criticism section. But all the section may do is report criticisms that have been leveled against the book in reliable sources. What it may not do is have Wikipedia users and editors conduct their own fact-checking of the book's claims, even if they use reliable sources to back up the corrections. This falls under the category of synthesizing published material that advances a position, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. marbeh raglaim (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't patronise me, you know perfectly well that improving an article is better than just deleting much of it because the sourcing isn't up to your standards. It's just unfortunate that this book was pre-internet, so reliable sources are going to be hard to find. I can only try, I suppose. Bienfuxia (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just explaining what Wikipedia's rules are. You don't have to like the rules, but they are what they are, and editors have the right to enforce them. marbeh raglaim (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Misprints

 * The first (American) edition prints ρ for þ and δ for ð on page 123. ð appears correctly on the next page, suggesting that this is an error and not a typographical limitation, but this is still a misprint rather than a factual error by the author.

Book Cover
Would like to see the inclusion of the book's cover art in the top right description box. Unsure how to do so myself without violating copyright law. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.31.135.209 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)