referring to one's parents by name?

[DewarHolmes]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

There is no such thing as mutilation of language. Other than those that are disappearing (and not even then in many cases), there is no suffering going on.

Ask yourself - at what point was English "pure" and not filled with what you consider "deterioration"? At what stage can we say it is "perfect" and as it should forever remain?

Language evolves. A language that ceases to evolve is one that is falling out of use, and one that cannot evolve is pretty much doomed. Every year countless expressions come into and fall out of use, countless words are coined or have their meanings change, grammar norms change a bit more gradually but still at a constant pace. Trying to stop this is pointless and a bit silly, really.

Case in point. You have proceeded to strand together a combination of words with specific meanings, which you assumed that I understand, to intelligently communicate certain ideas to me. You also utilized punctuation, capitalization, spelling, etc.

You saw what happened when I failed to clearly describe my thoughts, a few posts back. You got concerned, I got confused; utter chaos followed. ...It could have, anyway.

I do not agree with George Orwell's political ideals, and I did't take the time to read this entire article, but I do agree with the following:

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers...

I personally don't intend to become militant over the subject (in general-not specifically on this forum) for I think that my time could be used in better ways, but I will encourage the proper usage of the English language and continue in my attempt to properly utilize words, grammar, spelling, etc.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by DewarHolmes

I personally don't intend to become militant over the subject (in general-not specifically on this forum) for I think that my time could be used in better ways, but I will encourage the proper usage of the English language and continue in my attempt to properly utilize words, grammar, spelling, etc.

But WHO decides the "proper" use of English? Language is fluid, and constantly changing. The proper use in one social group differs from that of another - Just as it does between different ages, different locations, etc.

Language simply doesn`t change to become less useful - it evolves to make it the most suitable for the times and the people using it. The trends of language can really show you a lot about that era - and I do not mean that in a negative way.

Something we have to keep in mind; The language we use and consider "proper" now only became so because the people who were around before us (people we learned from) used it. Some large chunk of the language they used came from those who came before, but the remainder was coined by their peers. Over generations and generations, language changes dramatically. The "mutilation" that stuck around is exactly what we are now using as "proper". I mean, look back 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years...
Another surprising bit might be that many things you consider "deterioration" are actually parts of the language that have been around longer than the "proper" bits.

Sorry to drop so off topic, but... Well, I`m an actual linguist.

[DewarHolmes]

Here's an excerpt from the writing of a man I agree with a great deal more than George Orwell:

C.S. Lewis on the abuse of the English language - News of the Day

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "…many things you consider "deterioration" are actually parts of the language that have been around longer than the "proper" bits."

The meaning of a word can't be corrupted until there is a meaning to corrupt.
A phrase can't be hacked up into bits and boiled down to a series of letters which represent that phrase unless the phrase itself has a meaning to begin with.
Rules can't be broken if they don't exist.

You say that the English language is 'evolving', but I don't see how the alteration of meanings, abbreviated texts, simplistic words (and simplified concepts), poor grammar, misspellings, incorrect punctuation, and above all, a lack of concern for the dumbing-down of the language itself is an improvement in any way. It seems that, if anything, our language is 'de-evolving'.

Why change something merely for the sake of change? It's silly. If our speech and written word have worked well for us until now-and produced better results in the past-why attempt to change them?
I don't think that everybody LOL-ing and ROTFL-ing is especially useful in any way. U KWIM?

[KyleGoetz]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

But WHO decides the "proper" use of English? Language is fluid, and constantly changing. The proper use in one social group differs from that of another - Just as it does between different ages, different locations, etc.

Language simply doesn`t change to become less useful - it evolves to make it the most suitable for the times and the people using it. The trends of language can really show you a lot about that era - and I do not mean that in a negative way.

Something we have to keep in mind; The language we use and consider "proper" now only became so because the people who were around before us (people we learned from) used it. Some large chunk of the language they used came from those who came before, but the remainder was coined by their peers. Over generations and generations, language changes dramatically. The "mutilation" that stuck around is exactly what we are now using as "proper". I mean, look back 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years...
Another surprising bit might be that many things you consider "deterioration" are actually parts of the language that have been around longer than the "proper" bits.

Sorry to drop so off topic, but... Well, I`m an actual linguist.

Exactly. And things our parents didn't use but their parents did sounds "weird" or "stilted" or "too formal" or something. Then years before that you get another generation's vocabulary which sounds archaic to us.

I am almost exclusively a descriptivist, but take on the color of a prescriptivist occasionally. Language exists primarily as communication, so prescriptive language is necessary only to facilitate communication. In other words, if you're not an experienced writer, you need to be taught rules in order for you to initially learn how to communicate in writing.

For example, if I had never been taught, I might have just assumed "foo" was a word everyone would understand. Cromulent (hehe) language that would have harmed communication with some audiences.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by DewarHolmes

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "…many things you consider "deterioration" are actually parts of the language that have been around longer than the "proper" bits."

I mean that a lot of the popular examples of words that have been "corrupted" into different spellings, meanings, and uses... Often originally meant the "wrong" meaning. Grammatical patterns that are often brought up as wrong, lazy, etc etc.... Are actually predecessors to the modern patterns that were simply used in areas that were considered "lower class" so were tossed out because they weren`t new and fashionable.

The meaning of a word can't be corrupted until there is a meaning to corrupt.

Obviously. And where do these words come from? They do not spring from the air - they either evolve from other words or are invented. A pattern that doesn`t differ much from what you term corruption - having a new meaning assigned, being abbreviated, a new morphing of two words, etc.

A phrase can't be hacked up into bits and boiled down to a series of letters which represent that phrase unless the phrase itself has a meaning to begin with.

And in turn those newly "corrupted" words are used in new phrases, or pounded out into an easily used form - oops, "hacked up into bits and boiled down", right? This is what has been happening for as long as language has existed.

Rules can't be broken if they don't exist.

You speak as if someone sat down and said "Hey, let`s make a language called English! I`ll write up a list of words, and you write up a list of phrases! Then we`ll make a set of rules for it!"
Language doesn`t work that way. It is added on to, modified, warped, twisted, revised, abbreviated, etc etc through history. There is no beginning and no end. The rules are made and changed on the fly.

You say that the English language is 'evolving', but I don't see how the alteration of meanings, abbreviated texts, simplistic words (and simplified concepts), poor grammar, misspellings, incorrect punctuation, and above all, a lack of concern for the dumbing-down of the language itself is an improvement in any way. It seems that, if anything, our language is 'de-evolving'.

But yet this is exactly what happened to create the languages spoken in the world today.
Take a look at the OED - see how many words still retain their original meanings. See how many retain their original spellings. Note how many seemingly useful words have been simplified along with the concepts they describe, or tossed out altogether to be replaced by something that seems much less intuitive. Note also how much grammar has changed over history. Did you know that English, like many other languages, used to have genders? I`m quite glad it was "dumbed-down" somewhere along the line.

Why change something merely for the sake of change? It's silly. If our speech and written word have worked well for us until now-and produced better results in the past-why attempt to change them?

No one changes things for the sake of change - in fact, attempting to manually change language (for whatever reasons) is pretty much hopeless.
I am completely sure that Old English worked perfectly well for the people who spoke it. But we no longer speak it - why? Because it evolved into something better and more accessible.

I don't think that everybody LOL-ing and ROTFL-ing is especially useful in any way. U KWIM?

Neither do I. You don`t see me doing it, do you? Please do not misinterpret what I am saying. I am all for using proper speech and spelling - I just realize that language is not static and should not be expected to be so.

Abbreviations like those above have been used as long as people have been writing. A lot of historical texts are a pain to translate because they are sprinkled with abbreviations unfamiliar to modern scholars - and these are formal texts. It is NOT a new phenomenon. The biggest difference between now and thousands of years in the past is that the majority of people are literate. Pretty much everyone can write in some capacity, and thanks to the internet the writing of virtually all of these people is available for viewing. Historically, only the elite of the elite would have had their words displayed so publicly.

What matters in the end is what withstands the test of time. Not everyone spoke or wrote like the classical writers of the past. They are an extremely small example of a tiny slice of society. Because they were abnormally skilled their work remains. If everyone had been their equals, they would have had little appeal.

[MMM]

I remember in the mid-90s there was a fear in Japan of teenagers losing the ability to read and write because of "poke-bell" or pager abbreviations. I think they allowed for about 40 characters (much less than Twitter's 140) and all kinds of abbreviations and smileys abounded in the purely numeric inputing. (You would have to use a phone keypad to input a message to your friend). Two-number combinations would make one hiragana or katakana character. 01 for あ, 02 for い, 03 for う, etc.

Somehow that branch of linguistic barbarism never actually led to the collapse of Japan's youth, (now in their 30s).

When I see LOL or ROTFL on a résumé, then I will fear for the future. Somehow young people figure out how to do it right when it counts.

[DewarHolmes]

The English language 'evolves' mostly because people misuse words, or are too lazy to build their vocabulary and use the proper words to explain themselves. If you look back at many of the words whose meanings have changed, you will find that the changes were unnecessary. There have always (used figuratively) been other words available to describe things.
If there was ever a concept to which there was no word, then it would appropriate to make up a word. Take "google" for example-a word which still has its roots in something significant to its 'meaning'.

Here's a few examples of commonly bastardized English:

1.I have, many times, heard and seen people mispronounce or misspell the phrase "You shouldn't have…." as "You shouldn't of…". The latter has no meaning. "You shouldn't have" is-plain and simple-the correct way to say this phrase. If we want to make "Shouldn't of" acceptable, we will have to alter the meaning of the word "of" to fit that of "have", but why do something so silly when we have a perfectly good word for "have" already?
It is nothing more than ol' fashioned laziness, ignorance (used in the original sense of the word), or idiocy that causes one to misuse this phrase. Saying "…shouldn't of…' does not in any way improve the phrase, yet apparently many people find it 'more accessible'.
The only way I think we could improve it now is to…pound it out into 'an easily used form', such as "shntv". Ah-evolution!

2.I've seen plenty of mistakes concerning "Your" and "You're". The two have completely different meanings. As do 'to', 'too', and 'two'. There's no reason to change the meanings or combine them into one word simply because enough people don't know how to use them properly.
As far as abbreviations go, I can understand applying them to names of some organizations/places such as the YMCA, and state names, etc. but I see no benefit to abbreviating every word/phrase in the English language…it's just plain lazy and completely unnecessary.

3.I looked up the phrase "hear, hear" the other day to see if I was using it correctly, and found that many people misspell it as "here, here". The phrase "hear, hear" has a historical context which gives the phrase a meaning, whereas "here, here" is just nonsense. If enough people remain ignorant of the context, it will eventually be accepted as "here, here", as well as lose its historical meaning, and become yet another ambiguous phrase.
How is that an improvement?

I find it somewhat amusing that many changes in our language are often the result of the repeated misuse of words and phrases by people who are ignorant of their mistakes. I also find it somewhat amusing to hear "ig'nint" people misuse the word 'ignorant'.

[steven]

Maybe the language is just keeping up with spoken language? Did you ever think that written language is a synthetic form of actual language in that it is a representation of spoken language? I'm starting to care less and less about written language the older I get... it's a great tool for learning... but then again, how many famous writers have I read who "misuse" the socalled gramamr that I've studied in school up to now. Frankly, I don't care any more about all of this nonsense. You're complaining about the written language deteriorating and citing different things that you've seen on the internet... a lot of people on the internet are youngsters or ESL folks... so it's hard to really quantify just how "bad" it is. American people mess up grammar all the time (as do people from other English speaking countries). Take what you want from it-- if you want to base peoples' intelligence off it go ahead, but I'm starting to see less and less signifigaance in doing so. Written grammar will always fall behind spoken grammar anyways-- because that's where language starts, and that's where language ends.

This is why I think it's a joke to try to teach English the way they do in Japanese text books, written grammar-- particularly the junk they use, is way behind spoken grammar (which varies from place to place anyways).

I think no matter what major language you look at you would find similar patterns.

I apologize for being blunt, but what's your point in all this? I can see where you say people are being "lazy" or whatever, but maybe some people put more priority on things a little less arbitrary than English grammar-- like studying and understanding actual concepts, which is far more rewarding than complaining about grammar (which I used to do, although mostly internally, much too often). I think it's something you'd do better getting over because it's not something one or a few people can change. Language is whatever the majority wants it to be. If stupid people are the majority, then the self proclaimed smart folks better catch up or they're gonna fall behind.