the natural evolution of language
So what's the natural evolution of language and what is just Getting it Wrong, then?
I suppose a couple of hundred years ago I'd have been one of the ones going "No, it's THOU when it's the subject of the sentence and THEE when it's the object and thou shoulds't jolly well forget all this new-fangled YOU nonsense."
Okay, the language evolves constantly. People chatting in the 1930s, say, would sound very different from how people sound now. My mother still uses some of the slang of that period "she's got a pash on raspberries at the moment".
But many people would say "would sound very different TO how people sound now". Has the language evolved so that is now acceptable? Well, I don't think so. Different - - from, with a sense of moving away. Different - - to would have a sense of moving towards, so doesn't make sense.
Russell Hoban's excellent novel Riddley Walker is set a couple of thousand years in the future near Canterbury and the speech of his characters is compressed and distorted so that "Canterbury", for example, has become "Cambry".
It's sometimes hard to tell which is evolution of language and which is just careless or lazy speech: which are changes that will last and which are just groovy passing-through slang which won't last. Only time will tell which is which. Meanwhile I'm off to have a yogurt or some other dairy. Wicked.
I suppose a couple of hundred years ago I'd have been one of the ones going "No, it's THOU when it's the subject of the sentence and THEE when it's the object and thou shoulds't jolly well forget all this new-fangled YOU nonsense."
Okay, the language evolves constantly. People chatting in the 1930s, say, would sound very different from how people sound now. My mother still uses some of the slang of that period "she's got a pash on raspberries at the moment".
But many people would say "would sound very different TO how people sound now". Has the language evolved so that is now acceptable? Well, I don't think so. Different - - from, with a sense of moving away. Different - - to would have a sense of moving towards, so doesn't make sense.
Russell Hoban's excellent novel Riddley Walker is set a couple of thousand years in the future near Canterbury and the speech of his characters is compressed and distorted so that "Canterbury", for example, has become "Cambry".
It's sometimes hard to tell which is evolution of language and which is just careless or lazy speech: which are changes that will last and which are just groovy passing-through slang which won't last. Only time will tell which is which. Meanwhile I'm off to have a yogurt or some other dairy. Wicked.
posted by Daphne at 8:31 pm
2 Comments:
I think it's important to crack the whip, occassionally, linguistically. The Whips are an important part of the evolution of language. Not necessarily trying to stop change, but making sure change doesn't get out of hand, or that the changes [due to idiom, slovenliness or ignorance] still remain in the realm of reasonable comprehension.
Language is the primary tool of communication, and so if one person says something and the other person understands them, then whoopee do! communication has occurred, but it is the third person that can be the problem, and the 16 millionth, everyone's got to understand for true communication to occur.
If language changes too quickly too many people get left out of the loop. Admittedly this is the purpose of a lot of slang and jargon, to create cliques, but these words too slowly seep into mainstream language.
It does seem that a lot of language change occurs at the expense of richness, accuracy and choice. After all "I was sat" is very different in meaning from "I was sitting" though the former is now pretty much the phrase of choice for the latter; and I'm certain no one means they were forcibly made to sit.
Hey Ho! before you know it you're talking about redundant modal auxilliaries, and whether you can say "hopefully", and Oh! My Goodness - did that person really just split an infinitive?.
I recomend Bill Bryson: Troublesome Words for a clear view of the problem.
I draw the line at *increasing ambiguity*. And I try to say "not the same as" because what I grew up with, in common speech, isn't what my current interlocutors usually use.
(Re: Dairy as shorthand for Dairy Produce: long and honourable history, see also Kosher)
Post a Comment
<< Home