Mixed feelings about this course. The English alphabet serves as the scaffolding for what McWhorter presents. For example, "A"stands for the Aramaic language, which he uses to illustrate that a once obscure language is now spoken in over 25 countries. That prompts associated thoughts such as the once dominant Greek language in Eurasia (for about a thousand years). "B" stands for "Baby Mama" that McWhorter uses to discuss black English. And on it goes, through "Z". McWhorter obviously knows his subject matter and he is funny too, but the information shoots out like buckshot, with streams of information that more often than not seems like minutia, and the overall point tends to get lost.
The first sentence in the accompanying lecture notes promises more big picture stuff about language. In taking each letter of the alphabet "as an occasion to explore one aspect of language around the world --not languages around the world," McWhorter suggests some universal characteristics about language. But in these lectures, this did not strike me as McWhorter's focus. Rather, the course is about linguistic variation around the world. Like cultures, the only universal is linguistic variation. For the English speaker, the good point about what he puts forward is that it pulls us out of parochialism. English is but one way language works. The Austronesian family has no prefixes or suffixes. In China (one of their languages?), there is no past or future tense. Tense is determined by context. Tone is also a big deal in the Asian languages (but "there are tonal languages all over the world"). Variation of tone, and meaning, comes in subtle shades that are hard to distinguish for the non-native speaker. Mandarin Chinese, McWhorter says, has four different tones. "Ma" means "different things depending on the tone." And the "click" languages in southern Africa seem to be particularly different from anything we are familiar with.
While there's often an historic or explanation for the evolution of word usage, meaning, and style (e.g., slang, uptalk, etc.) for English, often there is not. From his lecture notes, for example, when we say "loud speaker" the accent is on "loud." When we say someone is a "loud speaker" the accent is on "speaker." Then, there's the meaninglessness of "do," as in "Do you know him?" "I do not know him." This "do" McWhorter writes "doesn't even mean anything."